The fact that BFL decided to produce their chips in a smaller manufacturing process than the competition, it's really hard they could beat their energy efficiency.
With the announcement that the bASIC was moving from 54 to 72GH/s, it was stated that more chips would be used per device. 16 chips at a lower clock and lower voltage will not only be faster, but also more power efficient. You can bet your ass their old 54GH/s design wasn't 1.4W/GHs. 
Topic: ASIC power consumption estimates (Read 15450 times)
The fact that BFL decided to produce their chips in a smaller manufacturing process than the competition, it's really hard they could beat their energy efficiency.
I'd call 1.4W/Ghps reasonably competitive with BFL's estimates of 1W/Ghps, though I can see that may be a restriction for some people. Ultimately, until a working prototype is demonstrated from any ASIC vendor, power claims remain as estimates only. Reality may turn out to be different. I do hope the estimates turn out to be largely accurate.
I think the main issue here is that no vendor has (demonstrated) a working prototype yet. So it is difficult for them to estimate, let alone commit to, final power consumption numbers.
Some have chosen to express it as a range. Others have refused to commit. BFL has thrown out a a number (1W/Ghps). We all know that BFL has taken a lot of flak with their FPGA product in that their final power figure was 4x greater than initially estimated. I like to believe that they have learned their lesson, but we have to wait for prototype testing results (from all vendors) for anything more concrete than that.
One other other thing to consider is the fact that BFL has chosen a 65nm process node while the other vendors are using something larger. This implies that whatever the final power numbers end up being, BFL should be lower (per GHps) than the others. Whether this becomes a significant differentiator remains to be seen.
Some have chosen to express it as a range. Others have refused to commit. BFL has thrown out a a number (1W/Ghps). We all know that BFL has taken a lot of flak with their FPGA product in that their final power figure was 4x greater than initially estimated. I like to believe that they have learned their lesson, but we have to wait for prototype testing results (from all vendors) for anything more concrete than that.
One other other thing to consider is the fact that BFL has chosen a 65nm process node while the other vendors are using something larger. This implies that whatever the final power numbers end up being, BFL should be lower (per GHps) than the others. Whether this becomes a significant differentiator remains to be seen.
Like Avalon it's specified as a range for bASIC. Only BFL has use of a crystal ball and can perfectly predict power consumption to the watt across an entire product line. Naturally no on questions this crystal ball prediction as BFL's track record for predicting power consumption in the past is exemplary. 
Do producers not know the watt usage yet or is it a secret?
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817182082
i have this waiting to power 3 bASIC devices, should be roughly 65-70% load..
i have this waiting to power 3 bASIC devices, should be roughly 65-70% load..
It seems to me like there is a 0% chance that thing works. It's all for show.
How could it work if they don't have any working ASIC chips yet? They said they would update us when they received them.
How could it work if they don't have any working ASIC chips yet? They said they would update us when they received them.
Did it meet the power and efficiency ratio of 1Gh per watt?
-- Smoov
There is speculation that the picture is only a non-working dud as of yet. Hopefully they will have working prototypes soon. -- Smoov
One representative stated that they won't have any samples in the incoming batch. So if it is broke, then the fat lady has sung. They said that was unlikely though. I believe them on that. Question is, how many times did they try and when did each iteration occur in their timeline/schedule?
That info alone would change the actual reasons for the past delays. [or at least solidify that there was never a possibility for shipping earlier until just now.]
Did it meet the power and efficiency ratio of 1Gh per watt?
-- Smoov
-- Smoov
So guys...If I ordered a BFL Mini Rig SC today, when can I expect it to reach my house (SE Asia) ?
"By the end of January assuming no snags or anything."EDIT: sorry, that was for the pre-orders. february maybe? 4-6 weeks into 2013?
Ooo,hot tottie warmer 
Get sick,mine while you make your meds,oh noe's.............damn meth heads are gonna want these now
Get sick,mine while you make your meds,oh noe's.............damn meth heads are gonna want these now
What happened to the coffee warmer? I don't want a whiskey warmer.
