Bitcoin Forum
October 19, 2017, 08:01:14 AM
 News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 Home Help Search Donate Login Register
 Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  All
 Author Topic: Process-invariant hardware metric: hash-meters per second (η-factor)  (Read 24443 times)
2112
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1946

 June 22, 2013, 12:56:43 AM

Avalon chip count and power usage are available. You can now update your comparison table.

Thanks, but I need the actual die measurements, not the number of chips-per-wafer.

Please let me know if/when they are posted by either the Avalon manufacturers (I'll take their word for it) or some third party (must include a photo).

That information was available since last year.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=120184.msg1294431#msg1294431

Quote from: Bitsyncom
Code:
TSMC
TMEM91
================================================
Chip Size :   X = 3.9760 ,Y = 4.0560 mm
Reticle Size :   X/cell =  3 ,Y/cell =  3
Offset Value :   X = -3.7668 ,Y = -2.2990 mm
Alignment Mark :   (118.80,83.20),(-118.80,-83.20)
Alignment Mark Tolerant Distance :      1.6 mm
Notch Reserved Distance :   7.75 mm
Start Distance :   7.75 mm
Ring Edge :   3.0 mm
Photo Die Number:    4055

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
1508400074
Hero Member

Offline

Posts: 1508400074

Ignore
 1508400074

1508400074
 Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508400074
Hero Member

Offline

Posts: 1508400074

Ignore
 1508400074

1508400074
 Report to moderator
1508400074
Hero Member

Offline

Posts: 1508400074

Ignore
 1508400074

1508400074
 Report to moderator
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 980

felonious vagrancy, personified

 June 22, 2013, 06:28:24 AM

That information was available since last year.

Quite possible!  I can't keep up with the tangled mess of threads this forum has become…  Case in point, I cannot find Avalon's statement on the hashrate per chip.  If you can post a link to that I'll add them.

That's weird, I wonder if he edited his post, the very next one is a post by me complaining that he posted the packaged size instead of the die size (in Oct 2012).

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 980

felonious vagrancy, personified

 June 22, 2013, 06:40:27 AM

(21-Jun) Oh my, this is terribly embarrassing.  When calculating the η-factor for bitfury last night I used the gate length instead of the feature size.  I have corrected this; please see above.  No wonder his numbers came out so high.

Any additional checking of my arithmetic would be welcome.

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 980

felonious vagrancy, personified

 June 22, 2013, 06:44:09 AM

That information was available since last year.

Quite possible!  I can't keep up with the tangled mess of threads this forum has become…  Case in point, I cannot find Avalon's statement on the hashrate per chip.  If you can post a link to that I'll add them.

I found a bunch of random third-party sites tossing around the figure of 282 (MH/s)/chip.  If somebody can post a link to someplace where Avalon or one of their employees verifies this, I can finish adding them.  Either hashrate per chip or hashrate for a specific product along with the number of chips in the product (which is the other number that's way too hard to find…)

At 282 (MH/s)/chip they would be η=2,909 slightly better than bifury but still behind BFL.

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 980

felonious vagrancy, personified

 June 22, 2013, 06:50:04 AM

Holy insteresting. Watching. Can you add AVALON  and ASICMINER?

Sure, as soon as they post their die size, process node, and hashrate per chip.

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
prof7bit
Hero Member

Offline

Activity: 672

 June 22, 2013, 09:36:51 AM

The way you describe it its not "hash meters per second", its "hash per metersecond".

In post #1: "divide by area and then multiply with length":
Quote
This is calculated by dividing the hashrate (in H/s) by the die area in square meters and then multiplying by the cube of the process's feature size in meters

(H/s / m^2) * m

= H/(s*m)

NOT Hm/s

Edit: Sorry, i missed the cube. You are right.
its (H/s / m^2) * m^3

Old Bitcoins recycling and disposal: 1N7ZcHoe77JncRYAg27RVqJZbrjqUQ77WE
Blockchain.info -> Multibit converter (and much more) https://github.com/prof7bit/wallet-key-tool
mueslo
Member

Offline

Activity: 94

 June 22, 2013, 11:21:36 AM

(H*m-12/s)

I think you mean 10-12*H*m/s
bulltrap
Member

Offline

Activity: 70

 June 22, 2013, 03:30:39 PM

That information was available since last year.

Quite possible!  I can't keep up with the tangled mess of threads this forum has become…  Case in point, I cannot find Avalon's statement on the hashrate per chip.  If you can post a link to that I'll add them.

