Does anyone else smell BS??

[squid]

If anyone was as far along with their design as they are saying, they wouldn't be able to change it.

Exactly, they would most likely have to start from scratch and redo the development of the chip.  Such an increase is extremely fishy since they advertise that they will be able to ship next month.

Watch as the largest scam in bitcoin 2012 unfolds.

All ASICs are using multichip architecture in their PCB so you would need to redo the PCB layout, but the actual chip architecture/design.

[1714830640]

1714830640

[aqrulesms]

If anyone was as far along with their design as they are saying, they wouldn't be able to change it.

Exactly, they would most likely have to start from scratch and redo the development of the chip.  Such an increase is extremely fishy since they advertise that they will be able to ship next month.

Watch as the largest scam in bitcoin 2012 unfolds.

All ASICs are using multichip architecture in their PCB so you would need to redo the PCB layout, but the actual chip architecture/design.

Yet their prices are the same..

[legolouman]

If anyone was as far along with their design as they are saying, they wouldn't be able to change it.

Exactly, they would most likely have to start from scratch and redo the development of the chip.  Such an increase is extremely fishy since they advertise that they will be able to ship next month.

Watch as the largest scam in bitcoin 2012 unfolds.

All ASICs are using multichip architecture in their PCB so you would need to redo the PCB layout, but the actual chip architecture/design.

A multichip architecture may be true, but the entire board would have to be revised. You can't just slap another chip on and have everything else communicate properly. Not to mention Power Distribution. I hypothesize that the numbers originally stated were low estimates, which falls in line with something that Sonny said in an interview once (IIRC). The chip clocks were likely lower at first, then raised to a new level. Likely, the clocks would be lower as a marketing ploy. If they can release another product with the same chip 3 months later at 2x the efficiency/hashrate why not?

Their prices are the same for the above reason.

[Sitarow]

If anyone was as far along with their design as they are saying, they wouldn't be able to change it.

Exactly, they would most likely have to start from scratch and redo the development of the chip.  Such an increase is extremely fishy since they advertise that they will be able to ship next month.

Watch as the largest scam in bitcoin 2012 unfolds.

The possibilities are endless, but in the end only one path, one result.

[repentance]

Didn't BFL say that they'd already planned to increase hash power in the future via a firmware update?  That would imply that the units were built to handle the higher specs from the outset and they were keeping that increased power in reserve in case a competitor emerged with better specs/lower price.  In fact, had no such competitor emerged, they could have not given the firmware update to the initial purchasers and simply released a "new" rig with the higher specs for no additional cost to them when sales started slowing down.

[legolouman]

Didn't BFL say that they'd already planned to increase hash power in the future via a firmware update?  That would imply that the units were built to handle the higher specs from the outset and they were keeping that increased power in reserve in case a competitor emerged with better specs/lower price.  In fact, had no such competitor emerged, they could have not given the firmware update to the initial purchasers and simply released a "new" rig with the higher specs for no additional cost to them when sales started slowing down.

This. I've heard similar team from the DB Reclaimer team.

[Morblias]

Didn't BFL say that they'd already planned to increase hash power in the future via a firmware update?  That would imply that the units were built to handle the higher specs from the outset and they were keeping that increased power in reserve in case a competitor emerged with better specs/lower price.  In fact, had no such competitor emerged, they could have not given the firmware update to the initial purchasers and simply released a "new" rig with the higher specs for no additional cost to them when sales started slowing down.

Firmware for a ~50% increase in speed... At first BFL said heat will not be an issue. I wonder if this increase in speed will change that.

[cablepair]

A little over a week ago ngzhang anounced his proposed production of the 'Avalon' ASIC with >= 60Ghs for about $1299 (about double the hashrate of BFL's Single 'SC', and Cablepair's bASIC)

Since then:
BFL have announced their Single 'SC' will now hash at 60Ghs (from 40Ghs) @ $1299
Cablepair has announced their bASIC will now hash at 54Ghs (from 27Ghs) @ $1069 (now selling 27Ghs version @ $599)

Were both BFL and Cablepair originally pricing their units at more than 100%+ markup of the cost of production and development?
Because as i see it they cannot afford to produce these now and make any profit.

Also how have they done it?
1) Are they just doubling the number of boards in each unit? (Only viable option if they have already started PCB production)
Or
2) Have they doubled the number of chips on each board? (Only viable if they haven't started production yet)

In either case i can not see any of these ever hitting the market before Christmas. My money is going firmly back in my wallet until some real devices hit the real world, because all i see at the moment is BS.

If you read this announcement here you will understand
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=79637.msg1229735#msg1229735

Also I can see why your logic would lead you to believe this but it's not your fault - you just dont know some specific things about this industry and this process

1) All the costs for making an asic chip are in research and development - once you have that part of the process completed - making the chips themselves costs a few dollars each.
2) PCB Design / Fabrication is not any kind of complicated or time consuming process and it's no big deal to change things on the design.