Nice to see the dates being solidified 
.
. It may have one of the "dummy" boards in it,for whatever reason.
Either way, now it is bASIC turn to upstage or lay like a dead goose in the background.
Oh, by the way, the prototype picture has been released.
Courtesy of: www.butterflylabs.com
Re-posted under the FAIR USE ACT for discussion purposes.
It is unknown (as of yet) if this is simply a prototype for the case design or if it is a fully working prototype.
If it is the latter, then obviously the burning questions is: Did it meet the power and efficiency ratio of 1Gh per watt? I'll let others ask....
Courtesy of: www.butterflylabs.com
Re-posted under the FAIR USE ACT for discussion purposes.
It is unknown (as of yet) if this is simply a prototype for the case design or if it is a fully working prototype.
If it is the latter, then obviously the burning questions is: Did it meet the power and efficiency ratio of 1Gh per watt? I'll let others ask....
That's just the case,is what I gather from what he said:
"This is a crappy picture... I will get a better one when I get some time, but it's one of the prototype Singles cases. What you actually receive may be subtly different, but not much."
It may have one of the "dummy" boards in it,for whatever reason.
Oh, by the way, the prototype picture has been released.
Courtesy of: www.butterflylabs.com
Re-posted under the FAIR USE ACT for discussion purposes.
It is unknown (as of yet) if this is simply a prototype for the case design or if it is a fully working prototype.
If it is the latter, then obviously the burning questions is: Did it meet the power and efficiency ratio of 1Gh per watt? I'll let others ask....
Courtesy of: www.butterflylabs.com
Re-posted under the FAIR USE ACT for discussion purposes.
It is unknown (as of yet) if this is simply a prototype for the case design or if it is a fully working prototype.
If it is the latter, then obviously the burning questions is: Did it meet the power and efficiency ratio of 1Gh per watt? I'll let others ask....
So guys...If I ordered a BFL Mini Rig SC today, when can I expect it to reach my house (SE Asia) ?
It seems that they will start shipping so close together that it won't even matter. Except for maybe the people that are very first in line.
There's the reliability of the estimation to account for too:
- Tom said Nov/Dec from the start and seems still on track. He delivered the modminer quads in a timely manner too from what I can tell.
- BFL originally said October then November and now December and has a past history of optimism.
BFL seems to have far more customers being the first announcing ASICs. So even with more hands to handle the task and an optimistic early start Tom customers as a group might get their ASICs before the BFL customers do and overall see a better ROI. So the luckiest (first delivered) BFL customer might have the best ROI of all but a random customer might be better off with Tom's offer.
I hope we'll have a clear picture at the end of December.
Josh said 1st week of December for shipping. Tom also said 1st week for the bASIC. Are people sweating now over their who will ship first bets? 
I would guess only the very early BFL customers who were relying on being first. Most bASIC customers went into it expecting to ship after BFL. Josh said 1st week of December for shipping. Tom also said 1st week for the bASIC. Are people sweating now over their who will ship first bets?
It seems that they will start shipping so close together that it won't even matter. Except for maybe the people that are very first in line.
Josh said 1st week of December for shipping. Tom also said 1st week for the bASIC. Are people sweating now over their who will ship first bets?
More info has come out about BFL ASIC. 
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/content.php/125-BFL-ASIC-Update
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/content.php/125-BFL-ASIC-Update
Looks like Tom has posted power estimates after all.
https://www.btcfpga.com/forum/index.php?topic=4.msg132#msg132
Quoted here for posterity. I have also updated the OP.
https://www.btcfpga.com/forum/index.php?topic=4.msg132#msg132
Quote
We are expecting the 27Gh/s units to use between 50-60 watts and the 54Gh/s units to use between 100-120 watts give or take
this is estimated data - and will not be completely correct but it gives you a ballpark and as close as an estimate as our competitor friends have on their units
this is estimated data - and will not be completely correct but it gives you a ballpark and as close as an estimate as our competitor friends have on their units
Quoted here for posterity. I have also updated the OP.
