Using parallella board 16x core to mine

[Bravomatic]

Does anyone know enough about these boards to understand if they can be good to manage your mine?

http://www.parallella.org/board/

The 66-core version of the Parallella computer delivers over 90 GFLOPS on a board the size of a credit card while consuming only 5 Watts under typical work loads. For certain applications, this would provide more raw performance than a high end server costing thousands of dollars and consuming 400W.

90 flops is vary fast and can deliver faster results with ASCI??

 

[-ck]

Completely useless in today's ASIC mining era, they would not remotely have any useful hashrate. No commodity hardware can possibly remotely compete with any ASIC ever again unless they add ASICs specific for bitcoin mining into the hardware itself.

[Bravomatic]

I was referring to how its sent its work from the controller. If the controller can process more data then it can provide faster workloads and yield higher hash-rates?

such as for a controller the ras pi is 30 flops

this paralle board is 90 flops...can this be a faster system with gridseeds attached...

[howardb]

The parallella board is far more interesting as a scrypt vehicle, but we need to wait for the 64 processor version for it to start to get interesting.

[-ck]

I was referring to how its sent its work from the controller. If the controller can process more data then it can provide faster workloads and yield higher hash-rates?

such as for a controller the ras pi is 30 flops

this paralle board is 90 flops...can this be a faster system with gridseeds attached...

Controllers don't need much power at all to send and receive work. The cointerra (which is currently the single most powerful standalone mining hardware) uses a beaglebone black to produce 1.6TH. Bad design implementation (hardware and driver) is the only reason one might need lots of power in the controller.

[Bravomatic]

oh ok. thanks...

[Operatr]

The parallella board is far more interesting as a scrypt vehicle, but we need to wait for the 64 processor version for it to start to get interesting.

I read some talk about this on another forum, but now that Scrypt ASICs are appearing this board would have no hope against them. Scrypt pretty much just skipped FPGAs and went directly to ASICs as FPGAs give horrible Scrypt hashing performance. Though, this is exactly why Scrypt was implemented to make FPGAs and ASICs much less effective.

[-ck]

Scrypt pretty much just skipped FPGAs and went directly to ASICs as FPGAs give horrible Scrypt hashing performance. Though, this is exactly why Scrypt was implemented to make FPGAs and ASICs much less effective.

Not really. It was developed to make GPUs less effective, yet it failed on that front and then everything else followed too.

[seriouscoin]

Scrypt pretty much just skipped FPGAs and went directly to ASICs as FPGAs give horrible Scrypt hashing performance. Though, this is exactly why Scrypt was implemented to make FPGAs and ASICs much less effective.

Not really. It was developed to make GPUs less effective, yet it failed on that front and then everything else followed too.

+1