tldr: Why isn't KNC able to compete with *55nm bitfury's W/GH?

[dogie]

Small thread as its not viable to sift through 100s of pages in each camp. Equally, each thread is filled with die hard supports who can't see the logic from the fud.

The question is, how is bitfury able to achieve 0.8W/GH (confirmed, in hand, 3rd party tested, from WALL) with 655nm, yet KNC is only predicting 1.6W/GH (theoretical, not tested a chip yet, not tested hash rate etc)? Who fucked up? Is KNC lying about their process node?

[dogie]

Small thread as its not viable to sift through 100s of pages in each camp. Equally, each thread is filled with die hard supports who can't see the logic from the fud.

The question is, how is bitfury able to achieve 0.8W/GH (confirmed, in hand, 3rd party tested, from WALL) with 65nm, yet KNC is only predicting 1.6W/GH (theoretical, not tested a chip yet, not tested hash rate etc)? Who fucked up? Is KNC lying about their process node?

I won't even bother going into detail. I'll just leave this here.

Bitfury Chips were supposed to hash at 5GH, they hash at 2.7GH

KnC Chips are supposed to Hash at 100+ GH if you want 0.8W at the wall, underclock them 1.8x to 55GH and see what the power draw is

There we go, the KNCKrew coming out with their retarded logic. You've said NOTHING in that post, literally.

[tom99]

Small thread as its not viable to sift through 100s of pages in each camp. Equally, each thread is filled with die hard supports who can't see the logic from the fud.

The question is, how is bitfury able to achieve 0.8W/GH (confirmed, in hand, 3rd party tested, from WALL) with 65nm, yet KNC is only predicting 1.6W/GH (theoretical, not tested a chip yet, not tested hash rate etc)? Who fucked up? Is KNC lying about their process node?

   Bitfury asic chip is 55nm but not 65 and BFL is using 65 asic chip.

[tacotime]

Probably because the 55 nM chips from BitFury are circuitry works of art while the KnC chips are thought to be direct ports of the logic circuits derived from their own less efficient FPGAs.  KnC also chose to work on a more difficult process, so they may experience piss poor initial yields that require huge amounts of voltage to hash.  I would be wary of "predicted" efficiency numbers, as BFL's predictions were off by almost an order of magnitude.  Even BitFury was unable to meet their target, but got pretty close.

[dogie]

Probably because the 55 nM chips from BitFury are circuitry works of art while the KnC chips are thought to be direct ports of the logic circuits derived from their own less efficient FPGAs.  KnC also chose to work on a more difficult process, so they may experience piss poor initial yields that require huge amounts of voltage to hash.  I would be wary of "predicted" efficiency numbers, as BFL's predictions were off by almost an order of magnitude.  Even BitFury was unable to meet their target, but got pretty close.

Thats what it looked like, KNC with their 'market leading skills' got it super wrong.

[rustyh17]

Bitfury purposely underclocked the chip to achieve competitive power specs. That essentially means
they are willing to deliver more total hardware for the equivalent hash rate. To me, that means KnC
will have a lower (ultimate) price point than Bitfury when the pricing war is over.

I'm not sure I understand why you say that Bargraphics has displayed retarded logic. I know him and
I know that he is not a single camp kind of guy. To me, his statement is not coming out in support of
KnC. To me, he is simply stating that in order to have the same power draw for a given hash rate, the
55nm hardware has to be underclocked and over-supplied (comparatively).

Everyone is singing the praises of 28nm architecture, saying that it is the best bang for the buck. All
I see is spending a tremendous amount of upfront money for a huge risk and offloading that risk to a
bunch of pre-ordering ASIC junkies (us). I don't like it. I believe that Bitfury hit the nail squarely on
the head. I believe they will underclock to compete with the 28nm folk and just have an incrementally
higher hardware cost. They may not see the profit that the 28nm folk could ultimately generate, but
they also took A LOT less risk and spent A LOT less OPM (other people's money). Very commendable and
admirable in my opinion.

Lastly, we really don't know what KnC will yield. We only know their estimated power. It could come in
anywhere really. If their chip isn't custom routed like Bitfury's, then is it possible that their performance
differential will only be due to using smaller architecture.

