HashFast announces specs for new ASIC: 400GH/s

[starsoccer9]

Bear in mind that if you upgrade cgminer, the hashrate will appears slightly lower because the earlier code overestimated due to counting all hashes and now the code only counts hashes based on valid share return. There is a slight loss of hashes within the silicon.

Also I have further information that up to 90 degrees is safe so if you are struggling to keep it under 85 with the overclocking and cgminer's throttling is kicking in regularly, you can kick the overheat temp up to 90. I will be changing the default to that in the next version. The device internally sheds cores transiently anyway if it thinks it's overheating, and trips a thermal overload flag should all fail which makes cgminer shut it down so there are countless ways the device is protected.

Cool, now if only it did the stuff that was promised

The device will increase/decrease its speed if it is cold/hot enough...... Havent seen one unit at 500ghash without manual overclocking
We will refund you if we getting cheaper shipping..... havent seen anyone get refunded yet

Personally I'm starting to think they may be worse then BFL, at least BFL will post updates, they waited 25days to post an update......
They even just outright lied.

[1713916202]

1713916202

[1713916202]

1713916202

[1713916202]

1713916202

[1713916202]

1713916202

[-ck]

Also I have further information that up to 90 degrees is safe so if you are struggling to keep it under 85 with the overclocking and cgminer's throttling is kicking in regularly, you can kick the overheat temp up to 90. I will be changing the default to that in the next version. The device internally sheds cores transiently anyway if it thinks it's overheating, and trips a thermal overload flag should all fail which makes cgminer shut it down so there are countless ways the device is protected.

Further instrumenting shows that 85 is actually safer because the board temperatures are only slightly lower than the core temperatures, and they can't handle much more so for now I'll leave the default at 85. Note that this is one of the gotchas with water cooling that PC users experienced: the fan for air cooling usually also provides lots of cooling for the motherboard. Don't take the cover off for the boards then stop getting as much airflow.

[gjpminingco]

Con is it possible to Bypass the Rpi that is controling the BJ's and Sierra's and run the boards entirely controlled by a PC or Laptop, maybe it is the pi that is causing the unstable nature of the systems

[defcon23]

Con is it possible to Bypass the Rpi that is controling the BJ's and Sierra's and run the boards entirely controlled by a PC or Laptop, maybe it is the pi that is causing the unstable nature of the systems

sure , you can run it directly from a pc or a laptop, where cgminer is running , that's not a problem.

[-ck]

Con is it possible to Bypass the Rpi that is controling the BJ's and Sierra's and run the boards entirely controlled by a PC or Laptop, maybe it is the pi that is causing the unstable nature of the systems

sure , you can run it directly from a pc or a laptop, where cgminer is running , that's not a problem.

You can run it off any PC, and that's preferable anyway since the RPi is a piece of shit. Just plug in a USB cable. The sierras don't even have one so you have to run them via USB. Any instability still around is firmware related and remember it's still early days since release (even though release was late) but once my sierra is running it does not miss a beat.

[ImI]

Also I have further information that up to 90 degrees is safe so if you are struggling to keep it under 85 with the overclocking and cgminer's throttling is kicking in regularly, you can kick the overheat temp up to 90. I will be changing the default to that in the next version. The device internally sheds cores transiently anyway if it thinks it's overheating, and trips a thermal overload flag should all fail which makes cgminer shut it down so there are countless ways the device is protected.

Further instrumenting shows that 85 is actually safer because the board temperatures are only slightly lower than the core temperatures, and they can't handle much more so for now I'll leave the default at 85. Note that this is one of the gotchas with water cooling that PC users experienced: the fan for air cooling usually also provides lots of cooling for the motherboard. Don't take the cover off for the boards then stop getting as much airflow.

ok. i guess additional fans could help to lower the board temps? at least those BJs have plenty of room inside for additional cooling.

[perezoso]

You can run it off any PC, and that's preferable anyway since the RPi is a piece of shit. Just plug in a USB cable. The sierras don't even have one so you have to run them via USB. Any instability still around is firmware related and remember it's still early days since release (even though release was late) but once my sierra is running it does not miss a beat.

Mine is happily hashing from an old mini PC desktop.  Will try to resolve a driver conflict with Karin's help and get it hashing on the Mac mini later today.

Interestingly, after running overnight, this BJ seems a little off-spec.  It's doing about 395-7 g/hash (running cgminer 3.11).

OTOH, my HW error rate is very low and with an ambient temp of 21c (70f) my processor temp is 69-70c. What did other people get for out of the box processor temps?

I guess I should experiment with overclocking next...  I've seen 610 mentioned... other suggestions?

And sorry ckolivas, I didn't mean to suggest the Mac driver issue was your problem.  It was intended merely as an observation.

