Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com

[dogie]

*note disclaimer, I own no hardware (other than temporary stock), have no preorders and no affiliation*

Something is wrong here with this simulation. Its a side view of the board at the bottom, with package and chip slightly above, with a 4 heatpipe heatsink. The left, blue side is showing an ambient intake of 25C, exhausting at ~50C.

Now, look at the chip area; its deep oranges at best. Their own simulation is telling us the chip's heatspreader [not even the chip itself] is somewhere between 125-150C. I don't know a consumer grade chip that gets even close to these temps, nor materials creating using conventional techniques that would withstand 24/7 at these temperates.

Its hard to tell without a larger image but it looks like an auto scaled legend, so its reporting a spot temperature somewhere on the chip of 223C. I am not aware of the limitations of the exact simulations they ran, but if mine came back and showed that I would be weeing myself.

tldr: Either that simulation is made up, fake, wrong, set up horrifically - or the chips are running @150C+.

I think
223 isnt Centigrade are Fahrenheit . 

   223F are 106C.

^What he said. But seriously, It's a 28nm Chip, they run pretty low temperature-wise. AND you can pretty much figure it's Fahrenheit since max. temp. is at over 200 degree; at that point the soldering would melt in Celsius...

Its not Fahreneit, who on earth would simulate room temp at -4C. Yes that is the point, the simulation is telling them the chip will overburn.... that is that the heatsink and airflow is unable to remove the heat being produced, hence reaching ridiculous temps.

Just looking at the design of their heatsink, that's something that could get rid of 90-120W depending on the airflow and ambient temps. If you look at the heatsinks designed for 100-140W, they weight approaching 2kg of pure metal, have 4-8 heatpipes, have a heat-sink, and a hell of a lot more fins.

[1715101109]

1715101109

[1715101109]

1715101109

[1715101109]

1715101109

[1715101109]

1715101109

[DPoS]

https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-24

That's great news for fans of KNC.  Meaning they will release a competitive product in Sept, sell it until the ROI drops and then design and release a new competitive product according to the network hash rate in 2014.   We all know these units will not be worth the current price in 6-8 months so what KNC is saying is really good for the customers.

Just remember to save enough BTC to get the next version and you will continue to thrive.

It also provides some information for non customers who feel it is too late to purchase.  You can save up and purchase a Gen2 device which should be profitable.  Just get in early next time.

It sounds like KNC is thinking they are the only ones making miners and will be the only ones shipping. Having them take a three month break without shipping is nice for them....but other companies will take advantage of that and use that against them, no?

Jesus your IQ is under 100.  Just. Stop. Posting.

[dogie]

...Watercooled options will be developed for consumers at a later date if you want less heat and noise....

Oh god that physics...

[dogie]

More dog poo... I think some of the folks here can not interpret the graphics correctly. I can not either because I don't know if it shows a single core simulation or the whole chip and frankly it is not my current area of expertise however, I highly doubt KNC would release an OrSoc simulation that shows they are unable to understand basic thermal chip simulation and therefore properly account for the heat that needs to be dissipated.

Based on the 4-core design and depending on how many engines are running in each core I would expect the chip thermals to be spread fairly evenly across the chip. Also, this being a big chip you get more real estate for dissipating the heat. So, let's dumb it down for the rest of us, if you partition this chip into four sections and assume 60W of heat needs to be dissipated on an area of 765 mm^2, I would not think that is outrageous at all, in fact it is quite reasonable (I remember that some of the old Thunderbird AMD chips had a die size of around 120 mm^2 and were dissipating 60-70W of heat).

Yes what they've done doesn't make sense, and I'm pretty sure I'm interpreting right. I'm still yet to see another interpretation (other than saying its in fahrenheit, which its not) or even how you could attempt to interpret it any other way.

Either they've uploaded the wrong slide, or they dont understand it, or something else is seriously wrong.

[ujka]

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)

[XZed]

Still, please continue. Observation of sudden negative armchair 'experts' with 'professional' insight makes for an interesting take as to why you prowl upon a thread you have no vested interest in...or do you?? (Note: none of this is directed at nightingale or nemo1024)

I call this, wisdom

[dogie]

More dog poo... I think some of the folks here can not interpret the graphics correctly. I can not either because I don't know if it shows a single core simulation or the whole chip and frankly it is not my current area of expertise however, I highly doubt KNC would release an OrSoc simulation that shows they are unable to understand basic thermal chip simulation and therefore properly account for the heat that needs to be dissipated.

