Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2019, 11:27:32 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.19.0.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  

Warning: Moderators do not remove likely scams. You must use your own brain: caveat emptor. Watch out for Ponzi schemes. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose.

Pages: « 1 ... 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 [948] 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 ... 1348 »
  Print  
Author Topic: ASICMINER: Entering the Future of ASIC Mining by Inventing It  (Read 3901407 times)
jimmothy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 03, 2014, 10:01:44 AM
 #18941

It seems that Spondoolies-Tech's chip is better than AM  3-generation ship on power consumption, but it's more expensive than AM.

Not exactly. SP hammer is 0.58w/gh at 7gh compared to AM 0.55w/gh at 12gh.

Also we don't know how much complete miners will cost but my guess is under $2/gh.
1575718052
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575718052

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575718052
Reply with quote  #2

1575718052
Report to moderator
1575718052
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575718052

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575718052
Reply with quote  #2

1575718052
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1575718052
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575718052

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575718052
Reply with quote  #2

1575718052
Report to moderator
1575718052
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575718052

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575718052
Reply with quote  #2

1575718052
Report to moderator
1575718052
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1575718052

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1575718052
Reply with quote  #2

1575718052
Report to moderator
necro_nemesis
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 03, 2014, 11:34:25 AM
Last edit: May 03, 2014, 11:53:21 AM by necro_nemesis
 #18942

It seems that Spondoolies-Tech's chip is better than AM  3-generation ship on power consumption, but it's more expensive than AM.

Miners are concerned about the the chips minutest performance characteristics at the inflated prices paid at retail. This is factoring in what at retail is considered optimal in terms of cost, energy usage and heat management. If there's a cost benefit at the manufacturing level you can afford to add in additional chips and change the whole complexion of the equation. Just look at what was done to produce the S2 underclocking the BM1380 and adding in proportionately more ASICs to achieve the desired performance. They are willing to throw ASICs at the solution to improve efficiency. Cost at the manufacturing level can be crucial to altering the situation considerably. There additionally are cooling=space benefits to adding more ASICs and running at lower consumption/heat dissipation. This can be particularly exploited in mining and franchising right from the onset where markup is of no importance.

I would like to see the overall test data and as I mentioned when the ASIC specs were first released an explanation for the selectable higher clock range given what the ranges were stated at.
xhomerx10
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2226
Merit: 2498


Aceeasi Marie cu alta palarie


View Profile
May 03, 2014, 12:34:33 PM
 #18943

It seems that Spondoolies-Tech's chip is better than AM  3-generation ship on power consumption, but it's more expensive than AM.

Miners are concerned about the the chips minutest performance characteristics at the inflated prices paid at retail. This is factoring in what at retail is considered optimal in terms of cost, energy usage and heat management. If there's a cost benefit at the manufacturing level you can afford to add in additional chips and change the whole complexion of the equation. Just look at what was done to produce the S2 underclocking the BM1380 and adding in proportionately more ASICs to achieve the desired performance. They are willing to throw ASICs at the solution to improve efficiency. Cost at the manufacturing level can be crucial to altering the situation considerably. There additionally are cooling=space benefits to adding more ASICs and running at lower consumption/heat dissipation. This can be particularly exploited in mining and franchising right from the onset where markup is of no importance.

I would like to see the overall test data and as I mentioned when the ASIC specs were first released an explanation for the selectable higher clock range given what the ranges were stated at.

As a miner, I can tell you that I am not concerned with this at all.  I want my miner delivered on time - period.  Minutia is meaningless to the individual miner.  One difficulty retarget late in delivering and you have negated all of these efficiencies which you are dreaming about.  Spoondoolies is shipping - where is AM? It's too little and too late.  Diff will double while AM dithers.


Newar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358
Merit: 1000


https://gliph.me/hUF


View Profile
May 03, 2014, 12:35:47 PM
 #18944

Why is this thread getting shorter... what posts are getting removed... the fact that anything is getting removed is bothering me.

You can check "the archive"

https://bitcointa.lk/threads/asicminer-entering-the-future-of-asic-mining-by-inventing-it.61268/

OTC rating | GPG keyid 1DC91318EE785FDE | Gliph: lightning bicycle tree music | Mycelium, a swift & secure Bitcoin client for Android | LocalBitcoins
necro_nemesis
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 03, 2014, 12:47:47 PM
Last edit: May 03, 2014, 01:01:18 PM by necro_nemesis
 #18945

It seems that Spondoolies-Tech's chip is better than AM  3-generation ship on power consumption, but it's more expensive than AM.

