1GH/s, 20w, $700 (was $500) — Butterflylabs, is it for real? (Part 2) - page 70.

fizzisist

hero member

Activity: 720

Merit: 525

Quote from: ngzhang on December 13, 2011, 10:11:44 AM

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on December 13, 2011, 09:55:51 AM

It was never possible.

and by there "excellent" marketing communications, nearly all other unfirm FPGA developers scared and canceled their project.
good job. Cheesy

From my point of view, this is a big part of the story here. This is what was so inethical/illegal. They almost scared us out of producing the X6500 in bulk. I'm glad we went with our guts and pulled the trigger, though.

"Bait-and-switch" is what this is called, and it's illegal. Yes, people can get refunds, but many probably won't. That's the point of bait-and-switch. Furthermore, many probably would have ordered FPGA mining boards from the competition weeks ago if this product hadn't been dangled in front of them like a carrot.

I'm not saying this was all intentional by BFL, but it's what happened whether they meant to or not.

RoadStress

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1007

BFL add a warranty and some legal info of your company and i might consider buying one (ofc after some units get shipped)!

RandyFolds

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on December 13, 2011, 10:49:34 AM

Quote from: BFL on December 13, 2011, 10:41:31 AM

It's also interesting to note that the only negative comments are a virtual role call of the people who've staked their reputation on this product not existing at all. I don't want to pick a fight, but at some point you may want to consider the long term implications of our company not being a scam.

The product doesn't exist. The product debated was 1.05GH @ 19.8W for $500. That product doesn't exist.

You have another product which seems very much real and at much more realistic performance metrics. I don't want to pick a fight but the only one who made a false claim was you. You "guaranteed" delivery of a product in 4-6 weeks (long since passed) that would achieve 1.05GH/s @ 19.8W for $500. A guarantee your very young company has already failed to live up to and likely never will.

This times a million. The. Product. Advertised. Does. Not. Exist.

Quote from: BFL on December 13, 2011, 11:51:13 AM

Quote from: bulanula on December 13, 2011, 11:20:39 AM

I thought the only thing that was not guaranteed was the power and they said that the 1050 Mhash/s performance figure would be kept for the final product ?

To clarify, the guarantee was that if we didn't ship with those performance figures 1.05 gh/s + / - 10% @ 19.8 (power included), we would allow customers to cancel their order or accept delivery with the final performance figures. At the moment, we can only guarantee the stable performance we have demonstrated at 832 mh/s but I think it's reasonable to assume when the production units are delivered with increased power capacity that they'll run faster. I really want to avoid a situation of over promising after having got the power draw wrong, so we're only promising 832 mh/s at the moment and we're lowering our price accordingly until we have proven increased performance with the final delivery units. In any case, ALL delivered units are being built with the larger power subsystem to compensate for the increased draw.

Well, no shit. If this wasn't the case, you'd be committing theft and fraud.

What a disappointment...

Turbor

legendary

Activity: 1022

Merit: 1000

BitMinter

I'll stick with my German Überboard Cheesy

2112

legendary

Activity: 2128

Merit: 1073

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on December 13, 2011, 09:55:51 AM

BTW where did the very exact performance numbers come from.

My guess is that they just used the estimates from the synthesis tool. It would appear that they didn't even simulate the chip before racing to design the PCB. Pre-simulation power estimates are known to be wildly inaccurate. I would tend to believe their claim that they've been 10 years in this business, which means that there are a lot of opportunities in the FPGA design business for vendors capable of better-organized work-flow.

The time it took for them to develop the software drivers is another piece of circumstantial evidence that they didn't create the simulation testbench.

BFL

full member

Activity: 217

Merit: 100

Quote from: Fiyasko on December 13, 2011, 11:20:22 AM

But BFL has acknowledged that the power brick is insufficient...