Based on the 4-core design and depending on how many engines are running in each core I would expect the chip thermals to be spread fairly evenly across the chip. Also, this being a big chip you get more real estate for dissipating the heat. So, let's dumb it down for the rest of us, if you partition this chip into four sections and assume 60W of heat needs to be dissipated on an area of 765 mm^2, I would not think that is outrageous at all, in fact it is quite reasonable (I remember that some of the old Thunderbird AMD chips had a die size of around 120 mm^2 and were dissipating 60-70W of heat).

Yes what they've done doesn't make sense, and I'm pretty sure I'm interpreting right. I'm still yet to see another interpretation (other than saying its in fahrenheit, which its not) or even how you could attempt to interpret it any other way.

Either they've uploaded the wrong slide, or they dont understand it, or something else is seriously wrong.

If you are correct and make this seem as bad as it really is (I unfortunately do not know enough) - are you going to contact KnC directly with your concerns? I know that a lot of issues brought up in this thread get lost in the dust.

I don't have a vested interest, so I don't particularly care. If someone wants to forward my raised points to them and let me know their response (PM me, I'm not watching a 200 page thread ) then I can comment again. There is something seriously wrong there though.

[Bitcoinorama]

Sorry, that was an answer to the guy asking about water cooling in 'original design'. And yes, first published spec. were with water cooling.

Yes, but if you read anything subsequent to when they changed the specs, or even in the report I wrote up, you would have seen that Sam's hands were tied; data centres will not host water cooled set-ups. They just don't want to know. KnC still aim to design a block so you can add such cooling subsequent if running at home, but they see most peeps choosing hosting in the long run. This is also why there has been a dimensional change to fit standard 19" rack mount format...

[Bitcoinorama]

...Watercooled options will be developed for consumers at a later date if you want less heat and noise....

Oh god that physics...

Ambient heat.

[dogie]

...Watercooled options will be developed for consumers at a later date if you want less heat and noise....

Oh god that physics...

Ambient heat.

'If you want less ambient heat'... that still isn't close to making sense.

[Anenome5]

I think
223 isnt Centigrade are Fahrenheit .  

   223F are 106C.

Thought about that but it's really doubtful. Freezing air coming in at 25F? Nah. We could use an explanation from Knc on what this represents and what's being assumed in this simulation, but I doubt it's that.

[Nemo1024]

On a slightly different track: What about KnC making second generation USB miners? USB 3.0 specs, 0.9A, 1+GHs, priced at around 50-80 dollars. Would it be feasible with regard to production costs, power consumption, heat dissipation?
If yes, that would be a nice entry-level alternative miner to Erupter and K1, which would still be useful at higher difficulties, while promoting decentralisation of hashing. And a great gifting gadget.

[Anenome5]

On a slightly different track: What about KnC making second generation USB miners? USB 3.0 specs, 0.9A, 1+GHs, priced at around 50-80 dollars. Would it be feasible with regard to production costs, power consumption, heat dissipation?
If yes, that would be a nice entry-level alternative miner to Erupter and K1, which would still be useful at higher difficulties, while promoting decentralisation of hashing. And a great gifting gadget.

Won't happen for a couple reasons. One, they don't want the shipping and support headache of having thousands of customers buying a cheap device. Secondly, their chip isn't conducive to USB mining--it's large, huge power draw and heat-spreading needs. The two philosophies go hand in hand.

[Nemo1024]

On a slightly different track: What about KnC making second generation USB miners? USB 3.0 specs, 0.9A, 1+GHs, priced at around 50-80 dollars. Would it be feasible with regard to production costs, power consumption, heat dissipation?
If yes, that would be a nice entry-level alternative miner to Erupter and K1, which would still be useful at higher difficulties, while promoting decentralisation of hashing. And a great gifting gadget.

Won't happen for a couple reasons. One, they don't want the shipping and support headache of having thousands of customers buying a cheap device. Secondly, their chip isn't conducive to USB mining--it's large, huge power draw and heat-spreading needs. The two philosophies go hand in hand.

I did not mean the chip that they are currently developing, but another one, which they could develop in parallel, but still on 26nm process.

