Bitmain's Released Antminer S9, World's First 16nm Miner Ready to Order

[NotFuzzyWarm]

I'd think that the easiest and safest way Bitmain could offer "Eco-mode(s)" and still keep autotune (as said many times before - allows them them to mix 'n match boards made with better or 'meh' chips to hit target hash rate for the miner) is let Autotune do its thing to find full-speed (hashrate) optimum. Then give us a selectable Eco offset power or hash rate reduction %. Apply the offset to boards optimum, rerun temp test and adjust fan as needed to keep optimum chip temp.

Should be easy-peasy and I'd think that since part of auto-tune seems to be fiddling with fan speed to keep the chips hot, it running at lower speed should result in the fans also going slower.

[ComputerGenie]

I'd think that the easiest and safest way Bitmain could offer "Eco-mode(s)" and still keep autotune (as said many times before - allows them them to mix 'n match boards made with better or 'meh' chips to hit target hash rate for the miner) is let Autotune do its thing to find full-speed (hashrate) optimum. ...

https://shop.bitmain.com/market.htm?name=antminer_r4_silent_bitcoin_miner_for_home

[philipma1957]

I'd think that the easiest and safest way Bitmain could offer "Eco-mode(s)" and still keep autotune (as said many times before - allows them them to mix 'n match boards made with better or 'meh' chips to hit target hash rate for the miner) is let Autotune do its thing to find full-speed (hashrate) optimum. ...

https://shop.bitmain.com/market.htm?name=antminer_r4_silent_bitcoin_miner_for_home

My autotune r4 models both have issues .

Cost more per gh.

But when they run they are not loud.

I would have continued buying them if they did not break.

[ComputerGenie]

My autotune r4 models both have issues .

Cost more per gh...

They are the "home version" and there are bound to be issues with the "first runs" (just like any other new boards).
The cost is the trade off of trying to get S9-like numbers (since they are not "full" S9 boards) at a "quiet" level and ROI obviously isn't a concern with the crowd posting to this thread as of late.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

My autotune r4 models both have issues .
Cost more per gh...

They are the "home version" and there are bound to be issues with the "first runs" (just like any other new boards).
The cost is the trade off of trying to get S9-like numbers (since they are not "full" S9 boards) at a "quiet" level and ROI obviously isn't a concern with the crowd posting to this thread as of late.

Do you even have an R4? At > 4.4THs per-board in each of the 3 I have they match the s9's for per-board speed. Last batch produced was #6 so they are way past 'first run' stage. The only difference is the long more spread out design allowing for the much quieter longitudinal fan to be used.

[ComputerGenie]

Do you even have an R4? At > 4.4THs per-board in each of the 3 I have they match the s9's for per-board speed. Last batch produced was #6 so they are way past 'first run' stage. The only difference is the long more spread out design allowing for the much quieter longitudinal fan to be used.

No, no, and no.

Do you even have an R4?...

I own S9s, because I run a business. I do own some LNs converted into S7s, but that was only due to the under $250 purchase price.

...Last batch produced was #6 so they are way past 'first run' stage...

R4 "Batch 2" was in December; a basic look at run-times, shipping routes and shipping times, return rates, and industry failure rates will tell you that R4s are still in their infancy (and S9s are barely out of their infancy).

...The only difference is the long more spread out design allowing for the much quieter longitudinal fan to be used.

R4s are not S9s, not even close (less chips running "higher", thus the energy cost difference).

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Even Bitmain only needs 2-3 batches to correct whatever they consider major flaws. Given that, the s9's left infancy long ago with b16/17 the first major changes (auto-tune & Xilinx CPU) since putting a Vcore reg back in around batch 5. Since then all changes have been software. For miners, return/failure rates are a poor indicator of product maturity considering Bitmain seems quite content to keep them as they are despite known issues.

Und what do shipping routes & times have to do with anything?
Never said an R4 is identical to a s9. Just that they are close to on-par performance wise. Yes different chip count and slightly lower eff. Big whoop.

[ComputerGenie]

...Und what do shipping routes & times have to do with anything?
....

Tbh, I'm too lazy to explain to you how a 3-4 week ship/return/repair/reship time has an effect on a 4 month old product "2nd run", its production, and how that relates to it still being a new product (even 6 months after its market debut).

Bottom line....

Buy an enterprise product and you have an enterprise product. If you do not want to use that enterprise product in an enterprise environment, then it's on you to create a "solution" for your non-enterprise environment, not the enterprise product manufacture.

[HagssFIN]

You are putting home miners versus industrial miners all over and over again, but my disapproval for Bitmain removing features from miners has nothing to do with that.

I have no idea why you are defending their decision removing features.

[Swimmer63]

R4s are sold with auto-tuning.

[ComputerGenie]

...I have no idea why you are defending their decision removing features.

