|
Inspector 2211
|
 |
May 17, 2012, 09:50:57 PM |
|
The question is: For what?
Yes, because I don't see a second one that I would assume would exist when used in a daisy chain fashion. Maybe it's just some simple SPI or [point-to-point] I2C digital I/O that will plug into [an I/O board of] the Raspberry Pi. |
|
|
|
JWU42
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1000
|
|
May 17, 2012, 10:08:57 PM |
|
18 cards was the original plan as I recall.
I hope the push to 17 and higher output per card (i.e., better yield for BF Labs) wasn't at the expense of lower tolerance for heat since the chips are being pushed further....
All that said, the update is greatly appreciated! Further, the specs are right as promised!!!
|
|
|
|
Inaba
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
|
|
May 17, 2012, 10:16:47 PM |
|
It's to replace the USB headers internallly on a mini-rig. The USB headers will still be there but unused unless you remove the card from the chasis.
|
If you're searching these lines for a point, you've probably missed it. There was never anything there in the first place.
|
|
|
|
ice_chill
|
|
May 17, 2012, 10:22:26 PM |
|
Thank you for the update!
Anyone noticed the voltmeter measurement points at the top right ?
|
|
|
|
|
rjk
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
|
|
May 17, 2012, 10:23:20 PM |
|
Thank you for the update!
Anyone noticed the voltmeter measurement points at the top right ?
Singles have those too. But I see all kinds of cool goodies on the board, to be honest. |
|
|
|
|
Inspector 2211
|
|
May 17, 2012, 11:05:20 PM |
|
If I could get them sooner without the enclosure and the Raspberry Pi, I'd rather have my 18 boards as-is. OK, heat sinks would be nice.
Speaking of:
I have this theory that at least some of the cooling problems of [few] "problem Singles" originate from a lack of co-planarity between the two FPGAs, leading to a void between heat sink and FPGA at one or even both of the FPGAs. OK, not literally a void, but an area where the thermal paste is very thick, and that's not good.
|
|
|
|
Garr255
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 938
Merit: 1000
What's a GPU?
|
|
May 18, 2012, 03:09:09 AM |
|
If I could get them sooner without the enclosure and the Raspberry Pi, I'd rather have my 18 boards as-is. OK, heat sinks would be nice.
Speaking of:
I have this theory that at least some of the cooling problems of [few] "problem Singles" originate from a lack of co-planarity between the two FPGAs, leading to a void between heat sink and FPGA at one or even both of the FPGAs. OK, not literally a void, but an area where the thermal paste is very thick, and that's not good.
It also seems common for the heatsinks to slip while shipping. BFL, what are you doing to accommodate this? |
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” -- Mahatma Gandhi
Average time between signing on to bitcointalk: Two weeks. Please don't expect responses any faster than that!
|
|
|
Epoch
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 922
Merit: 1003
|
|
May 18, 2012, 03:19:50 AM |
|
I have this theory that at least some of the cooling problems of [few] "problem Singles" originate from a lack of co-planarity between the two FPGAs, leading to a void between heat sink and FPGA at one or even both of the FPGAs. OK, not literally a void, but an area where the thermal paste is very thick, and that's not good.
That is a good theory, Inspector, and I agree with you. Cooling performance of the Rev3 units (single heatsink servicing both FPGAs) is dependent to some degree on the co-planarity of the chips, which is difficult to achieve in practice. If the 2 FPGAs each had their own heatsink the cooling performance might be better. It seems to be sufficient, however, to achieve the rated 832Mhps at 22C ambient with the stock fan(s). Perhaps not ideal or optimized, but sufficient. At this point I tend not to complain. |
|
|
|
|
|
bulanula
|
|
May 19, 2012, 02:03:38 PM |
|
OK. Anyone have an idea of the chips they are using now ? 750 MHash/s for a single chip really is strange and very high. I am afraid this is the death of GPUs  unless 7990 comes out soon. Any update for EU buyers and VAT avoidance  I really want to buy but the VAT kills it. |
|
|
|
|
|
bulanula
|
|
May 19, 2012, 02:09:36 PM |
|
Can't edit post above but it seems there is this writing on the chips this time around :
NDBAN20242
4PDHATWOA
Can't find anything about these but they look very strange indeed for a FPGA chip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inspector 2211
|
|
May 19, 2012, 02:27:25 PM |
|
I think this time it is a structured ASIC.
They handed over some 300 grand to Altera to have a HardCopy chip (structured ASIC) made.