[Anenome5]

On a slightly different track: What about KnC making second generation USB miners? USB 3.0 specs, 0.9A, 1+GHs, priced at around 50-80 dollars. Would it be feasible with regard to production costs, power consumption, heat dissipation?
If yes, that would be a nice entry-level alternative miner to Erupter and K1, which would still be useful at higher difficulties, while promoting decentralisation of hashing. And a great gifting gadget.

Won't happen for a couple reasons. One, they don't want the shipping and support headache of having thousands of customers buying a cheap device. Secondly, their chip isn't conducive to USB mining--it's large, huge power draw and heat-spreading needs. The two philosophies go hand in hand.

I did not mean the chip that they are currently developing, but another one, which they could develop in parallel, but still on 26nm process.

Why do that and achieve only a support and shipping headache? It costs a lot more to support and ship a $70 device than a $7000 device, because the former has 100 times the number of customers compared to the latter on a dollar-by-dollar basis. If you want to turn them into BFL, then yeah, keep suggesting it.

[ujka]

On a slightly different track: What about KnC making second generation USB miners? USB 3.0 specs, 0.9A, 1+GHs, priced at around 50-80 dollars.

They are in a 'bussiness' of making hardware for 'professional' miners.

We are selling professional devices to professional miners.

[Kuroth]

All you got to do people is ask..  Now would all the Trolls go away..   Silly Trolls, Tricks are for Kids..




Hi
 
We are glad the picture has sparked a debate but what I can assure you is that the picture shows the die running at 125 degrees C. if it looks warmer to the human eye we are sorry but its not.
The thermal image is an absolute worst case scenario and one that will never happen if the chips is running in normal conditions. When the chips designers produce these images they have to use worst case all others cases are irrelevant. What the drawing shows is that even at 125C we are able to cool that much heat with our heat sink, which is a slightly modified http://www.arctic.ac/en/p/cooling/cpu/472/freezer-i30.html?c=2181 our device still works normally.
 
Thanks
Emilia
 
Med vänlig hälsning  |  Best regards
Emilia Cole  
Kncminer
www.kncminer.com
Office: +46 8559 253 20

[titomane]

I think
223 isnt Centigrade are Fahrenheit .  

   223F are 106C.

Thought about that but it's really doubtful. Freezing air coming in at 25F? Nah. We could use an explanation from Knc on what this represents and what's being assumed in this simulation, but I doubt it's that.

The heatsink is always 25 °. It is very rare. Would have to have different temperatures, depending on the distance to the chip.

 In the news 22. They said chip  would 2046 balls
https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-22
and now 2797 is a significant change. A to be.This indicates that the June 26 had not been made ​​the order.

All you got to do people is ask..  Now would all the Trolls go away..   Silly Trolls, Tricks are for Kids..




Hi
 
We are glad the picture has sparked a debate but what I can assure you is that the picture shows the die running at 125 degrees C. if it looks warmer to the human eye we are sorry but its not.
The thermal image is an absolute worst case scenario and one that will never happen if the chips is running in normal conditions. When the chips designers produce these images they have to use worst case all others cases are irrelevant. What the drawing shows is that even at 125C we are able to cool that much heat with our heat sink, which is a slightly modified http://www.arctic.ac/en/p/cooling/cpu/472/freezer-i30.html?c=2181 our device still works normally.
 
Thanks
Emilia
 
Med vänlig hälsning  |  Best regards
Emilia Cole  
Kncminer
www.kncminer.com
Office: +46 8559 253 20

Thanks

[XZed]

All you got to do people is ask..  Now would all the Trolls go away..   Silly Trolls, Tricks are for Kids..




Hi
 
We are glad the picture has sparked a debate but what I can assure you is that the picture shows the die running at 125 degrees C. if it looks warmer to the human eye we are sorry but its not.
The thermal image is an absolute worst case scenario and one that will never happen if the chips is running in normal conditions. When the chips designers produce these images they have to use worst case all others cases are irrelevant. What the drawing shows is that even at 125C we are able to cool that much heat with our heat sink, which is a slightly modified http://www.arctic.ac/en/p/cooling/cpu/472/freezer-i30.html?c=2181 our device still works normally.
 
Thanks
Emilia
 
Med vänlig hälsning  |  Best regards
Emilia Cole  
Kncminer
www.kncminer.com
Office: +46 8559 253 20

Kuroth's posts seem to be the only useful ones...

Thank you very much.

[minternj]

So to cool the chip at 125 you need to pass 25 degree air over the heatsink? lol.