ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It

[RoadStress]

Gent's this thread isn't about who has the biggest theoretical ASIC dick. If you need to fantasize about that may I suggest you do it somewhere else and not necessarily in public. The claims are useless in an industry where the realities are manufacturers are rarely on spec and more importantly on time. The moment you state your assumptions as facts you lose all credibility and no one listens to you anymore.

Let's talk again in 3 months!

[1714141328]

1714141328

[1714141328]

1714141328

[necro_nemesis]

I have little doubt that the the supporting hardware can be made on time. Circuit board and software development is a well developed and disciplined field that has decades of experience. That's not a concern.

There was mention of quality. By it's disposable nature most mining hardware is junk just built able to function long enough and get to market quickly enough to be profitable. This isn't an industry where you are rewarded for quality unless it affects reliability for the short duration of the hardware's useful life. No marks added for quality beyond that point. Spondoolies may make the finest box to use for a paperweight three months from now.

[raskul]

I have little doubt that the the supporting hardware can be made on time. Circuit board and software development is a well developed and disciplined field that has decades of experience. That's not a concern.

There was mention of quality. By it's disposable nature most mining hardware is junk just built able to function long enough and get to market quickly enough to be profitable. This isn't an industry where you are rewarded for quality unless it affects reliability for the short duration of the hardware's useful life. No marks added for quality beyond that point. Spondoolies may make the finest box to use for a paperweight three months from now.

wrong, stability = quality.

[RoadStress]

Gent's this thread isn't about who has the biggest theoretical ASIC dick. If you need to fantasize about that may I suggest you do it somewhere else and not necessarily in public. The claims are useless in an industry where the realities are manufacturers are rarely on spec and more importantly on time. The moment you state your assumptions as facts you lose all credibility and no one listens to you anymore.

I have little doubt that the the supporting hardware can be made on time. Circuit board and software development is a well developed and disciplined field that has decades of experience. That's not a concern.

There was mention of quality. By it's disposable nature most mining hardware is junk just built able to function long enough and get to market quickly enough to be profitable. This isn't an industry where you are rewarded for quality unless it affects reliability for the short duration of the hardware's useful life. No marks added for quality beyond that point. Spondoolies may make the finest box to use for a paperweight three months from now.

So first time you are talking about a product (gen2 chips) and after my reply you switch to another product(gen1 chips)? Why not stay on topic?

[necro_nemesis]

@roadstress. I'm not sure where your making the assumption I'm strictly specifically addressing your comments to use as arguments.

[Puppet]

$30/400gh is impressive. Surprising that HF is supposedly out of money even with 100 times markup. 750gh gets 0.8w/gh so its not really worth it or won't be for long.

spoonsomethings costs are special because ~0.35w/gh puts it in another class of asics. I don't think AM gen3 (or any current gen) will compete with it.

Nope, half the power consumption isnt another class. Thats well within range of what any particular chip can do depending on voltage. Im pretty sure most current 28nm vendors could hit those efficiencies if they wanted to, albeit it at the expense of performance per chip. All thats needed is lowering the voltage and reducing the clock. Let me illustrate with a typical schmoo plot, showing the relationship between clock and voltage of whatever chip:



For this chip, maximum frequency is 1GHz and getting there requires 2V. If this plot applied to a bitcoin asic, most bitcoin mining vendors would probably pick around 1.85V for 900-950Mhz, since performance/$ is still far more important than per watt. Evidence of that is that most mining chips are only marginally overclockable, even if you seriously increase voltage/cooling. It simply makes more sense to pick a point at the high end of the curve today.

Now if you were to downclock that very same chip to, say, 400 MHz, you need only ~1V. Please note the relationship between voltage and and power draw is quadratic. So the 400GHz clocked chip,  would be almost twice as power efficient as the one clocked at 900 MHz.

This is exactly what bitmain did, and when the need arises, so will Cointerra, HF, KnC, Bitmine, BFL, and all the other 28nm vendors. 0.35W/GH at the chip level is nothing special.

[jimmothy]

Im pretty sure most current 28nm vendors could hit those efficiencies if they wanted to

I'm pretty sure it's not that simple or they would all be advertising/doing it.

This is exactly what bitmain did, and when the need arises, so will Cointerra, HF, KnC, Bitmine, BFL, and all the other 28nm vendors. 0.35W/GH at the chip level is nothing special.

If knc could simply lower their voltage why would they spend 10 million on 20nm nre just to get 0.4w/gh at the chip level?

What makes you think the next gen of asics won't be similarly underclockable?

[klondike_bar]

Im pretty sure most current 28nm vendors could hit those efficiencies if they wanted to

I'm pretty sure it's not that simple or they would all be advertising/doing it.

This is exactly what bitmain did, and when the need arises, so will Cointerra, HF, KnC, Bitmine, BFL, and all the other 28nm vendors. 0.35W/GH at the chip level is nothing special.

If knc could simply lower their voltage why would they spend 10 million on 20nm nre just to get 0.4w/gh at the chip level?