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?
Actually, I'm not sure what Tom is using. Maybe I'm thinking of Avalon. Anyone know for sure?
Tom is using 90nm and has further stated that the bASIC 1 will run on a barrel type connector or molex, this means under 110w.
https://www.bitcoinasic.net/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=51
Given the complexities/risks associated with designing a 45 or even 65nm chip I think a 90nm ASIC was an excellent choice for a product introduction.
from cablepair:
EDIT: the description has been modified with power numbers removed.
Quote
bASIC's will do 54Gh/s at under 100watts
http://www.flickr.com/photos/88427916@N07/8075593408/in/photostreamEDIT: the description has been modified with power numbers removed.
Avalon announced a maximum of 400w for 66Gh/s.
We can narrow the estimate for Avalon to : 2-6 watts/Gh
We can narrow the estimate for Avalon to : 2-6 watts/Gh
Done.
Avalon announced a maximum of 400w for 66Gh/s.
We can narrow the estimate for Avalon to : 2-6 watts/Gh
We can narrow the estimate for Avalon to : 2-6 watts/Gh
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
)I really hope that BFL can deliver
Moore's Law and higher nm processes.
True, but say you had a basic $1200 budget:2010: ~10-15Mh/s
2011: ~1400Mh/s
2012: ~2200Mh/s (achievable with cheap GPUs)
2013: >50000Mh/s
As much as Moore's law etc will have an impact, I don't think we'll ever see hashrate/$ go up >20x in a single year again. Hope not anyway
Yeah, I don't think you can use Moore's law in this case. Moore's law considers the same type of technology (CPU's) increasing in effiiciency/power over time. We're actually looking at jumps to new types of technology. I think you need to compare the jump in power/efficiency from CPU/GPU/FPGA/ASIC mining to something more akin to the jump from Horses to Cars to Aircraft...
Or they run two 1200W PSUs instead of trying to source a 2kW model
The singles ended up using 4 times as much power per Megahash as BFL claimed they would initially. What's to stop that happening again?
I usually learn lessons the hard way, but once they are learned, they are not repeated. I hope it is the same with BFL.
...
This time they have to be at least 10x better than they were last time ... do people usually get that much better per iteration?
Before was 400%
If this time they are 10x better at estimating, i.e. only 40%, then the 1.5kW becomes 2.1kW = 19.1A on 110V .........
The singles ended up using 4 times as much power per Megahash as BFL claimed they would initially. What's to stop that happening again?
I usually learn lessons the hard way, but once they are learned, they are not repeated. I hope it is the same with BFL.
...
This time they have to be at least 10x better than they were last time ... do people usually get that much better per iteration?
Before was 400%
If this time they are 10x better at estimating, i.e. only 40%, then the 1.5kW becomes 2.1kW = 19.1A on 110V .........
Why does no on believe me! The BFL Minirig QC will be out RSN!
Moore's Law and higher nm processes.
True, but say you had a basic $1200 budget:2010: ~10-15Mh/s
2011: ~1400Mh/s
2012: ~2200Mh/s (achievable with cheap GPUs)
2013: >50000Mh/s
As much as Moore's law etc will have an impact, I don't think we'll ever see hashrate/$ go up >20x in a single year again. Hope not anyway
I never meant to suggest that a 20x increase would happen again. But doubling every 18 months is still an interesting thought. Plus, we are seeing that most ASICs are on old nm processes, so they can be improved more quickly.
Moore's Law and higher nm processes.
True, but say you had a basic $1200 budget:2010: ~10-15Mh/s
2011: ~1400Mh/s
2012: ~2200Mh/s (achievable with cheap GPUs)
2013: >50000Mh/s
As much as Moore's law etc will have an impact, I don't think we'll ever see hashrate/$ go up >20x in a single year again. Hope not anyway
Moore's Law and higher nm processes.
