ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[runeks]

Well, if you want to ramp up production with more than one manufacturing line, you might need a second mask set. For FC's volume that should be totally unnecessary, even for Gen 2.

Marginal costs shouldn't change much for the same process unless you make a new deal with the foundry.

Anyway, after actually MAKING the hardware (and doubtless encountering some speedbumps), I do wonder how accurate that estimate is.

As I understand it it's not an estimate. That comment about $10k per TH was posted in the beginning of May. ASICMiner started hashing i February. Or am I misunderstanding you?

[1714967410]

1714967410

[1714967410]

1714967410

[1714967410]

1714967410

[Vycid]

Well, if you want to ramp up production with more than one manufacturing line, you might need a second mask set. For FC's volume that should be totally unnecessary, even for Gen 2.

Marginal costs shouldn't change much for the same process unless you make a new deal with the foundry.

Anyway, after actually MAKING the hardware (and doubtless encountering some speedbumps), I do wonder how accurate that estimate is.

As I understand it it's not an estimate. That comment about $10k per TH was posted in the beginning of May. ASICMiner started hashing i February. Or am I misunderstanding you?

I thought FC's estimate cited here was forward-looking to the scaled-up 200 TH production run (which has since completed) - i.e. he expected to spend less than $2M more to make that hardware.

That was just my interpretation, though. The word "final" makes me think you might be correct.

[freedomno1]

You are forgetting there are also:
KnC, Bitmine.ch, BTCGarden, Alydian and MyMiner.

True enough can discount Alydian late, Myminer and btcgarden had their ipo's canceled other two hmm well I know KnC should have mentioned them the avalon clone seems interesting enough https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=215431.msg3159989#msg3159989
But generally this just adds to the general disdain of mining companies not really hashing still
Thanks for pointing it out
( I do acknowledge the hash rate is rising fast though )

if FC is currently paying $1.50/GH

where does this number come from?  I've seen you mention it a few times, but I don't think I've ever seen where you got it.  Did FC publish that?

Nope real number is $52/GH based on old gen I assume Vycid just put in a random number for the next gens cointerra is 3/GH though if we assume delivery in January 2013 in my opinion cointerra being labeled better than a BFL monarach on price per GH is kind of suspicious.

If this were the case ASICMiner would be selling USB Block Eruptors at a loss for BTC0.1.

friedcat has stated that "final margin cost for 1TH/s is less than 10k$":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg2013118#msg2013118

The point is that Vycid's $1.50/GH estimate is a minimum price, so using this in his calculations is only in favor of ASICMiner.

To me it's very hard to imagine that the cost per GH is less than $1.50. At this price we're talking $15 for a blade:

https://i.imgur.com/Lqepfe3.jpg

Now I'm no expert on the cost of electronics manufacturing, but I'm fairly sure you can't build a board like that including mining chips, PCB, other components, heatsink and labor costs for less than $15.

Not sure if I read it right on the $1.50/gh estimate or the USB miners
Clarification note:
Erupter USB $75/GH
Blade $52/GH
Old Gens

[BitCsByBit]

You are forgetting there are also:
KnC, Bitmine.ch, BTCGarden, Alydian and MyMiner.

True enough can discount Alydian late, Myminer and btcgarden had their ipo's canceled other two hmm well I know KnC should have mentioned them the avalon clone seems interesting enough https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=215431.msg3159989#msg3159989
But generally this just adds to the general disdain of mining companies not really hashing still
Thanks for pointing it out
( I do acknowledge the hash rate is rising fast though )

if FC is currently paying $1.50/GH

where does this number come from?  I've seen you mention it a few times, but I don't think I've ever seen where you got it.  Did FC publish that?

Nope real number is $52/GH based on old gen I assume Vycid just put in a random number for the next gens cointerra is 3/GH though if we assume delivery in January 2013 in my opinion cointerra being labeled better than a BFL monarach on price per GH is kind of suspicious.

If this were the case ASICMiner would be selling USB Block Eruptors at a loss for BTC0.1.

friedcat has stated that "final margin cost for 1TH/s is less than 10k$":

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg2013118#msg2013118

The point is that Vycid's $1.50/GH estimate is a minimum price, so using this in his calculations is only in favor of ASICMiner.

To me it's very hard to imagine that the cost per GH is less than $1.50. At this price we're talking $15 for a blade:

https://i.imgur.com/Lqepfe3.jpg

Now I'm no expert on the cost of electronics manufacturing, but I'm fairly sure you can't build a board like that including mining chips, PCB, other components, heatsink and labor costs for less than $15.

