Isn't the BFL device 1.65kW? ... which also can pose problems for some with 110V ... since it's 15A ... well above 10A
I was using 1Th as a comparison, not as actual device figures...
Topic: ASIC power consumption estimates - page 3. (Read 15466 times)
I was using 1Th as a comparison, not as actual device figures...
Isn't the BFL device 1.65kW? ... which also can pose problems for some with 110V ... since it's 15A ... well above 10A
I have yet to encounter a US house with outlet circuits rated for anything less than 15A. Maybe it's different in other parts of the world that run on 120V (or 110V).
1500W consumption seems to be the upper limit for commonly encountered 110V/120V devices, I guess because 15A is all the makers count on being available at an outlet.
People wired for 220/240V power are at a definite advantage when it comes to being able to easily run higher wattage appliances.
Just updated the OP with new info from the ASICMINER thread. ASICMINER's estimates that they are going to be 4.2x the power usage of BFL. That would mean 4.2kW per Terahash! So, hypothetically, if you compared 1Th of asic miner to 1Th of BFL:
I don't know about you guys, but that BFL equipment, if delivered as expected, is going to be able to run a lot longer with increasing difficulty compared to ASICMINER.
Code:
Terahash Power Monthly Usage Avg. Cost kW Cost per Month
ASICMINER 1Th/s 4.2kW 3,066 $0.11 $337.26
BFL 1Th/s 1.0kW 730 $0.11 $80.30
I don't know about you guys, but that BFL equipment, if delivered as expected, is going to be able to run a lot longer with increasing difficulty compared to ASICMINER.
If I read this correct they use 135nm chips, so pretty old tech. So I think it is expected to be slower,
but they are located in china and maybe can make up for that with cheaper product prices.
The electricity costs are only important long-term. ASICMINER consciously decided to go for an older, more reliable technology, because it minimizes the risk of the chip being DOA, which can happen with newer tech.
I'm going to assume the initial costs are also significantly cheaper. But we don't have word for bfl or btcfpga on what type of technology (device size) they will be using yet.
Please correct me (with evidence) if I am wrong.
Just updated the OP with new info from the ASICMINER thread. ASICMINER's estimates that they are going to be 4.2x the power usage of BFL. That would mean 4.2kW per Terahash! So, hypothetically, if you compared 1Th of asic miner to 1Th of BFL:
I don't know about you guys, but that BFL equipment, if delivered as expected, is going to be able to run a lot longer with increasing difficulty compared to ASICMINER.
Code:
Terahash Power Monthly Usage Avg. Cost kW Cost per Month
ASICMINER 1Th/s 4.2kW 3,066 $0.11 $337.26
BFL 1Th/s 1.0kW 730 $0.11 $80.30
I don't know about you guys, but that BFL equipment, if delivered as expected, is going to be able to run a lot longer with increasing difficulty compared to ASICMINER.
If I read this correct they use 135nm chips, so pretty old tech. So I think it is expected to be slower,
but they are located in china and maybe can make up for that with cheaper product prices.
The electricity costs are only important long-term. ASICMINER consciously decided to go for an older, more reliable technology, because it minimizes the risk of the chip being DOA, which can happen with newer tech.
Just updated the OP with new info from the ASICMINER thread. ASICMINER's estimates that they are going to be 4.2x the power usage of BFL. That would mean 4.2kW per Terahash! So, hypothetically, if you compared 1Th of asic miner to 1Th of BFL:
I don't know about you guys, but that BFL equipment, if delivered as expected, is going to be able to run a lot longer with increasing difficulty compared to ASICMINER.
Code:
Terahash Power Monthly Usage Avg. Cost kW Cost per Month
ASICMINER 1Th/s 4.2kW 3,066 $0.11 $337.26
BFL 1Th/s 1.0kW 730 $0.11 $80.30
I don't know about you guys, but that BFL equipment, if delivered as expected, is going to be able to run a lot longer with increasing difficulty compared to ASICMINER.
If I read this correct they use 135nm chips, so pretty old tech. So I think it is expected to be slower,
but they are located in china and maybe can make up for that with cheaper product prices.
Isn't the BFL device 1.65kW? ... which also can pose problems for some with 110V ... since it's 15A ... well above 10A
Just updated the OP with new info from the ASICMINER thread. ASICMINER's estimates that they are going to be 4.2x the power usage of BFL. That would mean 4.2kW per Terahash! So, hypothetically, if you compared 1Th of asic miner to 1Th of BFL:
I don't know about you guys, but that BFL equipment, if delivered as expected, is going to be able to run a lot longer with increasing difficulty compared to ASICMINER.
Code:
Terahash Power Monthly Usage Avg. Cost kW Cost per Month
ASICMINER 1Th/s 4.2kW 3,066 $0.11 $337.26
BFL 1Th/s 1.0kW 730 $0.11 $80.30
I don't know about you guys, but that BFL equipment, if delivered as expected, is going to be able to run a lot longer with increasing difficulty compared to ASICMINER.
I am still calling bs on all power ratings until I see actual prototypes performing at predicted rates.