True, but say you had a basic $1200 budget:2010: ~10-15Mh/s
2011: ~1400Mh/s
2012: ~2200Mh/s (achievable with cheap GPUs)
2013: >50000Mh/s
As much as Moore's law etc will have an impact, I don't think we'll ever see hashrate/$ go up >20x in a single year again. Hope not anyway
The singles ended up using 4 times as much power per Megahash as BFL claimed they would initially. What's to stop that happening again?
I usually learn lessons the hard way, but once they are learned, they are not repeated. I hope it is the same with BFL.
what really comes after ASIC?
Moore's Law and higher nm processes.
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.
The singles ended up using 4 times as much power per Megahash as BFL claimed they would initially. What's to stop that happening again?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.
However, I guess this time around there's unlikely to be any quantum leap in hashing rate on the horizon... what really comes after ASIC?
On cheap power you're hopefully looking at a multi-year service life on these.
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...
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.
One of the biggest costs in running mining equipment is going to be power consumption.
So ya, the cost of electricity is becoming much less of a factor than it used to be.
I disagree. Cost of electricity is always the number one concern when mining because you are essentially turning electricity into bitcoins. Cost of equipment is number two, and only matters when you are buying equipment or considering selling it.
I agree with the disagreement
In the long-run, the cost of the electricity is THE factor that will decide who keeps his/her ASICs plugged in and who will turn them off. The race to bring the most Gh/s/W is on and the winner(s) should sell the most ASICs in the market (all other things being equal).
Once you buy the equipment, the money paid should be considered sunken costs unless you plan to resale the equipment in which case you need anticipate resale value and/or time timeframe needed to recoup the investment.
To quote Obsi:
Quote
With the reward halving and coming ASIC price wars we might see first gen ASIC miners with high electricity rates priced out of the market sometime in 2013.
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?
My guess is avalon is the only reasonable prediction and once we get actual prototypes out we will see this
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?
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.
Having already ordered a jalapeno, I'd say im pretty happy that the power usage will be so low. If I can run this straight from the usb ports on my raspberry pi, I will be very happy.
If these generate a considerable amount of heat, I might even use it to warm my little sisters hermit crab tank, and heaters like that use around the same amount of power.
I just wonder when the new "little SC's" will be available, I might purchase one if I can somehow use my jalapeno order towards the price.
Its cool to see all these asics popping up, I wonder what kind of miners will come up next? Huge supercooled quantum miners?
If these generate a considerable amount of heat, I might even use it to warm my little sisters hermit crab tank, and heaters like that use around the same amount of power.
I just wonder when the new "little SC's" will be available, I might purchase one if I can somehow use my jalapeno order towards the price.
Its cool to see all these asics popping up, I wonder what kind of miners will come up next? Huge supercooled quantum miners?
There's no chance you'll be able to run the Jalapeno directly off the USB ports on the Raspberry Pi. You'll have to use a USB hub. http://raspberrypi.stackexchange.com/questions/340/how-much-power-can-be-provided-through-usb
Actually - up front the power performance really doesn't matter at all - it's only in the long term if difficulty rises orders of magnitude faster than the BTC price rises.
Consider today - I can run 560W of mining hardware for about $80 a month in an expensive energy price country (Aus)
My 560W produces almost 1BTC per day - but with $12 BTC that's approximately $300 - $80 = $220 profit a month and the cost is about 27%
If I switched to a 54GH/s bASIC miner for $1069.99 from http://www.BitcoinASIC.com and it was using (as a random number guess) 60W, then that would be at the moment around $8.80 a month and produce approximately $6,931.83 profit a month - so only 0.13% energy cost
Now when the difficulty goes up 10x, if the BTC price stays the same at $12 (and doesn't go up) that will of course be 1.3% - still seems small ...
Double that power and you get: 2.6% ... still seems small ...
20x difficulty and double power: 5.1% ... still not a big deal yet ...
By the time it matters, anyone who cares about that number may well be using the next generation of ASIC devices ...
... though I don't think anyone has proven any power 'facts' yet ...
