Bitcoin Forum
November 19, 2017, 05:57:08 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 [203] 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 ... 2138 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com  (Read 3007669 times)
jmaccoin
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 43


View Profile
July 21, 2013, 10:47:02 AM
 #4041

Looks like we got them guys. They put a lot of effort into looking like a real company. Partnering with a proven manufacturer, all the lies and deceit. We were all fooled. It has all been a scam, they don't even know how to fake temperature simulations right. Either the chip is on fire, or it must be run only in the winter cuz the scale must be farenheight.

Orsoc was never working on any asics, it was all a scam, sure they would be throwing away their reputation for what looks like peanuts, but sometimes it's more about the scam than the loot.

The mars prototype just shows you how much of a long game they have been playing here.

All that effort, just to be caught on such a small thing. It was almost the perfect crime, thank you dogie for opening our eyes.

tl;dr - sarcasm
1511071028
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511071028

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511071028
Reply with quote  #2

1511071028
Report to moderator
1511071028
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511071028

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511071028
Reply with quote  #2

1511071028
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now A blockchain platform for effective freelancing
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511071028
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511071028

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511071028
Reply with quote  #2

1511071028
Report to moderator
1511071028
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511071028

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511071028
Reply with quote  #2

1511071028
Report to moderator
dwdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


- - -Caveat Aleo- - -


View Profile
July 21, 2013, 10:52:32 AM
 #4042

At the end of the Day, the only thing we need to be concern is can we get our miners in September 2013? ? Can we get them? How many of us are 100% confident without a doubt??

If you are confident without a doubt you are probably insane. There is no 100% guarantee for it (or anything really), but according to KNC they are still on track to deliver in September.


Scary even you yourself not 100% sure you will get your miner on time??

LOL! Dude go ahead and buy a BMW and you wont be 100% sure that is arrives in time.

So whats this 100%-sure shit about? Ever heard of things called risk and reward? No? Well than you better go and try to understand those things first...

Darn.  Apparently even eve is a dude.  Huh
erk
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672


View Profile
July 21, 2013, 10:54:51 AM
 #4043

Looks like we got them guys. They put a lot of effort into looking like a real company. Partnering with a proven manufacturer, all the lies and deceit. We were all fooled. It has all been a scam, they don't even know how to fake temperature simulations right. Either the chip is on fire, or it must be run only in the winter cuz the scale must be farenheight.

Orsoc was never working on any asics, it was all a scam, sure they would be throwing away their reputation for what looks like peanuts, but sometimes it's more about the scam than the loot.

The mars prototype just shows you how much of a long game they have been playing here.

All that effort, just to be caught on such a small thing. It was almost the perfect crime, thank you dogie for opening our eyes.

tl;dr - sarcasm

And who's sock puppet are you again? Seems almost all your posts since you registered last month are about KNCminer.
jmaccoin
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 43


View Profile
July 21, 2013, 10:57:17 AM
 #4044

And who's sock puppet are you again? Seems almost all your posts since you registered last month are about KNCminer.

This is my KNC identity. I have others.
PsychoticBoy
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680


Parental Advisory Explicit Content


View Profile
July 21, 2013, 11:07:02 AM
 #4045

And who's sock puppet are you again? Seems almost all your posts since you registered last month are about KNCminer.

This is my KNC identity. I have others.

LULZ
dwdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


- - -Caveat Aleo- - -


View Profile
July 21, 2013, 11:12:58 AM
 #4046

Looks like we got them guys. They put a lot of effort into looking like a real company. Partnering with a proven manufacturer, all the lies and deceit. We were all fooled. It has all been a scam, they don't even know how to fake temperature simulations right. Either the chip is on fire, or it must be run only in the winter cuz the scale must be farenheight.

Orsoc was never working on any asics, it was all a scam, sure they would be throwing away their reputation for what looks like peanuts, but sometimes it's more about the scam than the loot.

The mars prototype just shows you how much of a long game they have been playing here.

All that effort, just to be caught on such a small thing. It was almost the perfect crime, thank you dogie for opening our eyes.

tl;dr - sarcasm



No problem.  If chips run too hot company changes name to KFCminer...

       
ImI
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1694



View Profile
July 21, 2013, 11:35:30 AM
 #4047

At the end of the Day, the only thing we need to be concern is can we get our miners in September 2013? ? Can we get them? How many of us are 100% confident without a doubt??

If you are confident without a doubt you are probably insane. There is no 100% guarantee for it (or anything really), but according to KNC they are still on track to deliver in September.


Scary even you yourself not 100% sure you will get your miner on time??

