Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 08:36:48 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Leading SHA256 Solution Provider Acquires Venture Capital Funding  (Read 5542 times)
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


felonious vagrancy, personified


View Profile WWW
June 17, 2012, 07:50:31 PM
 #41


I'm sorry, I know the silliness factor is already pretty high with the claimed 5600% improvement in efficiency:

… ~40x efficiency improvement for SHA256 hashing from 65nm FPGA to 130nm ASIC.

Spartans are 45nm FPGA, not 65nm.

So what? Do you know what node BFL used?

No, and I don't care.  They're claiming 5600% improvement over the current best MH/J, which is Spartan-6.  Spartan-6 is 45nm.

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
1480883808
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480883808

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480883808
Reply with quote  #2

1480883808
Report to moderator
1480883808
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480883808

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480883808
Reply with quote  #2

1480883808
Report to moderator
1480883808
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480883808

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480883808
Reply with quote  #2

1480883808
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480883808
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480883808

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480883808
Reply with quote  #2

1480883808
Report to moderator
1480883808
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480883808

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480883808
Reply with quote  #2

1480883808
Report to moderator
P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
June 17, 2012, 07:59:38 PM
 #42

If you had read the papers I linked, you would have seen how that kind of power efficiency is more than plausible with a 130nm asic, nevermind a 90 or 65nm one.

I honestly wouldnt have thought someone with your background would even need to see such papers to believe that though, so Im gonna assume you are just pretending.

eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


felonious vagrancy, personified


View Profile WWW
June 17, 2012, 08:07:26 PM
 #43


WTF?  What part of "not peer reviewed" do you not understand?  This is some powerpoint slide deck thrown together by a student.  About as academically credible as my press release.



Right there on the front page almost in <blink> tags:

Quote
Our objective is to use the FPGA as a prototyping technology for the ASIC, rather than a direct technology target. Hence, dedicated FPGA optimizations are not used.

They didn't optimize the FPGA design at all.  Notice that their performance section only compares the ASIC implementations against each other (which was the whole point of the paper), not against the FPGA implementation.


The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
sadpandatech
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
June 17, 2012, 08:08:13 PM
 #44

If you had read the papers I linked, you would have seen how that kind of power efficiency is more than plausible with a 130nm asic, nevermind a 90 or 65nm one.

I honestly wouldnt have thought someone with your background would even need to see such papers to believe that though, so Im gonna assume you are just pretending.

I read those papers but could not find where almost 100% utilization of the chips they were using would provide such effciency. I saw the low mW usage listed for each participants section but no indication of the actual utilization of the silicon in those sections to indicate whether the MHz they were running at was maxed out, etc. And we have no clue at this point what Freq BFL will be running theirs at.

If you're not excited by the idea of being an early adopter 'now', then you should come back in three or four years and either tell us "Told you it'd never work!" or join what should, by then, be a much more stable and easier-to-use system. - GA
It is being worked on by smart people. -DamienBlack
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


felonious vagrancy, personified


View Profile WWW
June 17, 2012, 08:14:38 PM
 #45

...

If you had read the papers I linked...

Damn, dude, you expect me to read them in 9 minutes? (see timestamps above)  Anyways, please refer to the ginormous red text two posts back; it answers your concern.  I made it big and huge and glaring and red so you wouldn't miss it this time.

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 17, 2012, 08:19:21 PM
 #46

To be fair, the paper from Virginia Tech is also using 0.13 standard cell. If BFL isn't lying about the ASIC being full custom, there could be optimizations on the ASIC side as well.
P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
June 17, 2012, 08:24:38 PM
 #47


Right there on the front page almost in <blink> tags:


Great, so you (mis)read the first paragraph,  now scroll down to the last page and see the power and performance results for the reference 130nm asic implementation.  
Roll Eyes


P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
June 17, 2012, 08:42:35 PM
 #48

To be fair, the paper from Virginia Tech is also using 0.13 standard cell. If BFL isn't lying about the ASIC being full custom, there could be optimizations on the ASIC side as well.

Highly unlikely they used anything other than standard cell. But their published performance is completely believable for a 130nm standard cell implementation (particularly if its optimized for bitcoin only) and no one has said its 130nm, it could even be a smaller node.

Some skepticism regarding BFLs claims and in particular, the timetable is warranted, but its ridiculous to pretend these numbers are somehow completely impossible.

P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
June 17, 2012, 08:57:53 PM
 #49

If you want to see what a 90nm asic could do:
http://www.cosic.esat.kuleuven.be/publications/article-1500.pdf
Table 3
5.5 Gbps @ 3.1mW

MrTeal
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246


View Profile
June 17, 2012, 09:22:10 PM
 #50

If you want to see what a 90nm asic could do:
http://www.cosic.esat.kuleuven.be/publications/article-1500.pdf
Table 3
5.5 Gbps @ 3.1mW
Would a core throughput of 5.5Gbps translate to a single through hashrate of 10MH/s, and a double SHA2 hashrate of ~5MH/s?
rjk
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


1ngldh


View Profile
June 17, 2012, 09:24:25 PM
 #51

If you want to see what a 90nm asic could do:
http://www.cosic.esat.kuleuven.be/publications/article-1500.pdf
Table 3
5.5 Gbps @ 3.1mW
5.5 Gbps is at a core frequency of 735 Mhz, and the 3.1mW power number has this note by it: "The power consumption is estimated for the frequency of 100 MHz". Furthermore, all the numbers are synthesized. They say they plan to tape out all the different implementations for comparison, but I don't think that's actually been done yet.