Edit: Oh I should add:
20x difficulty, double power, half block reward, still $12: 10.2% - I could deal with that
Consider today - I can run 560W of mining hardware for about $80 a month in an expensive energy price country (Aus)
My 560W produces almost 1BTC per day - but with $12 BTC that's approximately $300 - $80 = $220 profit a month and the cost is about 27%
If I switched to a 54GH/s bASIC miner for $1069.99 from http://www.BitcoinASIC.com and it was using (as a random number guess) 60W, then that would be at the moment around $8.80 a month and produce approximately $6,931.83 profit a month - so only 0.13% energy cost
Now when the difficulty goes up 10x, if the BTC price stays the same at $12 (and doesn't go up) that will of course be 1.3% - still seems small ...
Double that power and you get: 2.6% ... still seems small ...
20x difficulty and double power: 5.1% ... still not a big deal yet ...
By the time it matters, anyone who cares about that number may well be using the next generation of ASIC devices ...
... though I don't think anyone has proven any power 'facts' yet ...
Edit: Oh I should add:
20x difficulty, double power, half block reward, still $12: 10.2% - I could deal with that
Considering gigavps has a vendetta against Tom and btcfpga (and obvious bias towards BFL since that what he invested in) expected him to he hesitant in reporting numbers that are comparable to BFL.
Hi squid,
I have put this thread together to help consolidate information based on provable facts. I am trying to be impartial and objective. If you feel Tom's statement cited earlier in the thread is clear and concise, I will add it to the OP.
Best,
gigavps
Nah, Tom has stated that he will give an estimate once he gets the prototype in his hands.
It just amazes me to see BFL claiming to have reached 1J/GH. If it were April 1st I would be assured it's a joke. I simply don't understand how they could push that technology so hard in such a limited amount of time, and competitors don't get even close to it.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/fuck-everything-were-doing-five-blades,11056/
Why can't you understand? Simple math shows that 950-1500 Mhash/J should be possible with a 65nm ASIC: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/best-demonstrated-efficiency-1290-mhashjoule-95762
Thanks for the link. Is there any indication that BFL is doing 65nm? AFAIK the lower you go the higher the risk that the chip is a total failure, and you have to go back to the drawing board. Small problems can be fixed after the chip is produced, but that also requires some engineering time. Considering gigavps has a vendetta against Tom and btcfpga (and obvious bias towards BFL since that what he invested in) expected him to he hesitant in reporting numbers that are comparable to BFL.
Hi squid,
I have put this thread together to help consolidate information based on provable facts. I am trying to be impartial and objective. If you feel Tom's statement cited earlier in the thread is clear and concise, I will add it to the OP.
Best,
gigavps
Considering gigavps has a vendetta against Tom and btcfpga (and obvious bias towards BFL since that what he invested in) expected him to he hesitant in reporting numbers that are comparable to BFL.
It just amazes me to see BFL claiming to have reached 1J/GH. If it were April 1st I would be assured it's a joke. I simply don't understand how they could push that technology so hard in such a limited amount of time, and competitors don't get even close to it.Why can't you understand? Simple math shows that 950-1500 Mhash/J should be possible with a 65nm ASIC: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/best-demonstrated-efficiency-1290-mhashjoule-95762
Considering gigavps has a vendetta against Tom and btcfpga (and obvious bias towards BFL since that what he invested in) expected him to he hesitant in reporting numbers that are comparable to BFL.
It just amazes me to see BFL claiming to have reached 1J/GH. If it were April 1st I would be assured it's a joke. I simply don't understand how they could push that technology so hard in such a limited amount of time, and competitors don't get even close to it. Cablepair stated the bASIC would consume less power than the mod miner quad (40 watts), but this was back when it was a 27Gh/s unit. It is safe to assume the 54GH/s unit would required twice the power and consume less than 80 watts.
80/54 = 1.48 J/Gh
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1183153
80/54 = 1.48 J/Gh
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1183153
Hi Dust,
I think is is fair to say that it is not clear what Tom is saying there. I would rather wait for him to announce the info and then we can add it to the list.