And finally... why don't we try to move all this operational discussion over the the user's thread?  I would still like a thread more focused on the company and its operations (and interesting cast of characters), like this one was before HF really started shipping.

In fact, I'm going to xpost over there.

[HazMatt810]

You can run it off any PC, and that's preferable anyway since the RPi is a piece of shit. Just plug in a USB cable. The sierras don't even have one so you have to run them via USB. Any instability still around is firmware related and remember it's still early days since release (even though release was late) but once my sierra is running it does not miss a beat.

Mine is happily hashing from an old mini PC desktop.  Will try to resolve a driver conflict with Karin's help and get it hashing on the Mac mini later today.

Interestingly, after running overnight, this BJ seems a little off-spec.  It's doing about 395-7 g/hash (running cgminer 3.11).

OTOH, my HW error rate is very low and with an ambient temp of 21c (70f) my processor temp is 69-70c. What did other people get for out of the box processor temps?

I guess I should experiment with overclocking next...  I've seen 610 mentioned... other suggestions?

And sorry ckolivas, I didn't mean to suggest the Mac driver issue was your problem.  It was intended merely as an observation.

And finally... why don't we try to move all this operational discussion over the the user's thread?  I would still like a thread more focused on the company and its operations (and interesting cast of characters), like this one was before HF really started shipping.

In fact, I'm going to xpost over there.

Thanks. I'd also like to keep this thread focused on following HasFast activity, since they're not a big fan of communicating with us. Are there any batch one customers who haven't either 1) requested a refund 2) had equipment ship 3) been given tracking info?

Have any batch 2 customers received hardware?

[gateway]

You can run it off any PC, and that's preferable anyway since the RPi is a piece of shit. Just plug in a USB cable. The sierras don't even have one so you have to run them via USB. Any instability still around is firmware related and remember it's still early days since release (even though release was late) but once my sierra is running it does not miss a beat.

Mine is happily hashing from an old mini PC desktop.  Will try to resolve a driver conflict with Karin's help and get it hashing on the Mac mini later today.

Interestingly, after running overnight, this BJ seems a little off-spec.  It's doing about 395-7 g/hash (running cgminer 3.11).

OTOH, my HW error rate is very low and with an ambient temp of 21c (70f) my processor temp is 69-70c. What did other people get for out of the box processor temps?

I guess I should experiment with overclocking next...  I've seen 610 mentioned... other suggestions?

And sorry ckolivas, I didn't mean to suggest the Mac driver issue was your problem.  It was intended merely as an observation.

And finally... why don't we try to move all this operational discussion over the the user's thread?  I would still like a thread more focused on the company and its operations (and interesting cast of characters), like this one was before HF really started shipping.

In fact, I'm going to xpost over there.

610 is good but you might void your warranty by doing this FYI and with any ocing you risk damaging the hw.  So do this at your own risk.. Sorry needed to add this disclaimer.

[mgio]

You can run it off any PC, and that's preferable anyway since the RPi is a piece of shit. Just plug in a USB cable. The sierras don't even have one so you have to run them via USB. Any instability still around is firmware related and remember it's still early days since release (even though release was late) but once my sierra is running it does not miss a beat.

Mine is happily hashing from an old mini PC desktop.  Will try to resolve a driver conflict with Karin's help and get it hashing on the Mac mini later today.

Interestingly, after running overnight, this BJ seems a little off-spec.  It's doing about 395-7 g/hash (running cgminer 3.11).

OTOH, my HW error rate is very low and with an ambient temp of 21c (70f) my processor temp is 69-70c. What did other people get for out of the box processor temps?

I guess I should experiment with overclocking next...  I've seen 610 mentioned... other suggestions?

And sorry ckolivas, I didn't mean to suggest the Mac driver issue was your problem.  It was intended merely as an observation.

And finally... why don't we try to move all this operational discussion over the the user's thread?  I would still like a thread more focused on the company and its operations (and interesting cast of characters), like this one was before HF really started shipping.

In fact, I'm going to xpost over there.

610 is good but you might void your warranty by doing this FYI and with any ocing you risk damaging the hw.  So do this at your own risk.. Sorry needed to add this disclaimer.

Overclocking is the ONLY way you can even hit their promised performance!

If you clock to 610, cgminer will show it runnign at about 450 GH/s. But we know now this is not the REAL hashrate. Eligius will show it running at 425 GH/s. Why? Because cgminer is currently incorrectly counting bad shares (unless you upgrade to 3.11).

Upgrade cgminer to 3.11 and you'll see the hashrate drop to 425, the REAL HASHRATE.

Now, put the settings back to stock (clock 550), cgminer will show 420 GH/s but the real hashrate will be <395 GH/s. Not even the 400 GH/s we were promised.

Once again HashFast has over-promised and under-delivered.

btw, the BJs are not very overclockable. You probably won't be able to go higher than 615 clock without crashes every 30 seconds. I was hoping the BJs would be overclockable to at least 500 GH/s but now it looks like not even 450 GH/s is possible and overclocking is necessary just to hit 400 GH/s.

[jjiimm_64]

610 is good but you might void your warranty by doing this FYI and with any ocing you risk damaging the hw.  So do this at your own risk.. Sorry needed to add this disclaimer.

should the words warranty and HashFast collide in the same sentence?

[jspielberg]

610 is good but you might void your warranty by doing this FYI and with any ocing you risk damaging the hw.  So do this at your own risk.. Sorry needed to add this disclaimer.

should the words warranty and HashFast collide in the same sentence?

At one point Amy posted they would warrant the PCB for a year, but that has yet to materialize.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=278157.msg4162537#msg4162537

[perezoso]

Now, put the settings back to stock (clock 550), cgminer will show 420 GH/s but the real hashrate will be <395 GH/s. Not even the 400 GH/s we were promised.

UPDATE:  Switched around pools I'm getting different results, some better.  So maybe it's a little over 400 gh/s.  Definitely 423 watts, tho...

----

Yep.  This seems to be the case here.  I'm apparently hashing about 395 gh/s and pulling 423 watts at the wall.  It seems to be under spec.  Not hugely, but significantly.  

(cgminer 3.11 default settings)

Piping some very cold-ass air into it from outside, maybe 50f/9c, I can get the processor temp down to mid-60s and the hashrate apparently rises to a little bit over 400, but I can't leave the window open forever!  

[cedivad]

It's under spec. Not hugely, but significantly.

You mean that it's under spec by 1.25%? And that it is significant?

I don't want to defend HF here, but the only thing under spec that matters is the delivery date.

[perezoso]

It's under spec. Not hugely, but significantly.

You mean that it's under spec by 1.25%? And that it is significant?

I don't want to defend HF here, but the only thing under spec that matters is the delivery date.

I wasn't implying anything about the relative importance of the two issues.  Of course if this damn machine had been delivered when promised, it would have been f@rking fantastic... but it wasn't, not by a long shot.  But why don't we keep that side of the discussion in the other thread?

Edit:  Oh, ooops.  I am in the other thread.  Sorry.

[mgio]

It's under spec. Not hugely, but significantly.

You mean that it's under spec by 1.25%? And that it is significant?

I don't want to defend HF here, but the only thing under spec that matters is the delivery date.

I wasn't implying anything about the relative importance of the two issues.  Of course if this damn machine had been delivered when promised, it would have been f@rking fantastic... but it wasn't, not by a long shot.  But why don't we keep that side of the discussion in the other thread?

Edit:  Oh, ooops.  I am in the other thread.  Sorry.

Even it had been delivered on time, it would have been a bit underwhelming.
My KNC Jupiter cost $1362 more but it arrived in early october (2-3 weeks before HF expected shipping date) and runs at 550 GH/s at 575w (roughly the same power efficiency but much faster).

So hashfast would have been competitive if shipped on time, but still not that much better than the rest.

[mgio]

It's good that batch 1 has been shipped and seems to be almost all shipped?

There are some HUGE important questions remaining though which HashFast hasn't gone anywhere near:


1) When will the upgrades for batch 1 ship? When will the November batch (batch 2) ship? How about the November upgrades?? There should be a reasonable estimate for these dates by now.

2) When will the MPP ship??? When will empty BJ cases be available for sale for the MPP boards?


I hope the MPP ships first. The first batch customers ordered the earliest, took the biggest risk, were charged the highest prices, and suffered the most from the rise in BTC relative to anyone else and they appear to be being screwed over more than the rest (i.e. why are Sierras shipping!!?? Those boards are first batch MPP boards!)

[cedivad]

(i.e. why are Sierras shipping!!??)

There were first batch sierras as well.

[regular]

Anyone still waiting for their order?  I had 2 separate babyjet orders but only have received one so far.  Of course no replies to emails or phone calls yet regarding status of the order.

[jspielberg]

Even it had been delivered on time, it would have been a bit underwhelming.
My KNC Jupiter cost $1362 more but it arrived in early october (2-3 weeks before HF expected shipping date) and runs at 550 GH/s at 575w (roughly the same power efficiency but much faster).

So hashfast would have been competitive if shipped on time, but still not that much better than the rest.

If looking at a single BJ1 it looks pretty bad obviously.  With MPP it looks less bad... but that is still a bit of mystery as when we are to get them.