Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2018, 06:31:06 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Since BFL isn't able to deliver, why doesn't AMD do a SHA256 ASIC line?  (Read 402 times)
bitcoinnix
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 19, 2013, 03:03:42 PM
 #1

It seems like ATI could design, fab, and deliver easily and in a short timeframe, given their existing infrastructure.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1542609066
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542609066

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542609066
Reply with quote  #2

1542609066
Report to moderator
1542609066
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542609066

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542609066
Reply with quote  #2

1542609066
Report to moderator
1542609066
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542609066

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542609066
Reply with quote  #2

1542609066
Report to moderator
tycho
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 34
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 19, 2013, 03:53:14 PM
 #2

It seems like ATI could design, fab, and deliver easily and in a short timeframe, given their existing infrastructure.

Because the market is tiny compared to the markets that they're already targeting.
bitcoinnix
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 19, 2013, 04:37:22 PM
 #3

It seems like ATI could design, fab, and deliver easily and in a short timeframe, given their existing infrastructure.

Because the market is tiny compared to the markets that they're already targeting.
So's the Linux market but they're dumping lots of money into that right now on hopes of continued growth.  Seems the potential for growth would be well worth it for SHA-256 and sCrypt mining.
Foxpup
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2366
Merit: 1187



View Profile
March 20, 2013, 01:37:51 AM
 #4

It seems like ATI could design, fab, and deliver easily and in a short timeframe, given their existing infrastructure.

Because the market is tiny compared to the markets that they're already targeting.
So's the Linux market but they're dumping lots of money into that right now on hopes of continued growth.
Say what? The Linux market is huge. The majority of servers and virtually all supercomputers run Linux as well as a significant number of embedded devices. The bitcoin mining market is absolutely microscopic by comparison. But don't worry. I'm pretty confident AMD will develop bitcoin mining ASICs once the market's big enough.

Will pretend to do unverifiable things (while actually eating an enchilada-style burrito) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
bitcoinnix
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 20, 2013, 11:51:34 AM
 #5

It seems like ATI could design, fab, and deliver easily and in a short timeframe, given their existing infrastructure.

Because the market is tiny compared to the markets that they're already targeting.
So's the Linux market but they're dumping lots of money into that right now on hopes of continued growth.
Say what? The Linux market is huge. The majority of servers and virtually all supercomputers run Linux as well as a significant number of embedded devices.
I'm a Linux sysadmin by trade so I get the market size for servers - but I can promise you that almost nobody is using AMD proprietary drivers on their Linux servers (It's a pain, even with DKMS & akmod to deal with the changes that kernel updates bring to modules).

I more meant that the Linux high-performance desktop market is microscopic compared to the rest of their line, so I'd bet bitcoin ASICs (or really even just really nicely done SHA-256 & sCrypt FPGAs) would be worth it to them. 
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!