[trigeek]

Bitfury purposely underclocked the chip to achieve competitive power specs. That essentially means
they are willing to deliver more total hardware for the equivalent hash rate. To me, that means KnC
will have a lower (ultimate) price point than Bitfury when the pricing war is over.

I don't think that logic follows at all.  Bitfury did the math and figured out that for their OWN uses, it was cheaper in the long run to use more chips.  More chips means more complexity and more up-front costs, but if it saves you power in the long run then it is worth it.  Since they are building their own huge mine, they want the best performance per watt as well as the highest reliability.

Saying that KNC will have a lower "ultimate" price point may be true for up front costs... but not lifetime costs. Evaluating lifetime costs is what is going to tell you what your full return on investment will be.

[Dexter770221]

No one tested Bitfury chips with external clock (or at least I can't find data) so efficiency may be even better! Rising voltage to get internal clock to get more speed also rises power, and this may be unnecessary. Like in this initial testing. Best reported efficiency is 0.3W/GH!
https://bitcentury.io/blog/initial-testing-of-bitfury-asic

[Soros Shorts]

My guess is that Bitfury is very skilled in analog chip design and the use of custom transistors, thus enabling him to handcraft a high performance digital chip using only 55nm. On the other hand the KnC/ORSoC people are probably more comfortable with using building blocks (standard cell, FPGA ports, etc.).

[dogie]

Bitfury purposely underclocked the chip to achieve competitive power specs. That essentially means
they are willing to deliver more total hardware for the equivalent hash rate. To me, that means KnC
will have a lower (ultimate) price point than Bitfury when the pricing war is over.

I don't think that logic follows at all.  Bitfury did the math and figured out that for their OWN uses, it was cheaper in the long run to use more chips.  More chips means more complexity and more up-front costs, but if it saves you power in the long run then it is worth it.  Since they are building their own huge mine, they want the best performance per watt as well as the highest reliability.

Saying that KNC will have a lower "ultimate" price point may be true for up front costs... but not lifetime costs. Evaluating lifetime costs is what is going to tell you what your full return on investment will be.

To put this in perspective, anyone that that has a huge mining operation is going to get at or below $0.02/kWH

The Cost Savings on 100TH of Bitfury equipment if they are 0.8W/GH - 80kWh - $1.6/Hr -$38.4/Day - $1152/Month

vs KnC 100TH at 1.6W/GH - 160kWh - $3.2/Hr - $76.8/Day - $2304/Month

Oh and the difficulty would have to be 85,000,000,000 - That's 85 Billion before you break even on Electricity Cost for KnC - Thats 680/PH. You must be thinking pretty far ahead man!

Industrial power at $0.02, lol. Why do you think ASICMiner had such a hard time scaling?

[BTClobsta]

Bitfury purposely underclocked the chip to achieve competitive power specs. That essentially means
they are willing to deliver more total hardware for the equivalent hash rate. To me, that means KnC
will have a lower (ultimate) price point than Bitfury when the pricing war is over.

I'm not sure I understand why you say that Bargraphics has displayed retarded logic. I know him and
I know that he is not a single camp kind of guy. To me, his statement is not coming out in support of
KnC. To me, he is simply stating that in order to have the same power draw for a given hash rate, the
55nm hardware has to be underclocked and over-supplied (comparatively).

Everyone is singing the praises of 28nm architecture, saying that it is the best bang for the buck. All
I see is spending a tremendous amount of upfront money for a huge risk and offloading that risk to a
bunch of pre-ordering ASIC junkies (us). I don't like it. I believe that Bitfury hit the nail squarely on
the head. I believe they will underclock to compete with the 28nm folk and just have an incrementally
higher hardware cost. They may not see the profit that the 28nm folk could ultimately generate, but
they also took A LOT less risk and spent A LOT less OPM (other people's money). Very commendable and
admirable in my opinion.

Lastly, we really don't know what KnC will yield. We only know their estimated power. It could come in
anywhere really. If their chip isn't custom routed like Bitfury's, then is it possible that their performance
differential will only be due to using smaller architecture.

agreed. it is underclocked just to insure longevity of the chips. thous not dealing with much customer support for RMA. while allowing them to have more time to do research on future projects. i love the way they do business. also they are the only ones that was able to even ship out at the speed claimed.