Just updated the OP with new info from the ASICMINER thread. ASICMINER's estimates that they are going to be 4.2x the power usage of BFL. That would mean 4.2kW per Terahash! So, hypothetically, if you compared 1Th of asic miner to 1Th of BFL:
I don't know about you guys, but that BFL equipment, if delivered as expected, is going to be able to run a lot longer with increasing difficulty compared to ASICMINER.
Code:
Terahash Power Monthly Usage Avg. Cost kW Cost per Month
ASICMINER 1Th/s 4.2kW 3,066 $0.11 $337.26
BFL 1Th/s 1.0kW 730 $0.11 $80.30
I don't know about you guys, but that BFL equipment, if delivered as expected, is going to be able to run a lot longer with increasing difficulty compared to ASICMINER.
The ASICMINER source says 4.2 Joule/Ghash:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1215501
(BTW, fix your units, it's either Watt/Ghash/s or Joule/Ghash )
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1215501
(BTW, fix your units, it's either Watt/Ghash/s or Joule/Ghash
)I've fixed the OP. I'm still debating whether or not to put the bASIC claims from the BFL thread in the OP. Anyone have an opinion on this?
Do it and add a disclaimer on those figures until we get the correct/real numbers.
The ASICMINER source says 4.2 Joule/Ghash:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1215501
(BTW, fix your units, it's either Watt/Ghash/s or Joule/Ghash )
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1215501
(BTW, fix your units, it's either Watt/Ghash/s or Joule/Ghash
)I've fixed the OP. I'm still debating whether or not to put the bASIC claims from the BFL thread in the OP. Anyone have an opinion on this?
The ASICMINER source says 4.2 Joule/Ghash:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1215501
(BTW, fix your units, it's either Watt/Ghash/s or Joule/Ghash
)Thanks Gigavps for this thread, I will watch this thread closely!
You are quite welcome. Hopefully some more manufacturers will be posting estimates or actual results soon.
Thanks Gigavps for this thread, I will watch this thread closely!
You (and Tom) are dreaming if you think it's going to run at 60w. The reason he doesn't want to post his power specs is because he knows they are going to be high.
Why is it attainable for your company but only dream-able for others?
Because BFL is using a 65nm process and Tom is using 130nm? That's a 4x difference in power use right there.
Actually, I'm not sure what Tom is using. Maybe I'm thinking of Avalon. Anyone know for sure?
Has anyone from BFL confirmed that they're on a 65nm node?
You (and Tom) are dreaming if you think it's going to run at 60w. The reason he doesn't want to post his power specs is because he knows they are going to be high.
Why is it attainable for your company but only dream-able for others?
Because BFL is using a 65nm process and Tom is using 130nm? That's a 4x difference in power use right there.
Actually, I'm not sure what Tom is using. Maybe I'm thinking of Avalon. Anyone know for sure?
Has anyone from BFL confirmed that they're on a 65nm node?
Anyone remember when the BFL singles were going to use 20W? Good times
Yeeeah, I'll believe anyone's power figures when I see the device plugged into a power meter, not before
Yeeeah, I'll believe anyone's power figures when I see the device plugged into a power meter, not before
You (and Tom) are dreaming if you think it's going to run at 60w. The reason he doesn't want to post his power specs is because he knows they are going to be high.
Why is it attainable for your company but only dream-able for others?
Because BFL is using a 65nm process and Tom is using 130nm? That's a 4x difference in power use right there.
Actually, I'm not sure what Tom is using. Maybe I'm thinking of Avalon. Anyone know for sure?
3, this ASIC will manufacture by SMIC or TSMC. 0.11 or 0.13 process.
There the Avalon feature size has been stated. I don't think I have seen either BFL or Tom/cablepair mention their process feature size.
You (and Tom) are dreaming if you think it's going to run at 60w. The reason he doesn't want to post his power specs is because he knows they are going to be high.
Why is it attainable for your company but only dream-able for others?
Because BFL is using a 65nm process and Tom is using 130nm? That's a 4x difference in power use right there.
Actually, I'm not sure what Tom is using. Maybe I'm thinking of Avalon. Anyone know for sure?
Maybe it's because they are producing a Full Custom ASIC where the others use Standard Cell designs:
Of course that assumes they're being on the level with all of these statements.
Of course that assumes they're being on the level with all of these statements.
IMHO, I believe that BFL have learned the lessons of the past with underestimating power consumption and over estimating Mh/s. I also do not believe they would be using the phrase "full custom" unless they were doing just that.
You (and Tom) are dreaming if you think it's going to run at 60w. The reason he doesn't want to post his power specs is because he knows they are going to be high.
Why is it attainable for your company but only dream-able for others?
Maybe it's because they are producing a Full Custom ASIC where the others use Standard Cell designs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bT-smMzg54k&feature=relmfu
at 0.48 "full-custom asics, etc
Quote
By the way, BFL doesn't use the phrase "full custom" to mean the same thing it means in the industry.
We don't? Please elaborate. (I'm serious, I'm not being snarky. If we/I am using it incorrectly, then I would like to use the proper term.)
Standard-cell ASICs and synthesis-flow ASICs are not considered full-custom chips.
The phrase "fully custom" is a BFL-ism that sounds a lot like "truthiness"
In fact the third google hit for "fully custom asic" on the entire interweb is BFL which ought to be a hint that it is a contortion of the usual industry terminology...Of course that assumes they're being on the level with all of these statements.
Jump to: