1GH/s, 20w, $700 (was $500) — Butterflylabs, is it for real? (Part 2) - page 65.

RandyFolds

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: BFL on December 20, 2011, 03:12:25 PM

Quote from: rph on December 20, 2011, 01:23:13 PM

Are these shipping yet? If not, what's the ship date?

-rph

We're currently in manufacture with our revision B PCB with the larger power regulator. Our expected ship date for pre-ordered BitForce Singles is mid January.

Regards,
BFL

So in other words, 4-6 weeks? Cheesy

BFL

full member

Activity: 217

Merit: 100

Quote from: rph on December 20, 2011, 01:23:13 PM

Are these shipping yet? If not, what's the ship date?

-rph

We're currently in manufacture with our revision B PCB with the larger power regulator. Our expected ship date for pre-ordered BitForce Singles is mid January.

Regards,
BFL

rph

full member

Activity: 176

Merit: 100

Are these shipping yet? If not, what's the ship date?

-rph

grue

legendary

Activity: 2058

Merit: 1452

Quote from: legolouman on December 19, 2011, 06:39:44 AM

But this box was designed for Bitcoin. Hence the 'BitForce' Line

implying they make any other boxes other than "bitforce"

Raoul Duke

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1002

Quote from: finway on December 19, 2011, 08:30:17 AM

It's real ?
Has anyone tested it?

Can't read?

Inaba

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1000

OMG. Seriously?

finway

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

It's real ?
Has anyone tested it?

legolouman

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 504

Decent Programmer to boot!

Quote from: Epoch on December 18, 2011, 11:31:43 PM

Quote from: defxor on December 18, 2011, 07:22:05 PM

Quote from: Zotia on December 17, 2011, 11:16:15 PM

Let's put this in perspective.

They were off by a factor of 3.

Imagine someone saying "I overclocked my CPU to get 12 GHz". When they actually test the CPU, it gets 4 GHz.

Much closer to reality:

Company says "I have something that runs programs at 12 megaops"

You tell them there is a market for something that runs programs fast.

Company says they'll give you that 12 mops system they have, and then finds out that your programs have quite specific requirements which makes the product only run them at 4 megaops (while still able to execute regular programs at 12)

FPGAs aren't CPUs, nor are they GPUs, which invalidates a few of the later posts on how "off" the estimations were. Should BFL have kept quiet about expected power usage for typical scenarios and waited until they knew exactly how Bitcoin mining would task the system?

Sure, Maybe, No. Take your pick.

Even closer to reality:
- company says "we have a 1.05GHash/s, 20W box"
- you tell them there is a market for it (bitcoin mining) that they may not have first realized
- company says they'll give you that 1.05GHash/s, 20W box for it, but later finds out that their FPGA internal switching rate is so much higher for bitcoin mining (which they didn't target originally) that they have to underclock their system by 15% (down to 832MHash/s) and draw 4x the power (80W).

I don't think there is much doubt that such a box exists (Inaba has seen 2 in operation); BFL stated they would likely get the power draw down a bit by doubling the capacity of the onboard power regulators and by beefing up the power brick.

At this point a more relevant question would be: how does the 4x power draw affect the FPGAs? BFL's original cooling solution (small heatsinks and 80mm fan) was designed for a 20W heat envelope. Now the heat is 80W ... is that same cooling subsystem still sufficient, or will the FPGA's run too hot and have reduced lifetime? Typical designs are overengineered for 2x the nominal spec. 2x 20W is 40W; 80W is beyond even that.

But this box was designed for Bitcoin. Hence the 'BitForce' Line

makomk

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 564

Quote from: Epoch on December 18, 2011, 11:31:43 PM

Even closer to reality:
- company says "we have a 1.05GHash/s, 20W box"
- you tell them there is a market for it (bitcoin mining) that they may not have first realized
- company says they'll give you that 1.05GHash/s, 20W box for it, but later finds out that their FPGA internal switching rate is so much higher for bitcoin mining (which they didn't target originally) that they have to underclock their system by 15% (down to 832MHash/s) and draw 4x the power (80W).

That's not quite right; as I understand it the reason the internal switching rate is so high is the 1.05 GHash/s of SHA-256 in itself. In theory it's inherent to this kind of high-speed hashing. (Not that there's really many uses for this sort of hash rate other than Bitcoin mining anyway...)

Epoch

legendary

Activity: 922

Merit: 1003

Quote from: defxor on December 18, 2011, 07:22:05 PM

Quote from: Zotia on December 17, 2011, 11:16:15 PM

Let's put this in perspective.

They were off by a factor of 3.