Best,
gigavps
Tom said exactly in the above comment "[the 27Gh/s device] uses less electricity than the ModMiner Quad", so it is pretty clear to me that it means less than 40Watt. Hence 675 Mhash/Joule, or 1.48 J/Ghash.
Now if you wanted to be pointy, one could say that Tom did not promise the 54Gh/s device would have the same efficiency as the 27Gh/s one...
Considering gigavps has a vendetta against Tom and btcfpga (and obvious bias towards BFL since that what he invested in) expected him to he hesitant in reporting numbers that are comparable to BFL.
I have to agree with fizzisist, ultimately it's going to eventually end up at the cost to run whatever mining hardware you have. The initial costs will be paid back at some point, so if a unit costs 2x as much to run, the value of that equipment is 1/2 comparable equipment that is 2x as power efficient, even if the initial costs are the same or even higher.
But it's even more counter-intuitive than that - your ROI is going to be cut by a factor equivalent to the difference in power consumption over the term of the ROI... I think I phrased that right. So if your unit is 2x a power efficient, that also reduces your ROI time factor, even if you disregard your profit after the ROI has been met.
It's all about the power efficiency in the end.
But it's even more counter-intuitive than that - your ROI is going to be cut by a factor equivalent to the difference in power consumption over the term of the ROI... I think I phrased that right. So if your unit is 2x a power efficient, that also reduces your ROI time factor, even if you disregard your profit after the ROI has been met.
It's all about the power efficiency in the end.
One of the biggest costs in running mining equipment is going to be power consumption.
So ya, the cost of electricity is becoming much less of a factor than it used to be.
I disagree. Cost of electricity is always the number one concern when mining because you are essentially turning electricity into bitcoins. Cost of equipment is number two, and only matters when you are buying equipment or considering selling it. Since equipment isn't 100% liquid, it's the electricity cost, difficulty, and exchange rate that you are watching on a day to day basis, i.e. "should I mine today or turn it off." Furthermore, if your equipment is more efficient than everyone else's (or your electricity is cheaper) you will be always be able to keep mining, in theory at least.
One of the biggest costs in running mining equipment is going to be power consumption.
A 1,500W BFL Mini Rig SC costs $5.40 per day using the U.S. average residential rate of electricity around $0.15 per kWh.
So that is under $2K USD per year in electricity. For an investment of $30K, $2K going to electricity isn't a particularly huge issue, though definitely operating one where electricity costs are $0.03 per kWh (like it is near Hydro electric generation) is going to be more profitable than running it where electricity costs are above average.
This compares to GPUs whose capital costs were low compared to the cost of the electricity to run them.
For comparison, a $1,100 GPU rig consuming 700W has electrical costs of $2.52 (using U.S. residential average of $0.15 per kWh) and $919 per year.
Of course, figure in the cost of capital per hash and this difference is even more pronounced. Capital costs: GPU rig: $785 per Ghash/s. ASIC rig: $30 per Ghash/s.
So ya, the cost of electricity is becoming much less of a factor than it used to be.
Tom said exactly in the above comment "[the 27Gh/s device] uses less electricity than the ModMiner Quad", so it is pretty clear to me that it means less than 40Watt. Hence 675 Mhash/Joule, or 1.48 J/Ghash.
Now if you wanted to be pointy, one could say that Tom did not promise the 54Gh/s device would have the same efficiency as the 27Gh/s one...
Now if you wanted to be pointy, one could say that Tom did not promise the 54Gh/s device would have the same efficiency as the 27Gh/s one...
I would like to try and make sure that I am not putting specs down that the manufacturers have not released. While you are quoting him, he could have meant that statement in multitude of ways.
For instance, did he mean total power consumption or Mh/s per watt?
Cablepair stated the bASIC would consume less power than the mod miner quad (40 watts), but this was back when it was a 27Gh/s unit. It is safe to assume the 54GH/s unit would required twice the power and consume less than 80 watts.