[Ytterbium]

Probably because the 55 nM chips from BitFury are circuitry works of art while the KnC chips are thought to be direct ports of the logic circuits derived from their own less efficient FPGAs.  KnC also chose to work on a more difficult process, so they may experience piss poor initial yields that require huge amounts of voltage to hash.  I would be wary of "predicted" efficiency numbers, as BFL's predictions were off by almost an order of magnitude.  Even BitFury was unable to meet their target, but got pretty close.

Thats what it looked like, KNC with their 'market leading skills' got it super wrong.

KnC went with a standard cell design, rather then full custom.  Doing so probably reduced the risks and cost, while reducing performance per watt and per mm². Cointerra and HashFast likely went full custom and have better performance numbers.  

Anyway, it's going to be a long time before power becomes a major cost consideration with ASIC mining so who cares? All that matters at this point is whether or not your hardware ROIs in a month or two.  Cointerra already lowered their prices to $3/Gh for January and we'll likely see tons of price cuts as the market is flooded and difficulty goes through the roof.

[hammurabi]

Probably because the 55 nM chips from BitFury are circuitry works of art while the KnC chips are thought to be direct ports of the logic circuits derived from their own less efficient FPGAs.  KnC also chose to work on a more difficult process, so they may experience piss poor initial yields that require huge amounts of voltage to hash.  I would be wary of "predicted" efficiency numbers, as BFL's predictions were off by almost an order of magnitude.  Even BitFury was unable to meet their target, but got pretty close.

That might be right. BitFury's chip is probably very well optimized.
Keep also in mind that KNC team is more like Friedcat in terms of announcements. They announce what they know is 100% sure.
Other vendors tend to announce fairy tales. Including BitFury to some degree, as you noticed.
For that reason I am expecting that real knc specs might surpass actual figures by some margin.

[Bitcoinorama]

Probably because the 55 nM chips from BitFury are circuitry works of art while the KnC chips are thought to be direct ports of the logic circuits derived from their own less efficient FPGAs.  KnC also chose to work on a more difficult process, so they may experience piss poor initial yields that require huge amounts of voltage to hash.  I would be wary of "predicted" efficiency numbers, as BFL's predictions were off by almost an order of magnitude.  Even BitFury was unable to meet their target, but got pretty close.

Are you even aware that KnC have stated only their pessimistic worst case scenarios?! where as Butterfly Labs, Bitfury, Hashfast, Cointerra etc. are the ones that are stating their "predicted" (simulated) best case which is impossible to achieve. That's the difference between marketing and formally trained engineers. In no way do I wish to do Bitfury a disservice as I believe he is a very bright guy and genuinely had the best intentions, and as for Cointerra, they have the credentials, but they are so late to the party they have to make bold claims or no one would fund them. Hashfast are flat out lying about delivery and their Ts&Cs reflect that.

[Ytterbium]

Probably because the 55 nM chips from BitFury are circuitry works of art while the KnC chips are thought to be direct ports of the logic circuits derived from their own less efficient FPGAs.  KnC also chose to work on a more difficult process, so they may experience piss poor initial yields that require huge amounts of voltage to hash.  I would be wary of "predicted" efficiency numbers, as BFL's predictions were off by almost an order of magnitude.  Even BitFury was unable to meet their target, but got pretty close.

Are you even aware that KnC have stated only their pessimistic worst case scenarios?! where as Butterfly Labs, Bitfury, Hashfast, Cointerra etc. are the ones that are stating their "predicted" (simulated) best case which is impossible to achieve. That's the difference between marketing and formally trained engineers. In no way do I wish to do Bitfury a disservice as I believe he genuinely had the best intentions, and as for Cointerra, they have the credentials, but they are so late to the party they have to make bold claims or no one would fund them. Hashfast are flat out lying about delivery and their Ts&Cs reflect that.

You really need some perspective, dude. I doubt KnC Jupiter are going to run at less then 500W hashing at 500Gh/s if they're recommending an 850W PSU.

There's nothing wrong with KnC's chips running hotter, since they're actually cheaper.