Imagine someone saying "I overclocked my CPU to get 12 GHz". When they actually test the CPU, it gets 4 GHz.

Much closer to reality:

Company says "I have something that runs programs at 12 megaops"

You tell them there is a market for something that runs programs fast.

Company says they'll give you that 12 mops system they have, and then finds out that your programs have quite specific requirements which makes the product only run them at 4 megaops (while still able to execute regular programs at 12)

FPGAs aren't CPUs, nor are they GPUs, which invalidates a few of the later posts on how "off" the estimations were. Should BFL have kept quiet about expected power usage for typical scenarios and waited until they knew exactly how Bitcoin mining would task the system?

Sure, Maybe, No. Take your pick.

Even closer to reality:
- company says "we have a 1.05GHash/s, 20W box"
- you tell them there is a market for it (bitcoin mining) that they may not have first realized
- company says they'll give you that 1.05GHash/s, 20W box for it, but later finds out that their FPGA internal switching rate is so much higher for bitcoin mining (which they didn't target originally) that they have to underclock their system by 15% (down to 832MHash/s) and draw 4x the power (80W).

I don't think there is much doubt that such a box exists (Inaba has seen 2 in operation); BFL stated they would likely get the power draw down a bit by doubling the capacity of the onboard power regulators and by beefing up the power brick.

At this point a more relevant question would be: how does the 4x power draw affect the FPGAs? BFL's original cooling solution (small heatsinks and 80mm fan) was designed for a 20W heat envelope. Now the heat is 80W ... is that same cooling subsystem still sufficient, or will the FPGA's run too hot and have reduced lifetime? Typical designs are overengineered for 2x the nominal spec. 2x 20W is 40W; 80W is beyond even that.

defxor

hero member

Activity: 530

Merit: 500

Quote from: Zotia on December 17, 2011, 11:16:15 PM

Let's put this in perspective.

They were off by a factor of 3.

Imagine someone saying "I overclocked my CPU to get 12 GHz". When they actually test the CPU, it gets 4 GHz.

Much closer to reality:

Company says "I have something that runs programs at 12 megaops"

You tell them there is a market for something that runs programs fast.

Company says they'll give you that 12 mops system they have, and then finds out that your programs have quite specific requirements which makes the product only run them at 4 megaops (while still able to execute regular programs at 12)

FPGAs aren't CPUs, nor are they GPUs, which invalidates a few of the later posts on how "off" the estimations were. Should BFL have kept quiet about expected power usage for typical scenarios and waited until they knew exactly how Bitcoin mining would task the system?

Sure, Maybe, No. Take your pick.

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

So when will these ship now ? Presumably in 2012 then, right ? When is that final version of the hardware with the fixed power issues coming ?

fred0

sr. member

Activity: 349

Merit: 250

Quote from: Zotia on December 17, 2011, 11:16:15 PM

If they intentionally told us the wrong number when they know the right number, then yes, it is a scam.

If they unintentionally off by a factor of 3, then they are idiots.

Good, your mind is made up. Don't buy from BFL. You have it all worked out.

Zotia

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 501

TokenUnion-Get Rewarded for Holding Crypto

Quote from: fred0 on December 17, 2011, 12:41:01 AM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on December 17, 2011, 12:37:16 AM

Quote from: fred0 on December 17, 2011, 12:14:56 AM

Quote from: rjk on December 16, 2011, 11:51:02 PM

Quote from: coinjedi on December 16, 2011, 11:13:40 PM

Since the official specs are updated I will decide the bet as "True" this weekend and distribute the coins. Please raise objections if you have any.
http://betsofbitco.in/item?id=141
Thank you everyone for your participation.

No objection, but I would like to submit for the record that that was a poorly worded bet. Oh well.

I know, the intent of the bet was to show the widget was a scam, in the end it became a bet on delivery dates. I have no objections.

Delivery date? Even if they were shipping now the product doesn't meet the price or power claims as specified in the bet.

Price hasn't changed. Hash power, yet to be determined for production version. Power consumption, you win. Wow, they sure did pull a scam...

Let's put this in perspective.

They were off by a factor of 3.

Imagine someone saying "I overclocked my CPU to get 12 GHz". When they actually test the CPU, it gets 4 GHz.

A factor of 3 is the difference between mediocre and being way better than the world record.

If they intentionally told us the wrong number when they know the right number, then yes, it is a scam.

If they unintentionally off by a factor of 3, then they are idiots.

fred0

sr. member

Activity: 349

Merit: 250

Quote from: Syke on December 17, 2011, 10:48:07 PM

Quote from: fred0 on December 17, 2011, 01:37:44 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I think "cluster fuck" is a better word to use at this point than scam. However it might turn out to still be a scam.