Miners are concerned about the the chips minutest performance characteristics at the inflated prices paid at retail. This is factoring in what at retail is considered optimal in terms of cost, energy usage and heat management. If there's a cost benefit at the manufacturing level you can afford to add in additional chips and change the whole complexion of the equation. Just look at what was done to produce the S2 underclocking the BM1380 and adding in proportionately more ASICs to achieve the desired performance. They are willing to throw ASICs at the solution to improve efficiency. Cost at the manufacturing level can be crucial to altering the situation considerably. There additionally are cooling=space benefits to adding more ASICs and running at lower consumption/heat dissipation. This can be particularly exploited in mining and franchising right from the onset where markup is of no importance.

I would like to see the overall test data and as I mentioned when the ASIC specs were first released an explanation for the selectable higher clock range given what the ranges were stated at.

As a miner, I can tell you that I am not concerned with this at all.  I want my miner delivered on time - period.  Minutia is meaningless to the individual miner.  One difficulty retarget late in delivering and you have negated all of these efficiencies which you are dreaming about.  Spoondoolies is shipping - where is AM? It's too little and too late.  Diff will double while AM dithers.




Agreed, profit margin on every individual ASIC goes down with every tick of the clock. It's looking at AM as an enterprise over the course of months given the hardware they can build.

FWIW some second hand evidence of progress does filter it's way onto the net. RM posted this today. I'll leave it to your own interpretations as to what it indicates.

klondike_bar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1001

ASIC Wannabe


View Profile
May 03, 2014, 03:21:24 PM
 #18946

FWIW some second hand evidence of progress does filter it's way onto the net. RM posted this today. I'll leave it to your own interpretations as to what it indicates.



heres what I can estimate from the picture:

- each group of three chips probably draws 30-60W  assuming 30A-rated components like seen in most designs (both bitfury and bitmain used the 30A TPS53355 regulator and the same inductor i can see in this image).  I would assume that each chip is able to draw up to 15W but this depends on operaing voltage (anyone have this spec?)

- assuming 12GH/chip is still correct, that's about 1w/GH in the shown configuration, possible with the ability to overclock further at a loss to efficiency

- 24 chips per single PCI-e power jack. assuming reasonable loads on power supply cables it would be unwise for this board to consume more than 250W without a risk that cheap wires will melt.  that means 10W/chip, or under 1w/GH


24" PCI-E cables with 16AWG wires and stripped ends - great for server PSU mods, best prices https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563461
No longer a wannabe - now an ASIC owner!
necro_nemesis
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 03, 2014, 07:40:36 PM
 #18947

RM's results as of the 14th of April.


Quote
Results:

Board:one chip testing board
Frequency:360Mhz
Volt:0.72V
Hashrate per chip:11.52Ghash
Power consumption:6.375W per chip
Power consumption per Ghash:6.375/11.52=0.5539W/Ghash
After power supply changeover:0.5539/81% = 0.684W/Ghash(at blade)
Power consumption on wall:0.684/0.8 = 0.855W/G
Adding other components loss about 1KW/Thash

Tips:this result is not very accurate just for reference.
_mr_e
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 817
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 03, 2014, 07:48:13 PM
 #18948

RM's results as of the 14th of April.


Quote
Results:

Board:one chip testing board
Frequency:360Mhz
Volt:0.72V
Hashrate per chip:11.52Ghash
Power consumption:6.375W per chip
Power consumption per Ghash:6.375/11.52=0.5539W/Ghash
After power supply changeover:0.5539/81% = 0.684W/Ghash(at blade)
Power consumption on wall:0.684/0.8 = 0.855W/G
Adding other components loss about 1KW/Thash

Tips:this result is not very accurate just for reference.

Is this good?
CoinBomb
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 179
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
May 03, 2014, 10:02:42 PM
 #18949

as we've talked (in length!) when the results came out, its not stellar, but not terrible..more testing/optimisation required.

Promote our site for no risk BTC / LTC profit! 1% gross profit, LTC/BTC payments weekly. Click through for more details.
necro_nemesis
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224
Merit: 100


View Profile
May 03, 2014, 10:05:11 PM
 #18950

RM's results as of the 14th of April.


Quote
Results:

Board:one chip testing board
Frequency:360Mhz
Volt:0.72V
Hashrate per chip:11.52Ghash
Power consumption:6.375W per chip
Power consumption per Ghash:6.375/11.52=0.5539W/Ghash
After power supply changeover:0.5539/81% = 0.684W/Ghash(at blade)
Power consumption on wall:0.684/0.8 = 0.855W/G
Adding other components loss about 1KW/Thash

Tips:this result is not very accurate just for reference.

Is this good?

Good enough to plan to produce a significant number of them according to a recent report.
bitcoin.newsfeed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 03, 2014, 10:06:15 PM
 #18951



http://www.cybtc.com/article-900-1.html

?