Naturally, without the parasitic capacitance of all the interconnect transistors, the HardCopy is faster and more power efficient.
|
|
|
|
|
ice_chill
|
|
May 19, 2012, 02:52:57 PM |
|
So the Single is an FPGA so can be reused for a similar task, but mini-rig is a proper ASIC so application specific, no reuse possible ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Inspector 2211
|
|
May 19, 2012, 06:58:43 PM |
|
So the Single is an FPGA so can be reused for a similar task, but mini-rig is a proper ASIC so application specific, no reuse possible ?
It's my best guess - don't take it for a fact just yet. |
|
|
|
KIDC
Member
Offline
Activity: 80
Merit: 10
|
|
June 01, 2012, 12:50:18 AM |
|
What I'd like to know is how this is going to interact with the host unit. Since it's "BitForce V 2.0" it seems like it would just work with cgminer, et al. just like the Singles. Does anybody know for sure? I haven't seen BFL make a statement on this as such. Maybe they could (wink wink)? Also, would it be a problem if it was reported to this host as one huge device doing 25,000 mhash? These are things I would wonder about if I were to drop 15.5k on dedicated mining hardware.
|
"He who controls the past commands the future. He who commands the future, conquers the past."
|
|
|
JWU42
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1666
Merit: 1000
|
|
June 01, 2012, 03:22:05 AM |
|
cgminer has handled well over 25 Gh/s in one instance - it is ready...
|
|
|
|
tgmarks
Donator
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 490
Merit: 500
|
|
June 01, 2012, 04:45:11 AM |
|
What I'd like to know is how this is going to interact with the host unit. Since it's "BitForce V 2.0" it seems like it would just work with cgminer, et al. just like the Singles. Does anybody know for sure? I haven't seen BFL make a statement on this as such. Maybe they could (wink wink)? Also, would it be a problem if it was reported to this host as one huge device doing 25,000 mhash? These are things I would wonder about if I were to drop 15.5k on dedicated mining hardware.
These are valid questions, but with them showing the Raspberry Pi inside I was thinking it was its own host unit. |
|
|
|
KIDC
Member
Offline
Activity: 80
Merit: 10
|
|
June 01, 2012, 04:53:46 AM |
|
What I'd like to know is how this is going to interact with the host unit. Since it's "BitForce V 2.0" it seems like it would just work with cgminer, et al. just like the Singles. Does anybody know for sure? I haven't seen BFL make a statement on this as such. Maybe they could (wink wink)? Also, would it be a problem if it was reported to this host as one huge device doing 25,000 mhash? These are things I would wonder about if I were to drop 15.5k on dedicated mining hardware.
These are valid questions, but with them showing the Raspberry Pi inside I was thinking it was its own host unit. My understanding was that the Raspberry Pi was optional - that it had the mounting area for it but that it didn't ship with the unit. |
"He who controls the past commands the future. He who commands the future, conquers the past."
|
|
|
|
WhitePhantom
|
|
June 01, 2012, 07:32:48 AM |
|
What I'd like to know is how this is going to interact with the host unit. Since it's "BitForce V 2.0" it seems like it would just work with cgminer, et al. just like the Singles. Does anybody know for sure? I haven't seen BFL make a statement on this as such. Maybe they could (wink wink)? Also, would it be a problem if it was reported to this host as one huge device doing 25,000 mhash? These are things I would wonder about if I were to drop 15.5k on dedicated mining hardware.
These are valid questions, but with them showing the Raspberry Pi inside I was thinking it was its own host unit. My understanding was that the Raspberry Pi was optional - that it had the mounting area for it but that it didn't ship with the unit. That's correct. Sonny told me yesterday that you can either run the mini-rig with a Raspberry Pi or via USB to a host PC. |
|
|
|
|
mrb
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1028
|
|
June 01, 2012, 12:14:25 PM |
|
Can't edit post above but it seems there is this writing on the chips this time around :
NDBAN20242
4PDHATWOA
Can't find anything about these but they look very strange indeed for a FPGA chip.
These are Altera's Lot Number and Trace Code. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=84651.0 |
|
|
|
|
|
TheSeven
|
|
June 02, 2012, 07:56:16 PM |
|
That SATA port looks interesting. I was about to post the same thing, but it's labeled "X-LINK" and since a SATA port doesn't make sense (the bandwidth is not that high and the mini rig will have a Raspberry Pi as a controller, not a a PC motherboard with 18 SATA ports), I assume that they just re-purposed the SATA connector and SATA cables for something else. The question is: For what? I know I'm late, but the answer is: For that!  |
My tip jar: 13kwqR7B4WcSAJCYJH1eXQcxG5vVUwKAqY
|
|
|
|