That's a little harsh.

Harsh? Hardly. Imagine AMD just announced the 7970 will run at 200 watts. Can you image the sort of uproar that would occur if in Jan, when they arrive, they consume 800 watts each?!

The only people who don't make mistakes are people who don't do anything. I hardly consider this error a cluster fuck. It's not a cluster of anything. If you consider it to be that serious an issue, buy another FPGA, see how that works out. Good luck with your search for the perfect FPGA, let us know how that turns out--in a different thread.

Syke

legendary

Activity: 3878

Merit: 1193

Quote from: fred0 on December 17, 2011, 01:37:44 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I think "cluster fuck" is a better word to use at this point than scam. However it might turn out to still be a scam.

That's a little harsh.

Harsh? Hardly. Imagine AMD just announced the 7970 will run at 200 watts. Can you image the sort of uproar that would occur if in Jan, when they arrive, they consume 800 watts each?!

fred0

sr. member

Activity: 349

Merit: 250

Quote from: deepceleron on December 17, 2011, 03:49:49 AM

The product could have easily been kept under wraps until it was ready to ship or they had working prototypes. I think the reason you heard about it was because they had no capital, so the full-price preorders (with specs based on guesses and simulations) were used to pay for the development and production.

Well, we wouldn't have been able to take advantage of the pre-order pricing Wink

. Also, time is of the essence, it really is hard to say with certainty what bitcoin pricing will be 1+ years out. The pre-order allows us to mine ASAP to take advantage of the last year of 25+% bitcoin inflation.

If we are lucky, and I think we are, a new wave of bitcoin adoption will trigger a bubble this year. The inflated pricing will allow much quicker hardware payback than otherwise possible.

If we are not lucky, expect to slowly recoup hardware costs throughout the year. This time next year, block reward halves, cost per bitcoin doubles. If price per bitcoin does not follow, then expect a huge drop in network hash rate as huge numbers of GPU based operations cease due to revenue being cut in half, and would be operating at a loss. Difficulty drops, FPGA based mining operations are still profitable.

If we are disastrously unlucky, bitcoin fails. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $200. We lose. I really don't see this as a likely outcome. But we never see the car that sideswipes us until it is too late.

deepceleron

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1036

The product could have easily been kept under wraps until it was ready to ship or they had working prototypes. I think the reason you heard about it was because they had no capital, so the full-price preorders (with specs based on guesses and simulations) were used to pay for the development and production.

fred0

sr. member

Activity: 349

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

"But I wonder, IF the widget was shipped on time delivering 1.05 GH/s but consuming 60 Watts, would it be considered a scam?"

I would say no, its not a scam if they got close to that. However at this point we do not know if any units will ever be shipped or if they will function.

I think "cluster fuck" is a better word to use at this point than scam. However it might turn out to still be a scam.

That's a little harsh. Maybe I'm too trusting. I have a hunch that the production version will be really close to the hash power originally estimated, but at a much higher power consumption. Unfortunately they didn't have someone like DeathAndTaxes to set them straight before they gave their power estimates.

What can you do? Just remember, "Every kick in the ass is one step forward."

fred0

sr. member

Activity: 349

Merit: 250

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on December 17, 2011, 12:37:16 AM

Quote from: fred0 on December 17, 2011, 12:14:56 AM

I know, the intent of the bet was to show the widget was a scam, in the end it became a bet on delivery dates. I have no objections.

Delivery date? Even if they were shipping now the product doesn't meet the price or power claims as specified in the bet.

Out of all of their numbers the only one they are going to hit is their price. (assuming this is not a scam and they do ship these out)

They wont ship in time (who knows how long it will take. They said at least a month, might be 2 or 3?? The last tim they said 4 to 6 weeks it turned out to be much much longer.)

Their power use will be at least 300% off of what they said.

Their "current" hashing rate is 15% less than what they claimed.

Assuming they do ship these within the next 6 months scam wont be the best word but I can't think of anything off the top of my head that fits better.

I also did not like the terms of that bet. That why my terms gave them 25% on their numbers. At 25% they failed at power and shipping date.

Like I said, I have no objections to the bet being decided as "Agree"

I also said the the terms of Goat's bet was fair. [I didn't have any money bet with Goat -- so others may still disagree]

But I wonder, IF the widget was shipped on time delivering 1.05 GH/s but consuming 60 Watts, would it be considered a scam?

Because we really don't know what the final hashing output will be, but we can pretty much agree that the power consumption will be much higher than originally stated.

Topic: 1GH/s, 20w, $700 (was $500) — Butterflylabs, is it for real? (Part 2) - page 65. (Read 146936 times)