... Question Everything, Believe Nothing ...
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
May 03, 2014, 10:21:44 PM
 #18952

FWIW, this is what BFL published recently:

antirack
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 489
Merit: 500

Immersionist


View Profile
May 03, 2014, 11:03:36 PM
 #18953

RM is only one AM customer and one board designer of many. Seems his boards are using USB.

There are other board designs in progress from other board designers. With Ethernet and with a different power consumption. And a different number of chips per board.

xhomerx10
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2226
Merit: 2498


Aceeasi Marie cu alta palarie


View Profile
May 04, 2014, 04:16:48 AM
 #18954

FWIW, this is what BFL published recently:



 Two pre-orders, many lies and delays later, I do not trust anything they have to say.
You need only look at this disinfographic to understand their ways.  It's more lies.  Everyone knows that KNCminer shipped ~ 1W/Gh at the wall for example.

BFL, your efficiencies - real or imagined - are already lost to your competition.  Mining for longer is moot since the difficulty will be so high you will be making NOTHING but heat and an infinitesimally small fraction of a Bitcoin per day.

By the way, the very day before the disinfographic was posted, Josh said that the new BFL chip was more than 2x more efficient than anything our there.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=262052.msg6449710#msg6449710

 A day later and it's already 3 to 5 times more efficient?  Imagine how efficient it will be when it finally delivers in two weekstm

Caveat Emptor!  Information asymmetry detected.

 
btc6000
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 116
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 04, 2014, 04:29:12 AM
 #18955

Been away a while....so, when/why have we stopped receiving weekly dividends?

Cheers,

We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated, governments in the civilized world—no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men.
minerpumpkin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


A pumpkin mines 27 hours a night


View Profile
May 04, 2014, 06:06:30 AM
 #18956

RM is only one AM customer and one board designer of many. Seems his boards are using USB.

There are other board designs in progress from other board designers. With Ethernet and with a different power consumption. And a different number of chips per board.



They've posted some web interface on their twitter feed so I assume they'll do standalone miners (as well)

I should have gotten into Bitcoin back in 1992...
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
May 04, 2014, 09:05:55 AM
 #18957

Caveat Emptor!  Information asymmetry detected.

ITs not meant as promotion for BFL, Id be the last person to suggest you order anything from there. But the chart is interesting and relevant to earlier discussions about how you can scale power efficiency of every ASIC. Even if you take those numbers with a table spoon of salt, it nicely illustrates my point.  There is about a factor 3x difference in power efficiency depending what voltage/frequency point you pick. That spread is not going to be vastly different for any other bitcoin asic.
jimmothy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 04, 2014, 09:20:33 AM
 #18958

Caveat Emptor!  Information asymmetry detected.

ITs not meant as promotion for BFL, Id be the last person to suggest you order anything from there. But the chart is interesting and relevant to earlier discussions about how you can scale power efficiency of every ASIC. Even if you take those numbers with a table spoon of salt, it nicely illustrates my point.  There is about a factor 3x difference in power efficiency depending what voltage/frequency point you pick. That spread is not going to be vastly different for any other bitcoin asic.

I think it illustrates the exact opposite. Notice the diminishing returns at around 0.3w/gh? Other manufacturers may have hit that limit at 0.6w/gh (bitfury excluded).
Puppet
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1008


View Profile
May 04, 2014, 10:17:11 AM
 #18959

I think it illustrates the exact opposite. Notice the diminishing returns at around 0.3w/gh? Other manufacturers may have hit that limit at 0.6w/gh (bitfury excluded).

Either you cant read a chart or you are assuming current asics run at a point to the extreme left of that chart, which would also imply those other asics can be overclocked by factor of 2-3x. Here is hint: almost none can. KnC, HF, CT, bitmain, Bitmine .. you'd be lucky to hit advertised speeds, let alone 2-3x more.

Either way, welcome to my ignore list.
jimmothy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500



View Profile
May 04, 2014, 10:29:35 AM
 #18960

Either you cant read a chart or you are assuming current asics run at a point to the extreme left of that chart

Yes this is exactly what I am assuning due to the fact that no asic manufacturer has advertised below 0.5w/gh (bitfury excluded) and nobody has been able to significantly undervolt below advertised limit.


Quote
which would also imply those other asics can be overclocked by factor of 2-3x. Here is hint: almost none can. KnC, HF, CT, bitmain, Bitmine .. you'd be lucky to hit advertised speeds, let alone 2-3x more.

Either way, welcome to my ignore list.

Heres a hint:

knc can be overclocked 1.7 times  (700gh/s vs advertised 40gh/s)
Hashfast can be overclocked 2 times (800gh/s vs 400gh advertised)
And bitmain can be overclocked 2 times (200gh vs 100gh advertised)

All of which have no problem hashing at advertised speeds.

Again, got any evidence that other manufacturers are not on the far left side of that chart?
Pages: « 1 ... 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 [948] 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 ... 1348 »
  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!