LOL! Dude go ahead and buy a BMW and you wont be 100% sure that is arrives in time.

So whats this 100%-sure shit about? Ever heard of things called risk and reward? No? Well than you better go and try to understand those things first...
Darn.  Apparently even eve is a dude.  Huh

These days you aint sure about nothing...  Grin
Zubilica
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 836



View Profile
July 21, 2013, 12:00:57 PM
 #4048

pffff...i just found out if you pay in bitcoins somehow the VAT suddenly dissapears.. this is a bit bullshit in my opinion...

when i order i get



When i enter bitpay it subtracts the VAT... what the hell.. i payed VAT for 2 Jupiter's for nothing!?

I paid with Bitpay and the VAT was not subtracted, I had to pay $ 2,504.25, for delivery inside the EU.

If you think about it. Payment was made from a US company (BitPay) for a delivery in EU . No VAT Smiley

HyperMega
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 124


View Profile
July 21, 2013, 12:55:37 PM
 #4049

"Damned if you do, damned if you don't!" is said very often here.
But "Damned if you do it not right!" would fit much better in this case.

Why did KnC publish these technical slides without any comments? In this way they say almost nothing about the feasibility of their concept and the overall project status. Just a nice slide show to let customers with no or little technical background feel good. This automatically causes a lot of wild speculation. So why not add enough information to make the slides self-explanatory, e.g.:

Slide 2: ASIC schematic
192 (48 x 4) engine IP cores (pipelined SHA256 hash cores, one hash per clock cycle)
-> running at minimum 520MHz@0.9V to realize 100 GH/s per die (could be higher in case of defect cores)

Slide 3: ASIC Toplevel Floorplan View
-> ASIC requires hierarchical layout flow to handle complexity (millions of standard cells)
-> complex engine IP (multi-million gates) "hardened" first; seen as multiple instantiated cells at ASIC toplevel
-> 0.6 mm2 per engine IP results in about 115 mm2 die size
(BTW: PLL arrow points to wrong location, should be probably rectangle with red halo at the right side)

Slide 4: Engine IP floorplan
-> engine IP hardened 2x with different shapes for area optimization at toplevel
-> bigger notch of 2nd engine IP macro used as placement area for PLL at toplevel (2nd macro placed 2 times at the right side of each quad)
-> "magic" pattern caused by timing driven placement of standard cells related to pipeline stages; just a funny visual effect

Slide 7: Thermal simulation
-> Assumption: 200W power consumption (based on worst case power analysis @ 1.0V & 30 % over clocked)
-> Simulation result: die junction temperature does not exceed 125C

Disclaimer: These are no official KnC information. Just a proposal and educated guesses of an ASIC design engineer how to publish such stuff in a more professional way.
 
Anyway, the most important question regarding the project schedule and the feasibility of the announced start date for delivery is:
When was the tape-out of the ASIC executed? If not executed yet, when is the tape-out planned for?

titomane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 389



View Profile
July 21, 2013, 01:33:39 PM
 #4050

Now that there is new data on die size, I updated the GH/wafer table:
Code:
wafer(mm)   chip         process(nm)  die(mm^2)   GH/s(per die)      DpW   GH/s(per wafer)
300         KnC              28        441,00          25            128          3200,00
300         bitfury          55         14,44           2           4717          9434,00
300         bfl              65         56,25           4           1167          4668,00
300         asciminer(?)    130         17,50           0,333       3877          1291,04
300         avalon          110         16,13           0,282       4214          1188,35
300         asciminer(?)    130         21,7            0,333       3112          1036,30
(DpW, die per wafer; yield percentage not taken into account)

Die size is less than 336mm2.
I think 18x18mm

HyperMega
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 124


View Profile
July 21, 2013, 02:00:51 PM
 #4051

Sorry, but this KnC die areas ist most likely not correct. The table should be corrected.

There is an easy rule of thumb to estimate the silicon area of a pipelined SHA256 core in 28nm. From every technology node (half node) to the next, one will get approximately 2x more logic on the same area.
From 65nm(55nm) -> 45nm(40nm) -> 32nm(28nm) you will get 4x more logic on the same area. Meaning you will need 1/4 of area for the same logic.
BFL die is about 50 mm2 with 16 cores. Removing some overhead for pad frame and supporting logic a single core in 65nm should be about 3mm2. Scaling this down to 28nm would result in 0.75mm2 per core.