I found a bunch of random third-party sites tossing around the figure of 282 (MH/s)/chip.  If somebody can post a link to someplace where Avalon or one of their employees verifies this, I can finish adding them.  Either hashrate per chip or hashrate for a specific product along with the number of chips in the product (which is the other number that's way too hard to find…)

At 282 (MH/s)/chip they would be η=2,909 slightly better than bifury but still behind BFL.
I think BFL numbers should be counted with 4GH/s per chip: https://products.butterflylabs.com/homepage-subproducts/65nm-asic-bitcoin-mining-chip.html
2112
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1946

 June 22, 2013, 04:44:20 PM

That's weird, I wonder if he edited his post, the very next one is a post by me complaining that he posted the packaged size instead of the die size (in Oct 2012).
The original post date is 2012-10-24, with last edit on 2012-12-22. The code block with the process data is quoted exactly on 2012-12-13.
Quite possible!  I can't keep up with the tangled mess of threads this forum has become…  Case in point, I cannot find Avalon's statement on the hashrate per chip.  If you can post a link to that I'll add them.

Avalon advertised 3-module 66Ghash/s and 4-module 88Ghash/s device. The picture clearly shows that each module has 80 QFN chips. What else is missing?

I'm somewhat experienced with human factors in the technology education and businesses. Anytime I see PhD-level personnel unable or unwilling to do GED-level arithmetic problem there's always an interesting human story behind that situation. I can't stop wondering what is the story here.

Or maybe it is just my sense of humour failing?

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 980

felonious vagrancy, personified

 June 22, 2013, 07:50:42 PM

Thanks, you're right.  The current BFL numbers were calculated before they got their chips back, using the 7.5GH/s/chip they were quoting at the time.  I have updated their numbers.  Thanks!

Edit: this puts bitfury back on top by a hair.  I think it's really interesting how close the numbers for the three different first-gen custom chips are (BFL, bitfury, and Avalon) despite a wide range of fabrication processes -- especially compared to the huge difference between them and the FPGAs/GPUs.  I think that partially validates the hash-meters/sec metric.

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 980

felonious vagrancy, personified

 June 22, 2013, 08:06:40 PM

Avalon advertised 3-module 66Ghash/s and 4-module 88Ghash/s device. The picture clearly shows that each module has 80 QFN chips. What else is missing?

What's missing is enough of my free time to dig through a 42-page thread.

Anytime I see PhD-level personnel unable or unwilling to do GED-level arithmetic problem

Calm down dude.

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 980

felonious vagrancy, personified

 June 22, 2013, 08:09:20 PM

Edit: Sorry, i missed the cube. You are right.
its (H/s / m^2) * m^3

No worries, man.  I've made a ton of these mistakes too…

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 980

felonious vagrancy, personified

 June 22, 2013, 08:12:23 PM

(H*m-12/s)

I think you mean 10-12*H*m/s

You're quite right.  Thanks for pointing this out.

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
2112
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1946

 June 22, 2013, 08:59:54 PM

What's missing is enough of my free time to dig through a 42-page thread.
Fair enough. But I gave you a link to a two page thread where all the relevant information was in the first half of the first page.
Calm down dude.
I'm calm, just confused, like many others here. I see you writing posts then almost immediately deleting them, it only adds to the confusion.

Anyway, here's the available Block Erupter a.k.a. ASICMINER information.

Update

Chip Specification
Technology Summary:
130 nm
1 Ploy
6 Metal
1 Top Metal
Logic Process
Core Voltage: 1.2 V
I/O Voltage: 3.3 V
Core Frequency: 335 MHz
Core Frequency Range: 255-378 MHz
PLL Multiplier: 28
Power Consumption: 4.2 J/GHash
22 Data
18 Power
Package Type: QFN40
Packaged Chip Size: 6 mm x 6 mm
Our chips
Generation 1: Block Eruptor. 130nm with 6-8J/GH. Each chip's rated frequency is 336MHz at 1.05V. It translates to 336MH/s because it does one hash per cycle. The chips work stable and well at 392MH/s at 1.15V. Further overclocking needs proper handling of heat and power supply.

There are still no definite information about the die size. There are two posts that predate the tape-out.
Hashrate: 1.25GH/s per chip
Area: 17.5mm^2 per chip
Power Consumption: 13.3W
Hashrate: 1.00GH/s per chip
Area: 21.7mm^2 per chip
Power Consumption: 8.23W

I'm also positive that friedcat made other posts that he subsequently deleted, at least one in direct response to my post. It must have been commercially sensitive at that time.

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 980

felonious vagrancy, personified

 June 22, 2013, 09:22:48 PM

I see you writing posts then almost immediately deleting them, it only adds to the confusion.