What makes you think the next gen of asics won't be similarly underclockable?

every chip is underclockable. Bitmain can achieve anything from 1w/GH to 2.2w/GH depending on the frequency and voltage.  I am sure 0.8w/GH could be achieved if they wanted to go even lower

[Puppet]

I'm pretty sure it's not that simple or they would all be advertising/doing it.

Your ignorance of laws of physics doesnt change them. Every one with some experience over/underclocking CPU's and GPU's would be well aware of the range and impact of  core voltages.

As for why they arent doing it yet; it doesnt make financial sense yet. Hardware prices are still far too high, electricity cost is still utterly marginal for most large customers. Pricing is done per GH, cutting that in half to get better power efficiency doesnt pay off now. Fast forward 6 months and you will see.

If knc could simply lower their voltage why would they spend 10 million on 20nm nre just to get 0.4w/gh at the chip level?

Because 20nm should also be cheaper to produce per GH, due to the increased transistor density. Not that I  (ever) expect(ed) a 20nm part before late fall, but thats another story.

[jimmothy]

Your ignorance of laws of physics doesnt change them. Every one with some experience over/underclocking CPU's and GPU's would be well aware of the range and impact of  core voltages.

As for why they arent doing it yet; it doesnt make financial sense yet. Hardware prices are still far too high, electricity cost is still utterly marginal for most large customers. Pricing is done per GH, cutting that in half to get better power efficiency doesnt pay off now. Fast forward 6 months and you will see.

What makes you so sure that current gen chips are underclockable to better than advertised efficiency? Like how bitmine advertised low power mode at 0.35w/gh (according to your understanding of physics it should have worked) yet underclocking did diddly squat.

You need some evidence before you can claim so confidently that all current gen chips are underclockable to below 0.4w/gh (at a reasonable $/gh)

Because 20nm should also be cheaper to produce per GH, due to the increased transistor density. Not that I  (ever) expect(ed) a 20nm part before late fall, but thats another story.

How exactly is spending 10 million rushing to the smallest node size cheaper? According to nvidia 20nm is less cost effective than 28nm.

[raskul]

According to nvidia...

 

[RoadStress]

I have little doubt that the the supporting hardware can be made on time. Circuit board and software development is a well developed and disciplined field that has decades of experience. That's not a concern.

There was mention of quality. By it's disposable nature most mining hardware is junk just built able to function long enough and get to market quickly enough to be profitable. This isn't an industry where you are rewarded for quality unless it affects reliability for the short duration of the hardware's useful life. No marks added for quality beyond that point. Spondoolies may make the finest box to use for a paperweight three months from now.

That's why HashFail was so successful? They subcontracted the PCB design and we all know how that ended. With a big FAIL. It seems that the decades of experience weren't of any use for them.

[Puppet]

What makes you so sure that current gen chips are underclockable to better than advertised efficiency? Like how bitmine advertised low power mode at 0.35w/gh (according to your understanding of physics it should have worked) yet underclocking did diddly squat.

Underclocking alone indeed does "diddly squat" to power efficiency. The key is lowering the core voltage. If core voltage can not be raised/lowered to achieve higher speed/better efficiency, that generally hints at a design flaw. I have no idea whats going on with bitmine specifically. Got a link showing that power effiency does not increase quadratic with voltage?

You need some evidence before you can claim so confidently that all current gen chips are underclockable to below 0.4w/gh (at a reasonable $/gh)

I dont, because I never made that claim.

How exactly is spending 10 million rushing to the smallest node size cheaper?

If you dont understand the difference between NRE and per GH production cost, there is not much I can do. Not that $10M sounds realistic to me, for a chip as simple as a bitcoin miner. Its not going to have 15 metal layers like a highend CPU or GPU. Id be surprised if it has more than 3, maybe 4.

[necro_nemesis]

I have little doubt that the the supporting hardware can be made on time. Circuit board and software development is a well developed and disciplined field that has decades of experience. That's not a concern.

There was mention of quality. By it's disposable nature most mining hardware is junk just built able to function long enough and get to market quickly enough to be profitable. This isn't an industry where you are rewarded for quality unless it affects reliability for the short duration of the hardware's useful life. No marks added for quality beyond that point. Spondoolies may make the finest box to use for a paperweight three months from now.

That's why HashFail was so successful? They subcontracted the PCB design and we all know how that ended. With a big FAIL. It seems that the decades of experience weren't of any use for them.

Incompetence caused the failure. Whether it was internal or external is one of the circumstances it occurred under. One cannot conclude the act of subcontracting will lead to failure unless your contractor happens to be a cage full of orangutans.

[Entropy-uc]

I have little doubt that the the supporting hardware can be made on time. Circuit board and software development is a well developed and disciplined field that has decades of experience. That's not a concern.

There was mention of quality. By it's disposable nature most mining hardware is junk just built able to function long enough and get to market quickly enough to be profitable. This isn't an industry where you are rewarded for quality unless it affects reliability for the short duration of the hardware's useful life. No marks added for quality beyond that point. Spondoolies may make the finest box to use for a paperweight three months from now.