Based on my experience an automatic place&route with an high density standard cell library gives you in many cases better results in terms of area/power/timing than this "old school" hand layout done by BFL (sorry Josh Wink ), especially for advanced nodes implementations. That's why I assume 0.6mm2 per KnC core.
For 192 cores (engine IPs) this results in about 115 mm² overall die area, which is still huge for 28nm (equivalent to 460 mm2 in 65nm).
Ok, at the end there are still some mm2 to add for support logic, but for sure not more than 5mm2. So in sum not more than 120 mm2. This is what they have to reach, otherwise they would not take use of the full advantage of the 28nm technology.

The complete calculation is based on the assumption that an KnC engine IP is more or less the same as a widely known pipelined SHA256 hash core. If the KnC IP is more efficient, the die area could even be less than 120 mm2.

Meizirkki
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616



View Profile
July 21, 2013, 02:10:55 PM
 #4052

Thank you HyperMega. This thread really needed some objective and useful content.  Wink
shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


@theshmadz


View Profile
July 21, 2013, 02:45:17 PM
 #4053

Preamble: I am relatively certain that KNC Miner is not a scam. (about 75% certainty) I have serious doubts that they will meet their targets/estimates in terms of hashrate and delivery dates. (less that 50% certainty) but I am considering taking a risk on the new Mercury device... (pretty affordable entry level device, limits my risk to acceptable levels.)

Question: What do the little grey numbers below the various products mean? You can see them from the "Miners" tab on this page -> https://www.kncminer.com/categories/miners

Currently there is a 12 below the Mercury, a 34 below the Saturn and a 250 below Jupiter. Does this number mean anything? I assume it has *some* kind of meaning, or else why is it there?

If I were to assume I would guess that this number represents the number of orders, but I would appreciate some clarification on this before I throw 25+ bitcoin on this gamble.

Any educated guesses are welcome, but clarification from a KnC official would be preferred.

-Thank you.

"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
HyperMega
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 124


View Profile
July 21, 2013, 02:46:53 PM
 #4054

Now that there is new data on die size, I updated the GH/wafer table:
Code:
wafer(mm)   chip         process(nm)  die(mm^2)   GH/s(per die)      DpW   GH/s(per wafer)
300         KnC              28        441,00          25            128          3200,00
300         bitfury          55         14,44           2           4717          9434,00
300         bfl              65         56,25           4           1167          4668,00
300         asciminer(?)    130         17,50           0,333       3877          1291,04
300         avalon          110         16,13           0,282       4214          1188,35
300         asciminer(?)    130         21,7            0,333       3112          1036,30
(DpW, die per wafer; yield percentage not taken into account)

Die size is less than 336mm2.
I think 18x18mm


Another detail for a better table. As far as I know, 130nm(110nm) are still manufactured based on 200mm wafers. 65nm(55nm) nodes were the first built with 300mm.
dwdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


- - -Caveat Aleo- - -


View Profile
July 21, 2013, 02:51:33 PM
 #4055

Preamble: I am relatively certain that KNC Miner is not a scam. (about 75% certainty) I have serious doubts that they will meet their targets/estimates in terms of hashrate and delivery dates. (less that 50% certainty) but I am considering taking a risk on the new Mercury device... (pretty affordable entry level device, limits my risk to acceptable levels.)

Question: What do the little grey numbers below the various products mean? You can see them from the "Miners" tab on this page -> https://www.kncminer.com/categories/miners

Currently there is a 12 below the Mercury, a 34 below the Saturn and a 250 below Jupiter. Does this number mean anything? I assume it has *some* kind of meaning, or else why is it there?

If I were to assume I would guess that this number represents the number of orders, but I would appreciate some clarification on this before I throw 25+ bitcoin on this gamble.

Any educated guesses are welcome, but clarification from a KnC official would be preferred.

-Thank you.

It's the SKU code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_keeping_unit

shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


@theshmadz


View Profile
July 21, 2013, 03:12:36 PM
 #4056

Preamble: I am relatively certain that KNC Miner is not a scam. (about 75% certainty) I have serious doubts that they will meet their targets/estimates in terms of hashrate and delivery dates. (less that 50% certainty) but I am considering taking a risk on the new Mercury device... (pretty affordable entry level device, limits my risk to acceptable levels.)

Question: What do the little grey numbers below the various products mean? You can see them from the "Miners" tab on this page -> https://www.kncminer.com/categories/miners

Currently there is a 12 below the Mercury, a 34 below the Saturn and a 250 below Jupiter. Does this number mean anything? I assume it has *some* kind of meaning, or else why is it there?

If I were to assume I would guess that this number represents the number of orders, but I would appreciate some clarification on this before I throw 25+ bitcoin on this gamble.