Not sure if I read it right on the $1.50/gh estimate or the USB miners
Clarification note:
Erupter USB $75/GH
Blade $52/GH
Old Gens

Although BTC Garden had their IPO cancelled, they are still progressing with their own ASIC design and hardware sales. I'm not sure if Myminer are still progressing, but I wouldn't count them out just yet.

Bitmine.ch have moved on from the Avalon clone service and now they have their own ASIC as well: https://bitmine.ch/?page_id=863

Edit: Added Bitmine.ch details

[Strange Vlad]

1.5$/GH looks very realistic to me, and it would mean that the blade production cost is ~0.1BTC. So the current margin is like 97,5%, which is still huge enough to remain profitable for the coming two or three months before gen.2 is here. I mean look, say in November they can sell blades for 1BTC each, the folk would still happily buy them for that price while the margin would be 90%. They can even sell them in December for 0,5BTC and still have a margin of 80%. For the sticks the margin is obviously lower, but then the blades are phasing the sticks out in a way.

That's pretty much why I'm holding on to my shares tight.

P.S. Above margin values are assuming constant BTC/USD rate. If the rate continue to grow, the margins will decline slower, because the costs are in USD but the price AND the value are in BTC. Not that I believe BTC/USD could rise anywhere close to as rapidly as the network hashpower.

[bbxx]

1.5$/GH looks very realistic to me, and it would mean that the blade production cost is ~0.1BTC. So the current margin is like 97,5%, which is still huge enough to remain profitable for the coming two or three months before gen.2 is here. I mean look, say in November they can sell blades for 1BTC each, the folk would still happily buy them for that price while the margin would be 90%. They can even sell them in December for 0,5BTC and still have a margin of 80%. For the sticks the margin is obviously lower, but then the blades are phasing the sticks out in a way.

That's pretty much why I'm holding on to my shares tight.

i would love to buy blade rack for 5 btc...

[bitsalame]

I just had a dream that Friedcat came to these forums to say: "Today we will disclose a well guarded secret: actually our Gen 2 are not 55nm but 14nm. We finished the deployment and they are all operational right now."

[robix]

 

I just had a dream that Friedcat came to these forums to say: "Today we will disclose a well guarded secret: actually our Gen 2 are not 55nm but 14nm. We finished the deployment and they are all operational right now."

[tinus42]

I just had a dream that Friedcat came to these forums to say: "Today we will disclose a well guarded secret: actually our Gen 2 are not 55nm but 14nm. We finished the deployment and they are all operational right now."

14nm is expected next year. It would have to be a miracle then. 

[robix]

OK, let's say 22 nm.

[bitman442]

Since we're just tossing out random numbers, I'm holding out for 1nm chips. Hopefully by next week.

[runeks]

OK, let's say 22 nm.

22 nm is only available to Intel, and they don't take outside orders.

[robix]

OK, let's say 22 nm.

22 nm is only available to Intel, and they don't take outside orders.

23 nm?

[DeathAndTaxes]

OK, let's say 22 nm.

22 nm is only available to Intel, and they don't take outside orders.

23 nm?

Are you trolling? 23nm fabrication doesn't exist.

Available process nodes (full process size with half size in parentheses).

130nm (110nm)
90nm (80nm)
65nm (55nm)
45nm (40nm)
32nm (28nm)
22nm (20nm) *

* Nobody is making processors @ 22nm except Intel (not even AMD or NVidia).  A couple of memory companies are using 22nm but memory is magnitudes simpler than a microprocessor.  TSMC will begin early (i.e. insanely out the butt expensive) production of 20nm in Feb 2014.

Generally it takes around 3 years before a new process node becomes cheaper than the prior node.  The only reason why cost effective 28nm Bitcoin are possible is because it is "old" tech, 28nm became available in volume production over two years ago, with early production in 2010.    Following that 3 year timeline it would put 22nm/20nm not acheiving cost parity compared 28nm until ~2017.

So 28nm is as good as it gets for the near future.  That doesn't mean we won't see improved 28nm designs but I would be willing to wager we won't see a sub 28nm Bitcoin chip (actually hashing in customer's hands) until 2017 and honestly I think it will be later than that.

[DiabloD3]

130nm (110nm)
90nm (80nm)
65nm (55nm)
45nm (40nm)
32nm (28nm)
22nm (20nm) *

* Nobody is making processors @ 22nm except Intel (not even AMD or NVidia).  A couple of memory companies are using 22nm but memory is magnitudes simpler than a microprocessor.  TSMC will begin early (i.e. insanely out the butt expensive) production of 20nm in Feb 2014.

Generally it takes around 3 years before a new process node becomes cheaper than the prior node.  That would put 22nm/20nm at cost parity compared 28nm not occuring until ~2017.