Mining Rig Extraordinaire - the Trenton BPX6806 18-slot PCIe backplane [PICS] Dead project is dead, all hail the coming of the mighty ASIC!
eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


felonious vagrancy, personified


View Profile WWW
June 17, 2012, 09:47:46 PM
 #52

Right there on the front page almost in <blink> tags:
Great, so you (mis)read the first paragraph,  now scroll down to the last page and see the power and performance results for the reference 130nm asic implementation.  
Roll Eyes


Quote
Our objective is to use the FPGA as a prototyping technology for the ASIC, rather than a direct technology target. Hence, dedicated FPGA optimizations are not used.

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
June 17, 2012, 10:03:09 PM
 #53

Maybe if you render the entire paper in that same big red font you can actually read it and understand that the FPGA was used for prototyping and therefore FPGA specific optimizations where not used. Now read about the ASIC, will you?

Oh well, I guess you are just trolling. You can lead a horse a water...

eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


felonious vagrancy, personified


View Profile WWW
June 17, 2012, 10:33:43 PM
 #54

Maybe if you render the entire paper in that same big red font you can actually read it and understand that the FPGA was used for prototyping and therefore FPGA specific optimizations where not used. Now read about the ASIC, will you?

Quote
Our objective is to use the FPGA as a prototyping technology for the ASIC, rather than a direct technology target. Hence, dedicated FPGA optimizations are not used.

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
June 17, 2012, 10:38:03 PM
 #55

Still stuck on page 1 I see.
Here I was thinking you were smart. Roll Eyes

Let me try big fonts.

BECAUSE THEIR GOAL IS BUILDING AN ASIC

WTF do you want them to optimize for an FPGA? Go read the ASIC results.

eldentyrell
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


felonious vagrancy, personified


View Profile WWW
June 17, 2012, 10:57:07 PM
 #56

WTF do you want them to optimize for an FPGA?

Oh, I dunno, maybe because you posted the paper in defense of this comment?

Its completely in line with academic papers and even a SHA256 research chip which promised ~40x efficiency improvement for SHA256 hashing from 65nm FPGA to 130nm ASIC.

BTW, I can post that paragraph from the first page again in blue if you like!

The printing press heralded the end of the Dark Ages and made the Enlightenment possible, but it took another three centuries before any country managed to put freedom of the press beyond the reach of legislators.  So it may take a while before cryptocurrencies are free of the AML-NSA-KYC surveillance plague.
P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
June 17, 2012, 11:10:08 PM
 #57

You realize they are different documents right?  If you had read my posts or read beyond page 1 of the paper you keep quoting, you might have noticed at the end it has actual performance and power numbers for the asic implementation. You can compare that to whatever  uber optimized fpga you want, so who the fuck cares about that quote of yours about what they did during prototyping. Their ASIC numbers are NOT relative to the FPGA prototype, those arent even published.

The other document, the powerpoint, is a head on comparison between FPGA and ASIC implementations.

But who cares, clearly you are not interested in reading or finding out what you dont want to know.

galambo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 390



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 01:17:00 AM
 #58

See this is the stage where all the geeks on the forum argue until they basically come up with a plausible design for BFL's products given their vaguely specified performance claims.

And, if BFL is a dishonest actor, they could use this information to continue being dishonest.
dropt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1442



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 05:11:56 AM
 #59

See this is the stage where all the geeks on the forum argue until they basically come up with a plausible design for BFL's products given their vaguely specified performance claims.

And, if BFL is a dishonest actor, they could use this information to continue being dishonest.

You're mem, aren't you?  +1 for the ignore list just in case.  Furthermore, these guys aren't geeks;  they're educated individuals.  You've obviously got nothing to add, it'd be my suggestion to shut-up and maybe you'll learn something.
P4man
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 06:57:09 AM
 #60

If you want to see what a 90nm asic could do:
http://www.cosic.esat.kuleuven.be/publications/article-1500.pdf
Table 3
5.5 Gbps @ 3.1mW
5.5 Gbps is at a core frequency of 735 Mhz, and the 3.1mW power number has this note by it: "The power consumption is estimated for the frequency of 100 MHz". Furthermore, all the numbers are synthesized. They say they plan to tape out all the different implementations for comparison, but I don't think that's actually been done yet.

Sure, they are estimates  based on pre-layout synthesis, and afaik the 90nm chip hasnt been built, but at this point the same probably goes for the BFL chip, so its not an unfair comparison Wink. The 130nm chip was build. In fact, you can request a free sample if you want.

ITs also worth pointing out these chips are not optimized for bitcoin, but general purpose sha2 hashers. The 130nm chip isnt even optimized for SHA2 the whole paper describes all the trade offs they made to get those 5 or whatever competing SHA3 algorithms implemented. Whatever you want to read in to the results, they are not the highest possible, most definitely not for bitcoin.

Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!