What i want to know, Is how long this this is gonna last while running at full load, According to Inaba, The thing could've already "Sparked out" by now if he had it running 24/7 since he got it

I'd like to make it clear that the power brick and the power regulator on the board are being beefed up to properly supply the power needed by the processors. In fact, we will now have two independent power regulators to ensure a very stable and long life span.

The power adapter will also be different than the one used during the demonstration with Inaba.

Please be aware that we are not students building a project board. This has been our collective profession for more than 10 years. Even our competitors in these threads have commented on the quality of the design & components used. We traditionally over design. The company Butterfly Labs is a new brand created for the BitForce platform, but our individual manufacture experience has been well established. I assure you that reliability of the delivered product will be of the highest levels.

Fiyasko

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1001

Okey Dokey Lokey

Quote from: ?? on ??

Asking gain, warranty information?

Yes please

BFL

full member

Activity: 217

Merit: 100

Quote from: bulanula on December 13, 2011, 11:20:39 AM

I thought the only thing that was not guaranteed was the power and they said that the 1050 Mhash/s performance figure would be kept for the final product ?

To clarify, the guarantee was that if we didn't ship with those performance figures 1.05 gh/s + / - 10% @ 19.8 (power included), we would allow customers to cancel their order or accept delivery with the final performance figures. At the moment, we can only guarantee the stable performance we have demonstrated at 832 mh/s but I think it's reasonable to assume when the production units are delivered with increased power capacity that they'll run faster. I really want to avoid a situation of over promising after having got the power draw wrong, so we're only promising 832 mh/s at the moment and we're lowering our price accordingly until we have proven increased performance with the final delivery units. In any case, ALL delivered units are being built with the larger power subsystem to compensate for the increased draw.

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

I thought the only thing that was not guaranteed was the power and they said that the 1050 Mhash/s performance figure would be kept for the final product ?

Fiyasko

legendary

Activity: 1428

Merit: 1001

Okey Dokey Lokey

I was fully on the "ITS A SCAM!" boat.
But, Now that Inaba has tested a unit (Inaba being one whom is not under BFL wing) and shown Real values,
Im impressed...

I didnt think one could get such high hashrates with such low power draw, So i screamed scam (20w's 1ghs)
But seeing this Overheating, Needs to be upgraded, OverANDunder powered unit...
I cant say that BFL is a scam, Perhaps, On the worst of ends, They will ship out those first 100 without fixing them.

But BFL has acknowledged that the power brick is insufficient... Hmmm.

What i want to know, Is how long this this is gonna last while running at full load, According to Inaba, The thing could've already "Sparked out" by now if he had it running 24/7 since he got it

Didnt he mention something about the rails themselves that carry the electricity are insuffecient, And therefore would Shortout overtime of use?

CubedRoot

sr. member

Activity: 291

Merit: 250

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on December 13, 2011, 10:49:34 AM

Quote from: BFL on December 13, 2011, 10:41:31 AM

It's also interesting to note that the only negative comments are a virtual role call of the people who've staked their reputation on this product not existing at all. I don't want to pick a fight, but at some point you may want to consider the long term implications of our company not being a scam.

The product doesn't exist. The product debated was 1.05GH @ 19.8W for $500. That product doesn't exist.

You have another product which seems very much real and at much more realistic performance metrics. I don't want to pick a fight but the only one who made a false claim was you. You "guaranteed" delivery of a product in 4-6 weeks (long since passed) that would achieve 1.05GH/s @ 19.8W for $500. A guarantee your very young company has already failed to live up to and likely never will.

DeathAndTaxes does make a very strong point here. I'm sure BFL is indeed going to produce a good quality unit, and deliver said unit to its customers in a respectful time frame. But, I do not think that product will be the product that they were first marketing. The original claims of 1.05 GH @ 19.8 watts for $500 (or $599) just isnt what is going to hit the market.
I think they were a victim of their own optimism, and jumped the gun a bit on making claims that couldn't be substantiated.
I do think they will get the power system corrected, and that will help with consumption. power run-aways are exponential by nature, and it appears they just had the circuit and chip underpowered in the demo. This by nature will cause alot of heat, and power draw, thus the exponential run-away problem.
I will say this, the BFL guys have been very open with the community and they seem to want to deliver a solid stable product. The first run of anything new will not always be the best. Sometimes you just have to get it in the end-users hands in a large scale to find the gremlins. Its one of the negatives about being an early adopter.

btc_artist

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 102

Bitcoin!

