[ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread - page 173.

Vbs

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: N_S on August 07, 2013, 03:32:08 PM

Do you have any insight into how this differs from the "better" cell-based ASIC that I keep seeing referenced?

It really depends on how much eAsic can further optimize the SHA-256 mining code to fit into their "eCell" architecture. The first estimates go for 16GH/s based on Ken's initial RTL code, but tbh I'm expecting even more upon further rounds of optimizations with several specialized engineers working on it full time.

Let's not forget that eAsic also does a design conversion to standard-cell chips (what they call their "easicopy" process) for even further performance/lower price; this is their design flow on that, notice how well it correlates with the nextreme design process, saving a lot of work.

Yes, they are that good. They grew 980% in 2012, let's see they break that in 2013. Cool

Stuartuk

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lytse on August 07, 2013, 04:47:36 PM

Quote from: Stuartuk on August 07, 2013, 04:30:47 PM

... so these extra staff may take the weight off the ACtM focused staff. ...

There is no extra staff and there is no staff specifically assigned for ACtM Roll Eyes

Says who? A million dollar order and there are no staff assigned to this customer? Get a grip you idiot.

Lytse

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: Stuartuk on August 07, 2013, 04:30:47 PM

... so these extra staff may take the weight off the ACtM focused staff. ...

There is no extra staff and there is no staff specifically assigned for ACtM Roll Eyes

Stuartuk

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lytse on August 07, 2013, 04:26:40 PM

Quote from: Stuartuk on August 07, 2013, 04:23:09 PM

It means eASIC are the elite and they will have cash to invest in more staff and hardware. This could take pressure off their ACtM production run and could speed up the roll out of our chips. Very unlikely to have a negative impact. What do we think?

Investment and staff for Seagate not for small clients like ACtM. It's the other way around Tongue

OMG can you read? We know it's for Seagate (!) so these extra staff may take the weight off the ACtM focused staff. There will be common lines of work/production in their setup.

Lytse

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: Stuartuk on August 07, 2013, 04:23:09 PM

It means eASIC are the elite and they will have cash to invest in more staff and hardware. This could take pressure off their ACtM production run and could speed up the roll out of our chips. Very unlikely to have a negative impact. What do we think?

Investment and staff for Seagate not for small clients like ACtM. It's the other way around Tongue

zumzero

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 500

myBitcoin.Garden

Quote from: crumbs on August 07, 2013, 04:17:38 PM

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on August 07, 2013, 03:56:03 PM

Quote from: knybe on August 07, 2013, 03:50:06 PM

Just curious: is it, or is it not a big deal that Seagate has invested in eASIC?

in an industry where speed and size is crucial for design, It's definitely nice to see that they want to rely on eASIC

I love the logicians in this thread<3

1. Our guy's dealing with eASIC.
2. Seagate deals with eASIC.
3. ? ? ?
4. Therefore, we're as solid as Seagate.

Roll Eyes

If Seagate, eAsic and ActM want to circle-jerk then why shouldn't we! Wink

Stuartuk

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: knybe on August 07, 2013, 03:50:06 PM

Just curious: is it, or is it not a big deal that Seagate has invested in eASIC?

It's fucking HUGE. Seagate are on the fucking NASDAQ, their market cap has gone up 4x in 24months which is incredible in this economic climate. They can afford to go into partnership with only the BEST in their field - and they are pumping money into eASIC to research and produce chips for Seagates requirements.

It means eASIC are the elite and they will have cash to invest in more staff and hardware. This could take pressure off their ACtM production run and could speed up the roll out of our chips. Very unlikely to have a negative impact. What do we think?

N_S

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: crumbs on August 07, 2013, 04:17:38 PM

I love the logicians in this thread<3

1. Our guy's dealing with eASIC.
2. Seagate deals with eASIC.
3. ? ? ?
4. Therefore, we're as solid as Seagate.

Roll Eyes

I don't think anyone made any claim that ActM = Seagate in solidity. VE simply said that having a company like Seagate dealing with eASIC is a good sign. And it is.

crumbs

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on August 07, 2013, 03:56:03 PM

Quote from: knybe on August 07, 2013, 03:50:06 PM

Just curious: is it, or is it not a big deal that Seagate has invested in eASIC?

in an industry where speed and size is crucial for design, It's definitely nice to see that they want to rely on eASIC

I love the logicians in this thread<3

1. Our guy's dealing with eASIC.
2. Seagate deals with eASIC.
3. ? ? ?
4. Therefore, we're as solid as Seagate.

Roll Eyes

VolanicEruptor

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: knybe on August 07, 2013, 03:50:06 PM

Just curious: is it, or is it not a big deal that Seagate has invested in eASIC?

in an industry where speed and size is crucial for design, It's definitely nice to see that they want to rely on eASIC

deizel

member

Activity: 114

Merit: 10

Quote from: Stuartuk on August 07, 2013, 03:45:39 PM

it will still go STRATOSPHERIC. [...] Houston we have no problem.

knybe

hero member

Activity: 658

Merit: 500

decentralize EVERYTHING...

Just curious: is it, or is it not a big deal that Seagate has invested in eASIC?

Stuartuk

sr. member

Activity: 266

Merit: 250

Quote from: Vbs on August 07, 2013, 03:26:15 PM

In an eASIC nextreme you remove the SRAM Programmed Routing of an FPGA and replace it by a real metal layer, so you not only get rid of the logic gate controlled routing bottleneck, you also gain more space on the chip for the logic gates that do the actual work.

Yeah I knew that's what it was. Huh

Whateva it is, NASA got to the Moon with digital watch processing power so ACtM can get us there with these mothers no problem.

Are you ready for take off?

In all seriousness we are a month away ATLEAST before knowing where this company is going - and where the competition is going. As we speak ACtM is THE best bet by a country mile. eASIC is not pie in the sky they are serious MOFO's.

Something solid could come along but nobody knows until that happens and it sure hasn't happened yet. Put your money on ACtM it is the favorite by a country mile to go to the moon and if the competition prevent that it will still go STRATOSPHERIC. At this price level 5x gain is guaranteed and 20x+ a possibility. Houston we have no problem.

deizel

member

Activity: 114

Merit: 10

Quote from: N_S on August 07, 2013, 03:32:08 PM

Do you have any insight into how this differs from the "better" cell-based ASIC that I keep seeing referenced?

This is my guess, but I have no idea what I'm talking about.

FPGA 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ASIC ^ eASIC

N_S

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: Vbs on August 07, 2013, 03:26:15 PM

Quote from: VinceSamios on August 07, 2013, 01:59:05 PM

Can somebody explain to me the suggestion that a "28nm ASIC" is basically just a 28nm FPGA... I read the eASIC press release to mean they've simplified the process of designing ASIC's to a level on par (in simplicity terms) to coding an FPGA? In other words "We've got software which basically designs the ASIC for us, based on an algorithm" rather than "our 28nm asic's are actually fpga's"

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but a 28nm ASIC is an ASIC... There's absolutely no way anyone could get 16GH on an FPGA chip, or even a semi-FPGA chip (whatever that is). If we compare the "real 65nm ASIC" produced by BFL, at 4.5GH, with the apparently "not real 28nm ASIC" running at 16GH, by your suggestion the concept that a 28nm chip can hash at 16GH is impossible.

I'll freely admit I'm not an engineer, but I am a logical person, I code, and I understand the concepts and differences between FPGA's and ASIC's. What's being suggested simply doesn't compute.

Hehe, very simple.

In an eASIC nextreme you remove the SRAM Programmed Routing of an FPGA and replace it by a real metal layer, so you not only get rid of the logic gate controlled routing bottleneck, you also gain more space on the chip for the logic gates that do the actual work.

Do you have any insight into how this differs from the "better" cell-based ASIC that I keep seeing referenced?

Vbs

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: VinceSamios on August 07, 2013, 01:59:05 PM

Can somebody explain to me the suggestion that a "28nm ASIC" is basically just a 28nm FPGA... I read the eASIC press release to mean they've simplified the process of designing ASIC's to a level on par (in simplicity terms) to coding an FPGA? In other words "We've got software which basically designs the ASIC for us, based on an algorithm" rather than "our 28nm asic's are actually fpga's"

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but a 28nm ASIC is an ASIC... There's absolutely no way anyone could get 16GH on an FPGA chip, or even a semi-FPGA chip (whatever that is). If we compare the "real 65nm ASIC" produced by BFL, at 4.5GH, with the apparently "not real 28nm ASIC" running at 16GH, by your suggestion the concept that a 28nm chip can hash at 16GH is impossible.

I'll freely admit I'm not an engineer, but I am a logical person, I code, and I understand the concepts and differences between FPGA's and ASIC's. What's being suggested simply doesn't compute.

Hehe, very simple.

In an eASIC nextreme you remove the SRAM Programmed Routing of an FPGA and replace it by a real metal layer, so you not only get rid of the logic gate controlled routing bottleneck, you also gain more space on the chip for the logic gates that do the actual work.

VolanicEruptor

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: canth on August 07, 2013, 03:02:26 PM

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on August 07, 2013, 02:53:20 PM

Quote from: canth on August 07, 2013, 02:42:27 PM

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on August 07, 2013, 12:17:46 PM

I also heard that MinerASIC is launching 900TH by Christmas...
and a DonaldsMC restaurant.

LOL. There seems to be a lack of quality marketing professionals that want to get paid in bitcoin. It's like they took 10 words, put them in a hat and shook it until combinations came out they liked. FuriousHash and BitLabs - IPOing soon!

Their complete lack of originality makes me wonder if they even have basic english skills. It literally looks like they are reconstructing sentences already used in previous company descriptions. Could be chinese or nigerians. By the way, what kind of name is Icedrill? Sounds like a word my 4 year old neice would come up with. What ice would be getting drilled, exactly? Are we mining in the arctic now?

