Swedish ASIC miner company kncminer.com

[RChevalier]

...you let one person walk over you the rest start a charge towards.

Special needs guy #1:  Doo Doo! (points at a jar of peanut butter)

Bitcoinorama:  No no, that's not diarrhea, let me explain...(4 hour long articulated reason/logic/whatever else)

Special needs guy and friends: DOO DOO!!!! (puts their arms up and cheers incoherently)

Bitcoinorama: No wait! It's not...  Hey! No all of you stop! pull your pants back up right now!!  NO!! BILLY!! NOT ON THE FLOOR!!!

[rizzman]

I am getting tired of you.


if you never doubted bitfury, why did you ask for some videos of working bitfury miners few days ago? why do you keep repeating that KnC has no real competition?

and how did you exactly took a bullet? its obvious that you didnt pay for your knc miner.

also, the part "in a week we will know if they can deliver" I found hilarious.

Dude, your question shows exactly how far back you read... The whole reason this shit about bitfury cropped up is because people were claiming ridiculous numbers on the efficiency of a 65nm chip which for all intensive purposes should not have been possible and then transformed into an argument over whether or not the BF chip was more efficient than KNC's. That was the point he was getting at I believe, people where claiming some crazy shit, with out any proof to back it up...

On your second statement, didn't read far enough back as well... from the beginning Bitcoinorama has done nothing but provide useful information to the thread... He may be a little over zealous at times, but he has been the arguably the most helpful contributor to this thread - This is Fact.

Also, at some point earlier in the thread he did said he was making a purchase from KNC - Jupiter if memory serves me right, whether the model is accurate I cannot say for certain but he definitely said he was a customer WAY before all this shit got stirred.

In short, Do yourself / everyone else in this forum a favor and wait till next week before you start throwing conspiracy theories around...

[DPoS]

...you let one person walk over you the rest start a charge towards.

Special needs guy #1:  Doo Doo! (points at a jar of peanut butter)

Bitcoinorama:  No no, that's not diarrhea, let me explain...(4 hour long articulated reason/logic/whatever else)

Special needs guy and friends: DOO DOO!!!! (puts their arms up and cheers incoherently)

Bitcoinorama: No wait! It's not...  Hey! No all of you stop! pull your pants back up right now!!  NO!! BILLY!! NOT ON THE FLOOR!!!

he may need therapy to stop his troll chasing/feeding

[Micky25]

you confuse that with another company, this is not HashFast, this modell is from ArseFarts.

On "Baby Jet" I was thinking more along the lines of...

[Bitcoinorama]

...you let one person walk over you the rest start a charge towards.

Special needs guy #1:  Doo Doo! (points at a jar of peanut butter)

Bitcoinorama:  No no, that's not diarrhea, let me explain...(4 hour long articulated reason/logic/whatever else)

Special needs guy and friends: DOO DOO!!!! (puts their arms up and cheers incoherently)

Bitcoinorama: No wait! It's not...  Hey! No all of you stop! pull your pants back up right now!!  NO!! BILLY!! NOT ON THE FLOOR!!!

he may need therapy to stop his troll chasing/feeding

If I read you right, this is a gold rush, the boy needs therapy, and I've become some sort of...frontier psychiatrist?

That, or call me Dexter, and find me one?

http://youtu.be/U8BWBn26bX0

Cracking tunage.

[erk]

Dude, your question shows exactly how far back you read... The whole reason this shit about bitfury cropped up is because people were claiming ridiculous numbers on the efficiency of a 65nm chip which for all intensive purposes should not have been possible and then transformed into an argument over whether or not the BF chip was more efficient than KNC's. That was the point he was getting at I believe, people where claiming some crazy shit, with out any proof to back it up...
...

The KNCminer specs from there own data is Energy consumption: 1.6 W/Gh/s. the Bitfury is 1.0W/GH/s what's so hard about that to understand? The Bitfury is more energy efficient, though they both are pretty good.

[Micky25]

Dude, your question shows exactly how far back you read... The whole reason this shit about bitfury cropped up is because people were claiming ridiculous numbers on the efficiency of a 65nm chip which for all intensive purposes should not have been possible and then transformed into an argument over whether or not the BF chip was more efficient than KNC's. That was the point he was getting at I believe, people where claiming some crazy shit, with out any proof to back it up...

Pencil modded to about 1.1k resistance (the actual is slightly better because the graphite reacts that way to heat), added heatsinks and fans and tuned chips speeds to lower errors below 10% and the pool stats for the past 15-20h are:


This figure includes 3440Mh/s worth of fpga hardware, so the actual hashrate of the Bitfury is 72,902 Gh/s

and the all time reject rate for my Bitfury:


;tldr; Im pushing almost 36.5Gh/s per board

[markm]

Dude, your question shows exactly how far back you read... The whole reason this shit about bitfury cropped up is because people were claiming ridiculous numbers on the efficiency of a 65nm chip which for all intensive purposes should not have been possible and then transformed into an argument over whether or not the BF chip was more efficient than KNC's. That was the point he was getting at I believe, people where claiming some crazy shit, with out any proof to back it up...
...

The KNCminer specs from there own data is Energy consumption: 1.6 W/Gh/s. the Bitfury is 1.0W/GH/s what's so hard about that to understand? The Bitfury is more energy efficient, though they both are pretty good.

The KnC 1.6 is at the wall though, right? What is bitfury's at the wall?

-MarkM-

[erk]

Dude, your question shows exactly how far back you read... The whole reason this shit about bitfury cropped up is because people were claiming ridiculous numbers on the efficiency of a 65nm chip which for all intensive purposes should not have been possible and then transformed into an argument over whether or not the BF chip was more efficient than KNC's. That was the point he was getting at I believe, people where claiming some crazy shit, with out any proof to back it up...
...