That's why HashFail was so successful? They subcontracted the PCB design and we all know how that ended. With a big FAIL. It seems that the decades of experience weren't of any use for them.

Incompetence caused the failure. Whether it was internal or external is one of the circumstances it occurred under. One cannot conclude the act of subcontracting will lead to failure unless your contractor happens to be a cage full of orangutans.

It's hard to distinguish between incompetence and systematic fraud.  Most of hashfast's actions to date point towards fraud as a primary motivator - incompetence is just a side effect.

[necro_nemesis]

Now we're talking about factors which could be causal in the outcome. Fraud could be considered a success if that's your objective and happen to get away with it.

[jimmothy]

What makes you so sure that current gen chips are underclockable to better than advertised efficiency? Like how bitmine advertised low power mode at 0.35w/gh (according to your understanding of physics it should have worked) yet underclocking did diddly squat.

Underclocking alone indeed does "diddly squat" to power efficiency. The key is lowering the core voltage. If core voltage can not be raised/lowered to achieve higher speed/better efficiency, that generally hints at a design flaw. I have no idea whats going on with bitmine specifically. Got a link showing that power effiency doesnt not increase quadratic with voltage?

Here is the specs https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495357.0. Again you need evidence that lowering voltage to increase efficiency is possible and because it works with cpu/gpus doesn't necessarily mean it has to work with bitcoin asics. I have yet to see bitmain/hashfast claiming anything below 0.6w/gh which they would happily do if it were possible. I assume they have already tested the chips to find out the maximum efficiency so they can advertise such. Why would they not?

You need some evidence before you can claim so confidently that all current gen chips are underclockable to below 0.4w/gh (at a reasonable $/gh)

I dont, because I never made that claim.

Then why did you bring it up an irrelevant claim? Neither I nor anyone else is interested in <0.4w/gh chips that are not cost effective.

How exactly is spending 10 million rushing to the smallest node size cheaper?

If you dont understand the difference between NRE and per GH production cost, there is not much I can do. Not that $10M sounds realistic to me, for a chip as simple as a bitcoin miner. Its not going to have 15 metal layers like a highend CPU or GPU. Id be surprised if it has more than 3, maybe 4.

I understand very clearly the difference. What I don't understand is why KNC would RUSH to the newest node size (spending more than necessary simply to be first) when they could simply lower voltage and save millions? Wouldn't it make sense to wait until 20nm is cheaper since production cost is nowhere near a limiting factor as of now? Only reason I can think of for doing this would be that they are limited to 0.6w/gh (at cost effective $/gh).

[dave111223]

I just noticed that I have received no dividends in April.

What's the deal?

[freedomno1]

I just noticed that I have received no dividends in April.

What's the deal?

Waiting on chip sales to restart dividend payouts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=99497.msg6329377#msg6329377

[Puppet]

Here is the specs https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=495357.0. Again you need evidence that lowering voltage to increase efficiency is possible and because it works with cpu/gpus doesn't necessarily mean it has to work with bitcoin asics. I have yet to see bitmain/hashfast claiming anything below 0.6w/gh which they would happily do if it were possible. I assume they have already tested the chips to find out the maximum efficiency so they can advertise such. Why would they not?

Maybe if you tried reading a bit more carefully, I wouldnt have to repeat myself over and over. How many times did I explain that to increase power efficiency you have to lower the voltage? Didnt I specifically say "Got a link showing that power effiency does not increase quadratic with voltage?"  Now, where in your first link does it show they changed the vcore? Nowhere. for whatever reason, that poster only changed the clock.  Did he not have access to the vcore settings, did he not bother trying, is it a firmware or PCB issue preventing him from changing it, I dont know nor do I care. In no way does it refute my "theory".

As for Bitmain, I never said they could achieve <0.6W on a 55nm design. Given that they already claim 0.68W/GH at the chip level, they probably can, but only I gave them as an example of doubling power efficiency without as much as a chip revision, simply by lowering clocks and voltages from near the top of the schmoo plot to somewhere lower. The same will work for your GPU, for your CPU (both of which will in fact do this automatically when mostly idle) and for pretty much any asic with programmable clock ever created because its a direct result of effects inherent to CMOS technology combined with Ohms Law.. If you dont believe me, see if I care.

I understand very clearly the difference. What I don't understand is why KNC would RUSH to the newest node size (spending more than necessary simply to be first) when they could simply lower voltage and save millions? Wouldn't it make sense to wait until 20nm is cheaper since production cost is nowhere near a limiting factor as of now? Only reason I can think of for doing this would be that they are limited to 0.6w/gh (at cost effective $/gh).

My god you are dense. You are the only one who ever claimed that the only reason KnC is moving to 20nm is to achieve <0.6W/GH. Everyone else understands that 20nm, if ever they get it working and yields become reasonable, should provide lower production cost per GH as well as better power efficiency.