Any educated guesses are welcome, but clarification from a KnC official would be preferred.

-Thank you.

It's the SKU code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_keeping_unit

ok, makes sense to me, thanks.

"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
Rampion
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106


View Profile
July 21, 2013, 07:16:36 PM
 #4057


Anyway, the most important question regarding the project schedule and the feasibility of the announced start date for delivery is:
When was the tape-out of the ASIC executed? If not executed yet, when is the tape-out planned for?



Be careful dude, I made that question for weeks and I was lynched by the wishful thinkers and wet dreamers

Vycid
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294


♫ the AM bear who cares ♫


View Profile
July 21, 2013, 07:34:15 PM
 #4058

Now that there is new data on die size, I updated the GH/wafer table:
Code:
wafer(mm)   chip         process(nm)  die(mm^2)   GH/s(per die)      DpW   GH/s(per wafer)
300         KnC              28        441,00          25            128          3200,00
300         bitfury          55         14,44           2           4717          9434,00
300         bfl              65         56,25           4           1167          4668,00
300         asciminer(?)    130         17,50           0,333       3877          1291,04
300         avalon          110         16,13           0,282       4214          1188,35
300         asciminer(?)    130         21,7            0,333       3112          1036,30
(DpW, die per wafer; yield percentage not taken into account)

Die size is less than 336mm2.
I think 18x18mm


Another detail for a better table. As far as I know, 130nm(110nm) are still manufactured based on 200mm wafers. 65nm(55nm) nodes were the first built with 300mm.

Ummmm. KnC is doing a 28nm process and getting only a third of the GH/s per wafer that bitfury is getting at 55nm?

minternj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


View Profile
July 21, 2013, 07:37:45 PM
 #4059

Now that there is new data on die size, I updated the GH/wafer table:
Code:
wafer(mm)   chip         process(nm)  die(mm^2)   GH/s(per die)      DpW   GH/s(per wafer)
300         KnC              28        441,00          25            128          3200,00
300         bitfury          55         14,44           2           4717          9434,00
300         bfl              65         56,25           4           1167          4668,00
300         asciminer(?)    130         17,50           0,333       3877          1291,04
300         avalon          110         16,13           0,282       4214          1188,35
300         asciminer(?)    130         21,7            0,333       3112          1036,30
(DpW, die per wafer; yield percentage not taken into account)

Die size is less than 336mm2.
I think 18x18mm


Another detail for a better table. As far as I know, 130nm(110nm) are still manufactured based on 200mm wafers. 65nm(55nm) nodes were the first built with 300mm.

Ummmm. KnC is doing a 28nm process and getting only a third of the GH/s per wafer that bitfury is getting at 55nm?

its ok, all the knc supporters tell me that its not an issue. Since they dont care about power i guess, which leads me to the conclusion that they have unlimited power capacity at their mining location. Oh ya they will also say that the power usage predictions are the worst case scenario so it can be better than bitfury when released.

Warning about Nitrogensports.eu
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=709114.0
Mota
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 800


View Profile
July 21, 2013, 07:50:09 PM
 #4060

Now that there is new data on die size, I updated the GH/wafer table:
Code:
wafer(mm)   chip         process(nm)  die(mm^2)   GH/s(per die)      DpW   GH/s(per wafer)
300         KnC              28        441,00          25            128          3200,00
300         bitfury          55         14,44           2           4717          9434,00
300         bfl              65         56,25           4           1167          4668,00
300         asciminer(?)    130         17,50           0,333       3877          1291,04
300         avalon          110         16,13           0,282       4214          1188,35
300         asciminer(?)    130         21,7            0,333       3112          1036,30
(DpW, die per wafer; yield percentage not taken into account)

Die size is less than 336mm2.
I think 18x18mm


Another detail for a better table. As far as I know, 130nm(110nm) are still manufactured based on 200mm wafers. 65nm(55nm) nodes were the first built with 300mm.

Ummmm. KnC is doing a 28nm process and getting only a third of the GH/s per wafer that bitfury is getting at 55nm?

its ok, all the knc supporters tell me that its not an issue. Since they dont care about power i guess, which leads me to the conclusion that they have unlimited power capacity at their mining location. Oh ya they will also say that the power usage predictions are the worst case scenario so it can be better than bitfury when released.

um.... Yeah? If you had read some more in here you would know that they like to understate specs instead of giving specs that look good but can't be made into reality...

Who wants to be a billionaire? Me!
You could help Wink 1Dvja1RFCqxdnYRgjTntwGvdCeUisU4xp
Pages: « 1 ... 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 [203] 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 ... 2138 »
  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!