80/54 = 1.48 J/Gh
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1183153
80/54 = 1.48 J/Gh
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1183153
Hi Dust,
I think is is fair to say that it is not clear what Tom is saying there. I would rather wait for him to announce the info and then we can add it to the list.
Best,
gigavps
Tom said exactly in the above comment "[the 27Gh/s device] uses less electricity than the ModMiner Quad", so it is pretty clear to me that it means less than 40Watt. Hence 675 Mhash/Joule, or 1.48 J/Ghash.
Now if you wanted to be pointy, one could say that Tom did not promise the 54Gh/s device would have the same efficiency as the 27Gh/s one...
Cablepair stated the bASIC would consume less power than the mod miner quad (40 watts), but this was back when it was a 27Gh/s unit. It is safe to assume the 54GH/s unit would required twice the power and consume less than 80 watts.
80/54 = 1.48 J/Gh
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1183153
80/54 = 1.48 J/Gh
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1183153
Hi Dust,
I think is is fair to say that it is not clear what Tom is saying there. I would rather wait for him to announce the info and then we can add it to the list.
Best,
gigavps
Having already ordered a jalapeno, I'd say im pretty happy that the power usage will be so low. If I can run this straight from the usb ports on my raspberry pi, I will be very happy.
If these generate a considerable amount of heat, I might even use it to warm my little sisters hermit crab tank, and heaters like that use around the same amount of power.
If these generate a considerable amount of heat, I might even use it to warm my little sisters hermit crab tank, and heaters like that use around the same amount of power.
Most heat generated in electric appliances, electronics and computer gear is caused by inefficient use of electricity. For example a 100 Watt bulb is drawing 100 watts, but not all 100 watts is going into the creation of light, a lot of it is wasted in heat, and that's why the bulbs get so hot.
I'm guessing the ASIC's must be pretty efficient, but even if you look at the worst case of 100% heat loss, you're only look at a 4.5 watt or 60 watt heater. I'd be shocked if even the SC puts off more heat than a single GPU, and even then, that's a stretch.
Either way I don't need that much heat! Although I forget that it wont give off 100% heat, haha
And/or fan(s)
Having already ordered a jalapeno, I'd say im pretty happy that the power usage will be so low. If I can run this straight from the usb ports on my raspberry pi, I will be very happy.
If these generate a considerable amount of heat, I might even use it to warm my little sisters hermit crab tank, and heaters like that use around the same amount of power.
If these generate a considerable amount of heat, I might even use it to warm my little sisters hermit crab tank, and heaters like that use around the same amount of power.
Most heat generated in electric appliances, electronics and computer gear is caused by inefficient use of electricity. For example a 100 Watt bulb is drawing 100 watts, but not all 100 watts is going into the creation of light, a lot of it is wasted in heat, and that's why the bulbs get so hot.
I'm guessing the ASIC's must be pretty efficient, but even if you look at the worst case of 100% heat loss, you're only look at a 4.5 watt or 60 watt heater. I'd be shocked if even the SC puts off more heat than a single GPU, and even then, that's a stretch.
Either way I don't need that much heat! Although I forget that it wont give off 100% heat, haha
It will give off 100% of the energy it uses as heat.
So, if that's the case, you're not looking at a huge amount of heat at all. Your normal hair dryer is like 1875 watts.
Having already ordered a jalapeno, I'd say im pretty happy that the power usage will be so low. If I can run this straight from the usb ports on my raspberry pi, I will be very happy.
If these generate a considerable amount of heat, I might even use it to warm my little sisters hermit crab tank, and heaters like that use around the same amount of power.
If these generate a considerable amount of heat, I might even use it to warm my little sisters hermit crab tank, and heaters like that use around the same amount of power.
Most heat generated in electric appliances, electronics and computer gear is caused by inefficient use of electricity. For example a 100 Watt bulb is drawing 100 watts, but not all 100 watts is going into the creation of light, a lot of it is wasted in heat, and that's why the bulbs get so hot.