I can get an original PCB designed and fabricated in very little time, especially if you want to spend a little extra money.

The last PCB batch I had fabricated for the ModMiner Quad, I had 200 Backplane PCB boards made, and 800 Spartan-6 PCB plugin cards made
the entire process took about 12 days and that includes shipping from China to NY

I am not sure about BFL's speed increase, they would have to answer that - its possible they are just clocking their chips higher, they created a better firmware - or doing what I did (changing the amount of chips per board) or something else all together

but to answer for the bASIC

I had two board designs made - one with twice the amount of chips as the other, originally I was pricing the 27Gh/s board at 1069.99

but, After looking at the financials and talking it over with my engineers I realized it made much more sense just to price the "double  chips" board at what I had originally been selling them at because It would not be right to do to my current customers (to release a faster unit after they had already bought one) instead they got a free upgrade from 27gh/s to 54gh/s and we decided to lower the price of the 27Gh/s board.

hope this clears up any confusion you might have.

thanks!
Tom
BTCFPGA.com

[firefop]

It seems that some people don't understand the development cycle at all.

The initial design of the hardware (chip or board) takes time and wages. this is a relatively small investment. Once this is done you can start development of the firmware.

The largest costs for an ASIC run isn't the run itself - it's getting the manufacturing in setup to make it. That's a huge front-loaded cost... followed by a relatively tiny price per unit.

That's just the chip. The board production is much much much cheaper. It does have a front loaded cost, but when you're talking about 10s of millions it's trivial.

Now if you're designing a such a product - it makes sense to make it modular in the sense that some small number of chips goes on each board and that board is designed to be linked together (either physically or by production of larger boards with more modules on them).

The reason we've got 27/54 as a number is because he's done exactly that, added a unit in the same enclosure or made a double board. I assume he's got harder numbers than BFL had because of the existing sha3 bASIC products that exist...

BFL on the other hand, going completely custom had very little hard numbers to base estimates on --- and given what happened with their fpga initial releases (instability, design/version changes, heat issues, etc). I'd expect them to take a best guess based on workbench schematic testing (or whatever) , and then lowball it... by a lot. If for no other reason then to prevent a customer service nightmare if they had to ship a product at 50% of the estimated spec. It also has the advantage of leaving them 'firmware' updates that could keep their prices up for a longer period of time as competition develops.

The fact remains, there are still ways to refine the machines themselves once they're released - if they're well designed. for example of any of them have the top of the chips as the highest points on the pcb then some other company (or the makers themselves) could design a custom enclosure/heatpipe/cooling system that could provide for better hash rates. Just like some people are replacing BFL's stock heatsink and fan with a 120 mm fan and massive piped CPU block (or water cooling).

But I imagine effeciency of the hardware hasn't been a primary concern for anyone at this point - this is a race to get a product out first, at a price people will pay.

~~~

That being said, I would expect faster firmware / enclosure refinements / changes in board design to be what happens after they've released and get initial orders shipped.

And of course, there's always potential competition from some as of yet unknown entity. What if AMD jumped into the market --- how would existing companies compete with deep pockets + production side being owned in house + 20 years GPU production experience + much more compact chips?

Only time will tell.

[||bit]

A little over a week ago ngzhang anounced his proposed production of the 'Avalon' ASIC with >= 60Ghs for about $1299 (about double the hashrate of BFL's Single 'SC', and Cablepair's bASIC)

Since then:
BFL have announced their Single 'SC' will now hash at 60Ghs (from 40Ghs) @ $1299
Cablepair has announced their bASIC will now hash at 54Ghs (from 27Ghs) @ $1069 (now selling 27Ghs version @ $599)

Were both BFL and Cablepair originally pricing their units at more than 100%+ markup of the cost of production and development?
Because as i see it they cannot afford to produce these now and make any profit.

Also how have they done it?
1) Are they just doubling the number of boards in each unit? (Only viable option if they have already started PCB production)
Or
2) Have they doubled the number of chips on each board? (Only viable if they haven't started production yet)

In either case i can not see any of these ever hitting the market before Christmas. My money is going firmly back in my wallet until some real devices hit the real world, because all i see at the moment is BS.

It's possible you haven't seen anything yet. As R&D costs are covered, they could be much cheaper. I can imagine one day maybe 70% lower cost than you see for asic now. But, hopefully, the overall competition does not cause this to happen too fast. Otherhwise, all the investments made will equate to a lot of money invested for soon to be low cost products.

Anyway, over time we should see even better deals. Competition starts dropping prices, perhaps, one dropping first, and then the other matching the offer later. And so on, until they have an unwritten (hopefully) line in the sand that they both feel is low enough (and each hopes the other will not attempt to cross). Then perhaps the best way to proceed is to make a better product people will want to buy. Yet, this makes a hazardous  assumption that they have similar or proportionate up front (development) costs.

Who knows how it will all unfold though.

||bit