Quote from: BFL on December 13, 2011, 10:51:24 AM

The guarantee was that should we not deliver at those specifications, the order could be canceled or the final resulting performance figures could be accepted. We have kept to our guarantee.

meh, that might be legally true, but that's not how I (and the average person) read the product pre-order page.

BFL

full member

Activity: 217

Merit: 100

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on December 13, 2011, 10:49:34 AM

Quote from: BFL on December 13, 2011, 10:41:31 AM

It's also interesting to note that the only negative comments are a virtual role call of the people who've staked their reputation on this product not existing at all. I don't want to pick a fight, but at some point you may want to consider the long term implications of our company not being a scam.

The product doesn't exist. The product debated was 1.05GH @ 19.8W for $500. That product doesn't exist.

You have another product which seems very much real and at much more realistic performance metrics. I don't want to pick a fight but the only one who made a false claim was you. You "guaranteed" delivery of a product in 4-6 weeks (long since passed) that would achieve 1.05GH/s @ 19.8W for $500. A guarantee your very young company has already failed to live up to and likely never will.

The guarantee was that should we not deliver at those specifications, the order could be canceled or the final resulting performance figures could be accepted. We have kept to our guarantee.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: BFL on December 13, 2011, 10:41:31 AM

It's also interesting to note that the only negative comments are a virtual role call of the people who've staked their reputation on this product not existing at all. I don't want to pick a fight, but at some point you may want to consider the long term implications of our company not being a scam.

The product doesn't exist. The product debated was 1.05GH @ 19.8W for $500. That product doesn't exist.

You have another product which seems very much real and at much more realistic performance metrics. I don't want to pick a fight but the only one who made a false claim was you. You "guaranteed" delivery of a product in 4-6 weeks (long since passed) that would achieve 1.05GH/s @ 19.8W for $500. A guarantee your very young company has already failed to live up to and likely never will.

BFL

full member

Activity: 217

Merit: 100

It's also interesting to note that the only negative comments are a virtual role call of the people who've staked their reputation on this product not existing at all. I don't want to pick a fight, but at some point you may want to consider the long term implications of our company not being a scam.

BFL

full member

Activity: 217

Merit: 100

Just to clarify... The demo session ran well over an hour straight in Inaba's DC at the stated performance figures. The chips themselves run at aprox 62C at this speed. Furthermore, the demo unit has a tiny power system which does get hot because it's over burdened where the production units have a much larger power system which will run considerably cooler since it's operating within it's designed capacity.

Regards,
BFL

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: CubedRoot on December 13, 2011, 01:41:13 AM

Again, at these relatively low power levels, a board that is twice as expensive is going to take a LONG time to recover the costs. If as you say Nzhang's boards are about 20 watts, you only have about 60 watts difference. How long does it take you to recover the additional $600 in expenses on a 60 watt difference?
Power in my area is .$09 per killowatt hour.
.095 / 1000 watts = $.000095 per watt hour.
20 watts running 730 hours (I figured that for a month) at my rate of $.095 = ~ 14.06 KW/hours or total cost of about $1.34 / month
80 watts running 730 hours (I figured that for a month) at my rate of $.095 = ~ 51.10 KW/hours or total cost of about $4.85 / month

So that means it would take you about 170 months to recover the cost differential between the BFL unit and the Nzhang unit....thats assuming they output close the same performance, and we are only figuring power differential.

If my math is off, please let me know...its 2am and I have been drinking a little :O

No you are right, apples to apples the board "as tested" is very competitive despite the higher power consumption.