I'm also positive that friedcat made other posts that he subsequently deleted

You seem to get needlessly upset/confused/emotional about the fact that people can revise their posts.

I don't see anything wrong with it, although I would favor a 60-minute limit (can't edit posts more than 60 minutes old).  If I had to painstakingly triple-check everything I wrote here before it became engraved in stone this would feel a lot more like work, and I probably wouldn't be inclined to post here.

I have my email client set to sequester outbound messages for 60 minutes, so I guess I've become accustomed to being able to do this.

Anyway, here's the available Block Erupter a.k.a. ASICMINER information.

There are still no definite information about the die size. There are two posts that predate the tape-out.
Area: 17.5mm^2 per chip
Area: 21.7mm^2 per chip

Hrm, well, in the face of conflicting information I think we're going to just have to wait.  Please let me know if anybody from ASICMINER authoritatively clarifies the situation.

Also, last I heard they were not planning on selling any chips or any products including their chips, which would mean there will never be independent verification.  Maybe the situation has changed; I don't follow the business end of this stuff too closely.  Anyways, if that's still the case I'd be uneasy about including those numbers… they could be fudged quite a bit at zero risk of getting caught.

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
2112
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 1946

 June 22, 2013, 10:20:14 PM

Anyways, if that's still the case I'd be uneasy about including those numbers… they could be fudged quite a bit at zero risk of getting caught.
I fully understand that you don't want to consider the pre-tape-out numbers for the inclusion in your table. But out of three columns there only one is unknown.

But fudging isn't zero-risk for those who ship their hardware to the end-users. It is only a matter of time until one of the Block Erupters that were sold gets accidentaly damaged and the chip will get decapped.

Check out this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=231400.0 and the recent post of this user: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=23585 . For now it is just a re-confirmation of the Avalon data.

Please comment, critique, criticize or ridicule BIP 2112: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=54382.0
Long-term mining prognosis: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91101.0
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 980

felonious vagrancy, personified

 June 25, 2013, 11:06:40 PM

Also, last I heard they were not planning on selling any chips or any products including their chips, which would mean there will never be independent verification.  Maybe the situation has changed; I don't follow the business end of this stuff too closely.  Anyways, if that's still the case I'd be uneasy about including those numbers… they could be fudged quite a bit at zero risk of getting caught.

I fully understand that you don't want to consider the pre-tape-out numbers for the inclusion in your table.

What I don't want to include is numbers that will never be independently verified, ever.

But fudging isn't zero-risk for those who ship their hardware to the end-users.

Yes, that's the idea.

I thought ASICMINER's plan was to never sell any chips to any third parties and sell stock instead.  Has this changed?

Oh, neat.  I wasn't expecting anybody to actually have a proper die photo setup.  Way cool.

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
Syke
Legendary

Offline

Activity: 2408

 June 25, 2013, 11:40:56 PM

I found a bunch of random third-party sites tossing around the figure of 282 (MH/s)/chip.  If somebody can post a link to someplace where Avalon or one of their employees verifies this, I can finish adding them.  Either hashrate per chip or hashrate for a specific product along with the number of chips in the product (which is the other number that's way too hard to find…)

At 282 (MH/s)/chip they would be η=2,909 slightly better than bifury but still behind BFL.

The stock Avalon firmware comes with settings for 282 and 300. Third-party firmwares are overclocking to 350 and above.

RHA
Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 389

 June 26, 2013, 05:06:13 PM

Not to add to the table yet, until the chip is working. The calculated value however explains much.

KnC Promised Figures
 Design MH/s Device Process node, $\lambda$ Area η    (H*pm/s) KnCMiner 100.0GH/s Custom 28nm, 14nm 3025mm2 90.71

The area is package area, actual chip area will be significantly smaller, so the η value will be higher.
Edit: The die area is exact (55 mm x 55 mm), the package is 90 mm x 90 mm. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=by-je8XRCdY

Second edit: I must had misunderstood the video when I had been watching it for first time. There they stated quite clearly, the chip (the package) would be the size shown, about 60 mm x 60  mm,
not the die, which will be much smaller.
The conclusion:  η  should be significantly greater than 90.
Anenome5
Sr. Member

Offline

Activity: 252

 June 27, 2013, 12:51:36 AM

(21-Jun) Oh my, this is terribly embarrassing.  When calculating the η-factor for bitfury last night I used the gate length instead of the feature size.  I have corrected this; please see above.  No wonder his numbers came out so high.

Any additional checking of my arithmetic would be welcome.
I was seriously wondering how his numbers were possible!

Okay, now do KNC's numbers!

Democracy is the original 51% attack.
 Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6  All
 « previous topic next topic »