[Bitcoinorama]

Probably because the 55 nM chips from BitFury are circuitry works of art while the KnC chips are thought to be direct ports of the logic circuits derived from their own less efficient FPGAs.  KnC also chose to work on a more difficult process, so they may experience piss poor initial yields that require huge amounts of voltage to hash.  I would be wary of "predicted" efficiency numbers, as BFL's predictions were off by almost an order of magnitude.  Even BitFury was unable to meet their target, but got pretty close.

Are you even aware that KnC have stated only their pessimistic worst case scenarios?! where as Butterfly Labs, Bitfury, Hashfast, Cointerra etc. are the ones that are stating their "predicted" (simulated) best case which is impossible to achieve. That's the difference between marketing and formally trained engineers. In no way do I wish to do Bitfury a disservice as I believe he genuinely had the best intentions, and as for Cointerra, they have the credentials, but they are so late to the party they have to make bold claims or no one would fund them. Hashfast are flat out lying about delivery and their Ts&Cs reflect that.

You really need some perspective, dude. I doubt KnC Jupiter are going to run at less then 500W hashing at 500Gh/s if they're recommending an 850W PSU.

There's nothing wrong with KnC's chips running hotter, since they're actually cheaper.

Right is that not significantly better than their original claims of 250Gh/s and under 1000w? so what perspective do I need exactly? My point still stands they have been pessimistic so as to under promise and over deliver, and not push marketing BS such as Butterfly Labs and the ilk who are claiming their simulated best case as feasible so as to lock in pre-order cash to fund their NRE and future lifestyles.

[mmitech]

Probably because the 55 nM chips from BitFury are circuitry works of art while the KnC chips are thought to be direct ports of the logic circuits derived from their own less efficient FPGAs.  KnC also chose to work on a more difficult process, so they may experience piss poor initial yields that require huge amounts of voltage to hash.  I would be wary of "predicted" efficiency numbers, as BFL's predictions were off by almost an order of magnitude.  Even BitFury was unable to meet their target, but got pretty close.

Are you even aware that KnC have stated only their pessimistic worst case scenarios?! where as Butterfly Labs, Bitfury, Hashfast, Cointerra etc. are the ones that are stating their "predicted" (simulated) best case which is impossible to achieve. That's the difference between marketing and formally trained engineers. In no way do I wish to do Bitfury a disservice as I believe he genuinely had the best intentions, and as for Cointerra, they have the credentials, but they are so late to the party they have to make bold claims or no one would fund them. Hashfast are flat out lying about delivery and their Ts&Cs reflect that.

You really need some perspective, dude. I doubt KnC Jupiter are going to run at less then 500W hashing at 500Gh/s if they're recommending an 850W PSU.

There's nothing wrong with KnC's chips running hotter, since they're actually cheaper.

am I missing any news!!! KNC has a chip already ? you are both both talking like you have evidence of a working chip and its results that community is not aware of ( or at least I am not, I haven't been following everything lately )

[Ytterbium]

Right is that not significantly better than their original claims of 250Gh/s and under 1000w? so what perspective do I need exactly? My point still stands they have been pessimistic so as to under promise and over deliver,

The perspective is you need to chill, seems like you're taking it personally that someone thinks bitfury's design is better, which is pretty much irrelevant. KnC's are cheaper, come with a case and are pre-configured and plug and play. Obviously a better deal.

But they'll likely need to go for a full custom core to compete with other 28nm chips in the future.

[dogie]

Right is that not significantly better than their original claims of 250Gh/s and under 1000w? so what perspective do I need exactly? My point still stands they have been pessimistic so as to under promise and over deliver,

The perspective is you need to chill, seems like you're taking it personally that someone thinks bitfury's design is better, which is pretty much irrelevant. KnC's are cheaper, come with a case and are pre-configured and plug and play. Obviously a better deal.

But they'll likely need to go for a full custom core to compete with other 28nm chips in the future.

One still doesn't exist though

[Adano]

My guess is that Bitfury is very skilled in analog chip design and the use of custom transistors, thus enabling him to handcraft a high performance digital chip using only 55nm. On the other hand the KnC/ORSoC people are probably more comfortable with using building blocks (standard cell, FPGA ports, etc.).

Bitfury never designed chip in his life before. This one is his first one. Also he says 5-6 years ago he didn't know who are Ampere and Volt and where do they meet each other. This is what he says.