ASICMiner BE300S Samples Arrived, <0.2W/G Achieved at Board Level

[philipma1957]

I would like the cat to make an outstanding miner.  maybe the size of the smaller tube do 2th using 600 watts at the wall .

[1714688398]

1714688398

[1714688398]

1714688398

[jdany]

Naming a chip PMS is just asking for intermittent trouble.

Noyce!

[elasticband]

The 6-chip chain has passed the test:

The next step is to test the board with fully inhabited 24 chips.

Funny, I just wanted to ask how test of chained chips board are comming
Results?

We are waiting for a compilation of data set.

But 7.2GH/s per chip is already achieved, so at least the chain is stable.

whats the power consumption?

[Chris_Sabian]

Will the BE300 boards fit into the Prisma fan/heatsink body?

Yes!  That would be great since there are probably tons of prisma heatsinks and fans laying around with the buy-back.  Since you would only need to ship the new boards, you can save money with shipping.

[Finksy]

AM has said before something about wanting modular style miners.  There aren't a ton of improvements that can be made over the Tube/Prisma cooling design, I could see them offering simply boards, fans, and controllers as bulk buy/piecemeal similar to the way they have done before, but without having to buy the heatsinks.

[dogie]

Will the BE300 boards fit into the Prisma fan/heatsink body?

Yes!  That would be great since there are probably tons of prisma heatsinks and fans laying around with the buy-back.  Since you would only need to ship the new boards, you can save money with shipping.

From earlier statements it appears that the power density of BE300 miners will be lower, and so won't need nearly the same levels of cooling. Sure if a few of the screw holes match up you could put them onto Prisma heatsinks but at this point it may just be overkill.

[TracerX]

AM has said before something about wanting modular style miners.  There aren't a ton of improvements that can be made over the Tube/Prisma cooling design, I could see them offering simply boards, fans, and controllers as bulk buy/piecemeal similar to the way they have done before, but without having to buy the heatsinks.

Or ship the heatsinks, which would be an improvement as well.

[Finksy]

Will the BE300 boards fit into the Prisma fan/heatsink body?

Yes!  That would be great since there are probably tons of prisma heatsinks and fans laying around with the buy-back.  Since you would only need to ship the new boards, you can save money with shipping.

From earlier statements it appears that the power density of BE300 miners will be lower, and so won't need nearly the same levels of cooling. Sure if a few of the screw holes match up you could put them onto Prisma heatsinks but at this point it may just be overkill.

Considering the overall failure of the safety design of Prisma's, overkill may not be out of order in the cooling department.  Besides, the move to 1KW+ miners isn't unwelcome, at least not in my case.  Less miners, less cables, less points of potential failure...

Or ship the heatsinks, which would be an improvement as well.

Agreed, if only they were further in development. They could have made an upgrade/trade-in plan for Prisma owners instead of having to pay all shipping costs back, and presumably re-use the chassis and re-ship to customers. Such is life, by the time these are released I'll be ready to upgrade my Tubes anyways.

[sidehack]

If AM doesn't do it, someone else could. With low power density and over-heatsinking comes very quiet miners that probably won't burst into flames.

[teek]

Will the BE300 boards fit into the Prisma fan/heatsink body?

Yes!  That would be great since there are probably tons of prisma heatsinks and fans laying around with the buy-back.  Since you would only need to ship the new boards, you can save money with shipping.

From earlier statements it appears that the power density of BE300 miners will be lower, and so won't need nearly the same levels of cooling. Sure if a few of the screw holes match up you could put them onto Prisma heatsinks but at this point it may just be overkill.

What do you think about the smaller packaged die size and less over all components on the boards due to PMS chip,  combined with the lower heat density..  potential for x48 to turn into x96 maybe?

7.2gh x 96 = 2.8TH icy cold Prisma's at ~850w?

[Dexter770221]

The 6-chip chain has passed the test:

The next step is to test the board with fully inhabited 24 chips.

Funny, I just wanted to ask how test of chained chips board are comming
Results?