When you operate, control, and expect ROI on more than a handful, you will. 

[OgNasty]

You are putting home miners versus industrial miners all over and over again, but my disapproval for Bitmain removing features from miners has nothing to do with that.

I have no idea why you are defending their decision removing features.

Obviously people want the ability back to underclock. I've been mining for nearly 6 years now. It is extremely useful in so many scenarios. It makes 0 sense and is incredibly short sighted to defend removal of the feature.

[ComputerGenie]

Obviously people want the ability back to underclock. I've been mining for nearly 6 years now. It is extremely useful in so many scenarios. It makes 0 sense and is incredibly short sighted to defend removal of the feature.

True, it's very shortsighted of them to not cater to the wants of < 1% of their consumer base.  What are these people thinking by gearing their software towards the needs of those that buy 500-1,000 units at a time? 

[bitsink]

True, it's very shortsighted of them to not cater to the wants of < 1% of their consumer base.  What are these people thinking by gearing their software towards the needs of those that buy 500-1,000 units at a time?  

Why so aggressive? What's the big deal? Surely it would not hurt you if there was an eco mode switch or better yet a %age throttle setting in the gui which the autotuner would take into consideration when doing its thing.

[HagssFIN]

You are putting home miners versus industrial miners all over and over again, but my disapproval for Bitmain removing features from miners has nothing to do with that.

I have no idea why you are defending their decision removing features.

Obviously people want the ability back to underclock. I've been mining for nearly 6 years now. It is extremely useful in so many scenarios. It makes 0 sense and is incredibly short sighted to defend removal of the feature.

Thanks for supporting my view!  
It is indeed useful, both in home and industrial level mining.

And manual fan control is also one thing nice to have.

I have non-autotune S9s models and autotune R4 models, so I have pretty good amount of experience about both systems.

[beltsniffer]

Obviously people want the ability back to underclock. I've been mining for nearly 6 years now. It is extremely useful in so many scenarios. It makes 0 sense and is incredibly short sighted to defend removal of the feature.

True, it's very shortsighted of them to not cater to the wants of < 1% of their consumer base.  What are these people thinking by gearing their software towards the needs of those that buy 500-1,000 units at a time? 

Then why sell to the home miner at all? We are just a bunch of PIA whiners anyway...

Obviously they want the all the coin they can get.

Since they are going to sell to us, they should at least make they attempt to give us some of what we want.

Fortunately there are other options, though not as efficient.

[ComputerGenie]

...We are just a bunch of PIA whiners anyway...

Well, at least you got that part right. 

...Obviously they want the all the coin they can get...

Unlike other businesses that form to make as little money as they can? 

[beltsniffer]

...We are just a bunch of PIA whiners anyway...

Well, at least you got that part right. 

...Obviously they want the all the coin they can get...

Unlike other businesses that form to make as little money as they can? 

I'm not saying they shouldn't be in it to make as much as they can. The end user market can make a huge difference to the bottom line of any company if their product catches on. But, you ignored the rest of what I said.

Since they are going to sell to us, they should at least make they attempt to give us some of what we want.

Fortunately there are other options, though not as efficient.

If they want to sell to us PITA small miners, they need to address our concerns too. Which would include the ability to adjust the miner to suit our wants/needs.

[ComputerGenie]

.... But, you ignored the rest of what I said.

Since they are going to sell to us, they should at least make they attempt to give us some of what we want.

Fortunately there are other options, though not as efficient.

If they want to sell to us PITA small miners, they need to address our concerns too. Which would include the ability to adjust the miner to suit our wants/needs.

Yes, I did ignore it because it's wrong. The "PITA small miners" (your words) are a small enough market to not justify the software costs of running multiple versions of code. Any profits from "PITA small miners" become eaten up in the long run by the dev costs to do so.
As I said:

If you do not want to use that enterprise product in an enterprise environment, then it's on you to create a "solution" for your non-enterprise environment, not the enterprise product manufacture.

P.S. The market is such they don't have to appeal to what you want, because they already have the product you want/need.

[bitsink]

.... But, you ignored the rest of what I said.

Since they are going to sell to us, they should at least make they attempt to give us some of what we want.

Fortunately there are other options, though not as efficient.

If they want to sell to us PITA small miners, they need to address our concerns too. Which would include the ability to adjust the miner to suit our wants/needs.

Yes, I did ignore it because it's wrong. The "PITA small miners" (your words) are a small enough market to not justify the software costs of running multiple versions of code. Any profits from "PITA small miners" become eaten up in the long run by the dev costs to do so.
As I said:

If you do not want to use that enterprise product in an enterprise environment, then it's on you to create a "solution" for your non-enterprise environment, not the enterprise product manufacture.

P.S. The market is such they don't have to appeal to what you want, because they already have the product you want/need.

Come on now kids. Stop fighting