The KNCminer specs from there own data is Energy consumption: 1.6 W/Gh/s. the Bitfury is 1.0W/GH/s what's so hard about that to understand? The Bitfury is more energy efficient, though they both are pretty good.

The KnC 1.6 is at the wall though, right? What is bitfury's at the wall?

-MarkM-

Nonsense, KNC has not been measured at the wall as it's never shipped, where Bitfury has been, neither of which come with a PSU so the point is BS anyway, as it will vary on the brand and model PSU you choose. If you are being scientific you measure the the unit at it's power connector bypassing the 3rd party power supply.

[af_newbie]

Dude, your question shows exactly how far back you read... The whole reason this shit about bitfury cropped up is because people were claiming ridiculous numbers on the efficiency of a 65nm chip which for all intensive purposes should not have been possible and then transformed into an argument over whether or not the BF chip was more efficient than KNC's. That was the point he was getting at I believe, people where claiming some crazy shit, with out any proof to back it up...
...

The KNCminer specs from there own data is Energy consumption: 1.6 W/Gh/s. the Bitfury is 1.0W/GH/s what's so hard about that to understand? The Bitfury is more energy efficient, though they both are pretty good.

The KnC 1.6 is at the wall though, right? What is bitfury's at the wall?

-MarkM-

KNC is a big fat zero at the wall.  Where is the chip hashing?

Bitfuries have been deployed in 1000s  of THs.  Right now.

[-Redacted-]

Dude, your question shows exactly how far back you read... The whole reason this shit about bitfury cropped up is because people were claiming ridiculous numbers on the efficiency of a 65nm chip which for all intensive purposes should not have been possible and then transformed into an argument over whether or not the BF chip was more efficient than KNC's. That was the point he was getting at I believe, people where claiming some crazy shit, with out any proof to back it up...
...

The KNCminer specs from there own data is Energy consumption: 1.6 W/Gh/s. the Bitfury is 1.0W/GH/s what's so hard about that to understand? The Bitfury is more energy efficient, though they both are pretty good.

The KnC 1.6 is at the wall though, right? What is bitfury's at the wall?

-MarkM-

No one will actually know until KNC does at-the-wall tests on a real unit hashing.    

My two bitfury cards pull ~ 46 watts at 66 Gh/s

[klee]

Do people here seriously dare to compare BF with KnC? Hubris!

[xstr8guy]

Please remove the baby shit photo.

[rizzman]

No one will actually know until KNC does at-the-wall tests on a real unit hashing. 

...

Precisely. +1

[markm]

My two bitfury cards pull ~ 46 watts at 66 Gh/s

Wow that is nice and low, I had tended to imagine figures like that were not at the wall but more like just the chip itself without the support stuff / board and wallwart or ATX etc.

-MarkM-

[erk]

No one will actually know until KNC does at-the-wall tests on a real unit hashing.    

My two bitfury cards pull ~ 46 watts at 66 Gh/s

Is that each of combined?

It wouldn't surprise me if a 55nm full custom design turned out to be more power efficient than a 28nm standard cell design. I would assume that it's possible to under clock the KNCminer chip to get the Watts/GH/s down. Looking at the cooling hardware they have used, you can see the KNCminer chip is extremely overclocked, they are trying to squeeze the most out of it at the expense of efficiency. It would have made more sense to use twice as many chips at half the clock rate to get the power usage down, but that means they could only build half the units per wafer. In the end the machines left mining will be the ones that use the least Watts per GH/s. There is no room in mining for overclocking, else we would all still be using GPUs and ASIC miners wouldn't exist would they. It's all about Watts per GH/s.

[rizzman]

Please remove the baby shit photo.

Why? Funny as hell!

[af_newbie]

Dude, your question shows exactly how far back you read... The whole reason this shit about bitfury cropped up is because people were claiming ridiculous numbers on the efficiency of a 65nm chip which for all intensive purposes should not have been possible and then transformed into an argument over whether or not the BF chip was more efficient than KNC's. That was the point he was getting at I believe, people where claiming some crazy shit, with out any proof to back it up...
...

The KNCminer specs from there own data is Energy consumption: 1.6 W/Gh/s. the Bitfury is 1.0W/GH/s what's so hard about that to understand? The Bitfury is more energy efficient, though they both are pretty good.

The KnC 1.6 is at the wall though, right? What is bitfury's at the wall?

-MarkM-

No one will actually know until KNC does at-the-wall tests on a real unit hashing.    

My two bitfury cards pull ~ 46 watts at 66 Gh/s

Is that each of combined?

It wouldn't surprise me if a 55nm full custom design turned out to be more power efficient than a 28nm standard cell design. I would assume that it's possible to under clock the KNCminer chip to get the Watts/GH/s down. Looking at the cooling hardware they have used, you can see the KNCminer chip is extremely overclocked, they are trying to squeeze the most out of it at the expense of efficiency. It would have made more sense to use twice as many chips at half the clock rate to get the power usage down, but that means they could only build half the units per wafer. In the end the machines left mining will be the ones that use the least Watts per GH/s. There is no room in mining for overclocking.

I suspect it is both. I have two bitfuries running 65-66GH/s at 88W at the wall, that includes 40W monster AC fan.

[tolip_wen]

rama I am dissapointed in you.

Constantly defending with 'I don't work for them' while technically true has an air of deception IMneverHO.

The unsaid implication that your opinion is/was unbiased can no longer be alluded to.

I doubt I'm alone.

[Micky25]