We are waiting for a compilation of data set.

But 7.2GH/s per chip is already achieved, so at least the chain is stable.

whats the power consumption?

First post:
7.2GH/s | 0.2495W/G -> ~1.8W whole chip

[Finksy]

The tubes are currently being used to dissipate -conservatively- 720 Watts (180 Watts per board) of BE200 chips on x24 boards based on their testing of on-board power consumption at the time of development (0.9 J/G).  Extrapolate 180 Watts @ the 1.8 Watts per chip & 7.2 GH/s voltage/frequency combo tested so far, and you could dissipate the heat of 100 BE300s chips per board in a tube-size chassis. An X96 board revised for the smaller die size and made to fit the Tube heatsink package would work splendidly.  Theoretically we could end up with 690 GH/s per board, or a 2.7 TH/s miner and less power draw than a current Tube.  This doesn't even take into account that cooling is easier when spread out over more points of heat source on a heatsink.

[dogie]

Will the BE300 boards fit into the Prisma fan/heatsink body?

Yes!  That would be great since there are probably tons of prisma heatsinks and fans laying around with the buy-back.  Since you would only need to ship the new boards, you can save money with shipping.

From earlier statements it appears that the power density of BE300 miners will be lower, and so won't need nearly the same levels of cooling. Sure if a few of the screw holes match up you could put them onto Prisma heatsinks but at this point it may just be overkill.

What do you think about the smaller packaged die size and less over all components on the boards due to PMS chip,  combined with the lower heat density..  potential for x48 to turn into x96 maybe?

7.2gh x 96 = 2.8TH icy cold Prisma's at ~850w?

I think with the current problems with getting things stable, that the most sensible solution would be a smaller board. If it dies but you've got 15 others in a miner, the consumer is going to mind a hell of a lot less than if you had 4 and 1 was bad. Think Avalon1, mini modules within modules.

[sidehack]

That's sort of the design we're toying with, configurable strings that can be tied together. Our idea is, each module could be run as an independent consumer miner or they could be lumped together into a bigger unit.

[friedcat]

Will the BE300 boards fit into the Prisma fan/heatsink body?

The package turns from QFN to Flip-Chip-LGA, which means that
most heat dissipates to the upper side of the chip instead of PCB,
so... not very appropriate to stick to the piple-like heat dissipation
design.

[Zich]

Will the BE300 boards fit into the Prisma fan/heatsink body?

The package turns from QFN to Flip-Chip-LGA, which means that
most heat dissipates to the upper side of the chip instead of PCB,
so... not very appropriate to stick to the piple-like heat dissipation
design.

And the chip size is 5mm x 5mm ?

[MrTeal]

Will the BE300 boards fit into the Prisma fan/heatsink body?

The package turns from QFN to Flip-Chip-LGA, which means that
most heat dissipates to the upper side of the chip instead of PCB,
so... not very appropriate to stick to the piple-like heat dissipation
design.

FC, you can probably dispel a little confusion here. The MPW samples you have and are testing are not in the same package as the final chips will be in. The production chips will look significantly different than the test chips, and the board package will be different.
Is that correct?

[Dexter770221]

Will the BE300 boards fit into the Prisma fan/heatsink body?

The package turns from QFN to Flip-Chip-LGA, which means that
most heat dissipates to the upper side of the chip instead of PCB,
so... not very appropriate to stick to the piple-like heat dissipation
design.

FC, you can probably dispel a little confusion here. The MPW samples you have and are testing are not in the same package as the final chips will be in. The production chips will look significantly different than the test chips, and the board package will be different.
Is that correct?

Package propably will be the same. I'm quessing that die inside will be little different (more "cores").

[TheRealSteve]

The package turns from QFN to Flip-Chip-LGA,

Package propably will be the same.

These two are inherently incompatible statements

[Dexter770221]

The package turns from QFN to Flip-Chip-LGA,

Package propably will be the same.

These two are inherently incompatible statements

I was reffering to this:

...The MPW samples...final chips...