The issue is the competence of the company. Will it last the 12+ months necessary to just cover the cost of the capital. What FPGA is being used? What thermal load is it rated for? Are the other components on the board capable of handling the 400%+ increase in power compared to what the company thought/claimed? Does the board perform as claimed for longer periods of time? A 24 hour test would be nice? A 1000 hour continual run test would be even nicer. I mean lets call a spade a spade. If a company gets power consumption wrong not by 10% or even 50% but by >400% what else did they get wrong?

Also other boards are available w/ bulk discounts. Also some people have power costs as high as $0.30 per kWh. So it isn't just a black and white. The largest issue is risk/cashflow. Mining revenue will always trend towards lowest cost producers. Having the most efficient board is less risky. If you have high efficiency and low power costs it is unlikely price/difficulty will ever put you in a unprofitable situation. Granted you are accepting a lower return on capital but doing so with less risk.

ngzhang

hero member

Activity: 592

Merit: 501

We will stand and fight.

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on December 13, 2011, 09:55:51 AM

It was never possible.

and by there "excellent" marketing communications, nearly all other unfirm FPGA developers scared and canceled their project.
good job. Cheesy

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: BFL on December 13, 2011, 08:11:07 AM

Quote from: rjk on December 13, 2011, 08:10:25 AM

Quote from: BFL on December 13, 2011, 08:08:18 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

You already redesigned it? What modification? Just the power box change? I'm lost...

The external PSU is not a manufacturing issue. The power system of the PCB has been doubled in capacity to ease the bottleneck caused by the need for power from the chips. This is what we've been working on over the last two weeks.

From what I understand, some of the additional power consumption is because of the power circuit being run above design levels. Once the power circuitry is oversized, the efficiency should increase, and the total consumption should decrease overall. Is this correct?

Correct.

By what factor. I mean it seems improbable that power circuitry is THAT inefficient. I mean say the 12V DC to 1.1V DC switching is 20% inefficient cutting that to 10% will improve power consumption marginally but isn't going to close the gap between 82W observed and 19.8W claimed. Right?

It might help w/ temps and allow chips to be pushed higher but there is something else making the power consumption 300% (on MH per W basis) compared to Spartan LX150 chips. Last generation FPGA (65nm)?

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: cicada on December 13, 2011, 12:05:41 AM

I think we need some fingerprint analysis on the digit reflected in the kill-a-watt, to be entirely sure that aliens were not involved.

No we don't 820MH on 82W is horrible. Nobody would fake that. That's 10MH/W. Other FPGA boards are getting >2x that.

So finally nearly 2 months later after all the speculation on their "insane performance breakthrough" it turns out there is no breakthrough. Performance per watt is inferior to existing designs which have already shipped. It was the performance per watt claim which was so implausible. Well beyond what current gen FPGA are capable of. The only tech capable of that level of performance (sASICS, etc) have such high upfront costs is seemed implausible that a company from nowhere would have that kind of capital. The reality was simpler ... It was never possible.

While needing to throttle the top speed due to power/thermal issues is understandable getting power consumption wrong by >400% isn't. I mean this isn't like saying 20W and it turns out to be 23W. It would be like Toyota claiming a Prius gets 130MPG and then at launch it turns out it gets worse gas mileage than every existing hybrid already on the market.

Generally it is a good idea of benchmark your own product before selling it w/ a specific level of performance claimed.

BTW where did the very exact performance numbers come from. 1.05GH. the .05 implies a high level of confidence, and thus testing. When did you see 1.05GH in the lab? Ever? Same thing w/ power. The claims wasn't ~20W it was 19.8W. You were that sure it was .8 not .7 or .9 to use the significant digit. Did you EVER see 19.8W in the lab?

Topic: 1GH/s, 20w, $700 (was $500) — Butterflylabs, is it for real? (Part 2) - page 70. (Read 146936 times)