IBM is actually producing 22nm on their process for the next POWER series which available for order next year. TSMC and GloFo won't have 22nm until 2015 or 2016.

[runeks]

130nm (110nm)
90nm (80nm)
65nm (55nm)
45nm (40nm)
32nm (28nm)
22nm (20nm) *

DeathAndTaxes, what do the figures in parenthesis signify? I often see process nodes described like this, eg. 65/55nm. Why two figures and not one?

ASICMiner say their chips are 130nm, while Avalon say their chips are 110nm. Are the two really produced on the same process or what?

[jgarzik]

URL: http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-shows-pc-using-broadwell-14nm-chips-2013-9

Earlier this week Intel CEO Brian Krzanich showed off a Windows 8 PC running a new chip code-named "Broadwell" and promised that devices shipping with it will be coming in 2014.
This chip will use a mind-boggling small architecture, only 14 nanometers (nm) thick, he said during his keynote speech at the Intel Developer Forum conference in San Francisco.

A nanometer is one-billionth of a meter. That's about twice the size of a human blood cell, which is 6-10 nanometers big. It can't be seen with the naked eye.

[velacreations]

anyone got an estimate for hardware revenue this week?

[DeathAndTaxes]

DeathAndTaxes, what do the figures in parenthesis signify? I often see process nodes described like this, eg. 65/55nm. Why two figures and not one?

Sorry first portion got chopped off.  I fixed it.

The ones in parenthesis are called half nodes.  In the early days there was just one standardized sets of process nodes.  Each one was linearly 70% of the prior node.  Remember chips are two dimensional so if you cut the length of a gate by 30% then you will cut the area by (0.7^2) by roughly half.  So each process node roughly doubles the number of transistors per square mm.

However the time between major node jumps is at least two years and later that has been slowing down.  For products which need faster improvement cycles (namely GPU) fabs began offering half node equipment.  Also it is sometimes possible for a fab to be upgraded to the half node improvement extending the ecnonomical lifespan of the chip.  Today the use of the term "half nodes" is kinda dated because many designs (like GPUs) simply upgrade only on the half node (i.e. 40nm, 28nm, 20nm).  For all intents and purposes they are just another standardized fabrication size.

As for ASICMiner vs Avalon 110nm is a different process node than 130nm.  For a given design, in theory it will result in smaller transistors, higher clock speed, and more chips per wafer. However the improvements aren't as significant as a full node jump.  If ASICMiner used 110nm instead of 130nm everything else being the same we would expect them to have ~40% higher wafer density (130nm/110nm)^2.  Still Avalon vs ASICMiner brings up a good point.  It shows that DESIGN matters a lot.  Despite the 40% "disadvantage" ASICMiner is more than competitive with Avalon.  Nothing indicates they have higher cost, energy consumption, or lower hashing density. Bitfury (55nm) chips beating KNC (28nm) is another example.  So process node matters but it is only half the equation.

Of course given the NRE costs nobody is going to make a half node jump.  Makes much more sense for ASICMiner to jump down 1 or more full process nodes.

[DeathAndTaxes]

IBM is actually producing 22nm on their process for the next POWER series which available for order next year. TSMC and GloFo won't have 22nm until 2015 or 2016.

Well that is why I said only Intel is producing.  It was to highlight that Intel is "special" and gets to play by their own rules (and that has annihilated AMD margins).    I know you know that but a noob might see an Intel 14nm announcement and assume that means there will be 14nm SHA-2 ASICs "soon".

As for TSMC and 20nm it is always hard to say with the secrecy and NDA but it is looking like TSMC will have some 20nm capacity in 2014.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/20130806234800_TSMC_Slightly_Reschedules_Volume_Production_Using_20nm_Process_Technology_to_Early_2014.html

Everything is estimates and should be taken with a grain of salt but the estimates are moving sooner not later.  If the rumors are true though GF is struggling with 20nm.  However as we know having x nm capacity doesn't mean it is cost effective.  Nobody is going to buy 20nm Bitcoin ASICs if they cost 3x as much just because they are 20nm.  So it likely will be a "while" (2017 or later) before that becomes economical even if it is possible earlier.  The need for "double exposure" at 22nm/20nm is going to create a serious cost wall even once the marignal cost of production is significantly lower than 28nm.  It will be a high risk venture to because by the every ASIC company will be pushing 28nm product out the door with next day shipping.  Nobody is going to accept 3-6 month preorders and the huge NRE costs means a company making the jump to 22nm/20nm will need to roll out massive volume to ammortize the NRE and still remain competitive.  This time it will be the company not customers taking the risk.