Maybe a datacenter in iceland, with power costs around .09-.10 USD/kwh? I haven't seen iCEBREAKER in that thread yet. It's funny too since he'd be all over it, but with >14M shares at a price that won't move (much) for months, there's nothing to manipulate.

Well let's start mining in a datacenter near a volcano, and call it FIREDRILL. We will sell Volcanic Eruptor Blades.. guess who the PR guy is gonna be? Grin

Yes I know I forgot the C in my name, but we can get over that right? After all I'm an engineer, I don't need language skills..

VinceSamios

sr. member

Activity: 448

Merit: 250

Quote from: ActiveMining-PR on August 07, 2013, 03:13:48 PM

Quote from: VinceSamios on August 07, 2013, 01:59:05 PM

Can somebody explain to me the suggestion that a "28nm ASIC" is basically just a 28nm FPGA... I read the eASIC press release to mean they've simplified the process of designing ASIC's to a level on par (in simplicity terms) to coding an FPGA? In other words "We've got software which basically designs the ASIC for us, based on an algorithm" rather than "our 28nm asic's are actually fpga's"

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but a 28nm ASIC is an ASIC... There's absolutely no way anyone could get 16GH on an FPGA chip, or even a semi-FPGA chip (whatever that is). If we compare the "real 65nm ASIC" produced by BFL, at 4.5GH, with the apparently "not real 28nm ASIC" running at 16GH, by your suggestion the concept that a 28nm chip can hash at 16GH is impossible.

I'll freely admit I'm not an engineer, but I am a logical person, I code, and I understand the concepts and differences between FPGA's and ASIC's. What's being suggested simply doesn't compute.

I am not an electrical engineer, and wish I could supply a proof positive answer. Fear not, I have an inquiry out seeking answers to those questions.

I understood the basic "i see it as an ASIC written in a high-level language, with plenty of deadwood code & sub-optimal layout, as opposed to being hand-coded in machine language. ROM Basic vs x86 asm" answer offered by SamuelSG - It makes a lot of sense. I also don't imagine the difference with nextream chips and cell based chips will be huge, rather maybe a 20% power consumption reduction or something. And who knows, it might be in the ActiveMining long term plan to move to cell based asic's eventually. Regardless getting to market rapidly is by far the most pressing priority, and ActiveM is well within power consumption requirements to be competitive, if not ahead of them.

ActiveMining-PR

newbie

Activity: 27

Merit: 0

Quote from: VinceSamios on August 07, 2013, 01:59:05 PM

Can somebody explain to me the suggestion that a "28nm ASIC" is basically just a 28nm FPGA... I read the eASIC press release to mean they've simplified the process of designing ASIC's to a level on par (in simplicity terms) to coding an FPGA? In other words "We've got software which basically designs the ASIC for us, based on an algorithm" rather than "our 28nm asic's are actually fpga's"

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but a 28nm ASIC is an ASIC... There's absolutely no way anyone could get 16GH on an FPGA chip, or even a semi-FPGA chip (whatever that is). If we compare the "real 65nm ASIC" produced by BFL, at 4.5GH, with the apparently "not real 28nm ASIC" running at 16GH, by your suggestion the concept that a 28nm chip can hash at 16GH is impossible.

I'll freely admit I'm not an engineer, but I am a logical person, I code, and I understand the concepts and differences between FPGA's and ASIC's. What's being suggested simply doesn't compute.

I am not an electrical engineer, and wish I could supply a proof positive answer. Fear not, I have an inquiry out seeking answers to those questions.

canth

legendary

Activity: 1442

Merit: 1001

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on August 07, 2013, 02:53:20 PM

Quote from: canth on August 07, 2013, 02:42:27 PM

Quote from: VolanicEruptor on August 07, 2013, 12:17:46 PM

I also heard that MinerASIC is launching 900TH by Christmas...
and a DonaldsMC restaurant.

LOL. There seems to be a lack of quality marketing professionals that want to get paid in bitcoin. It's like they took 10 words, put them in a hat and shook it until combinations came out they liked. FuriousHash and BitLabs - IPOing soon!

Their complete lack of originality makes me wonder if they even have basic english skills. It literally looks like they are reconstructing sentences already used in previous company descriptions. Could be chinese or nigerians. By the way, what kind of name is Icedrill? Sounds like a word my 4 year old neice would come up with. What ice would be getting drilled, exactly? Are we mining in the arctic now?

Maybe a datacenter in iceland, with power costs around .09-.10 USD/kwh? I haven't seen iCEBREAKER in that thread yet. It's funny too since he'd be all over it, but with >14M shares at a price that won't move (much) for months, there's nothing to manipulate.

Topic: [ActiveMining] The Official Active Mining Discussion Thread - page 173. (Read 479317 times)