I'm guessing the ASIC's must be pretty efficient, but even if you look at the worst case of 100% heat loss, you're only look at a 4.5 watt or 60 watt heater. I'd be shocked if even the SC puts off more heat than a single GPU, and even then, that's a stretch.
Either way I don't need that much heat! Although I forget that it wont give off 100% heat, haha
Having already ordered a jalapeno, I'd say im pretty happy that the power usage will be so low. If I can run this straight from the usb ports on my raspberry pi, I will be very happy.
If these generate a considerable amount of heat, I might even use it to warm my little sisters hermit crab tank, and heaters like that use around the same amount of power.
If these generate a considerable amount of heat, I might even use it to warm my little sisters hermit crab tank, and heaters like that use around the same amount of power.
Most heat generated in electric appliances, electronics and computer gear is caused by inefficient use of electricity. For example a 100 Watt bulb is drawing 100 watts, but not all 100 watts is going into the creation of light, a lot of it is wasted in heat, and that's why the bulbs get so hot.
I'm guessing the ASIC's must be pretty efficient, but even if you look at the worst case of 100% heat loss, you're only look at a 4.5 watt or 60 watt heater. I'd be shocked if even the SC puts off more heat than a single GPU, and even then, that's a stretch.
Either way I don't need that much heat! Although I forget that it wont give off 100% heat, haha
Having already ordered a jalapeno, I'd say im pretty happy that the power usage will be so low. If I can run this straight from the usb ports on my raspberry pi, I will be very happy.
If these generate a considerable amount of heat, I might even use it to warm my little sisters hermit crab tank, and heaters like that use around the same amount of power.
If these generate a considerable amount of heat, I might even use it to warm my little sisters hermit crab tank, and heaters like that use around the same amount of power.
Most heat generated in electric appliances, electronics and computer gear is caused by inefficient use of electricity. For example a 100 Watt bulb is drawing 100 watts, but not all 100 watts is going into the creation of light, a lot of it is wasted in heat, and that's why the bulbs get so hot. Same thing with your CPU or GPU. The heat is just electricity that's not being used efficiently, so it gets converted to heat.
I'm guessing the ASIC's must be pretty efficient, but even if you look at the worst case of 100% heat loss, you're only look at a 4.5 watt or 60 watt heater. I'd be shocked if even the SC puts off more heat than a single GPU, and even then, that's a stretch.
Cablepair stated the bASIC would consume less power than the mod miner quad (40 watts), but this was back when it was a 27Gh/s unit. It is safe to assume the 54GH/s unit would required twice the power and consume less than 80 watts.
80/54 = 1.48 J/Gh
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1183153
80/54 = 1.48 J/Gh
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1183153
Watts per GHash/sec = Joules per GHash
I would like to keep the comparison in wattage. Are joules a 1:1 to wattage?
Joule is energy, Watt is power.1 joule = 1 watt-second.
4.2W / 
- revised hashrate has not been published. Assumed to be around .5-.7 GH.
Can you please provide a link? OP has been updated. - revised hashrate has not been published. Assumed to be around .5-.7 GH.power spec is given as J/GH not W/GH/s. The reason is that chip GH/s performance is rather irrelevant due to minimal hardware costs.
Looked over the source again. Seems to have been updated to 4.2J/GH. Should clear that up.
I would like to keep the comparison in wattage. Are joules a 1:1 to wattage?
4.2W / - revised hashrate has not been published. Assumed to be around .5-.7 GH.
Can you please provide a link? OP has been updated. - revised hashrate has not been published. Assumed to be around .5-.7 GH.power spec is given as J/GH not W/GH/s. The reason is that chip GH/s performance is rather irrelevant due to minimal hardware costs.
Looked over the source again. Seems to have been updated to 4.2J/GH. Should clear that up.
4.2W / - revised hashrate has not been published. Assumed to be around .5-.7 GH.
Can you please provide a link? OP has been updated. - revised hashrate has not been published. Assumed to be around .5-.7 GH.power spec is given as J/GH not W/GH/s. The reason is that chip GH/s performance is rather irrelevant due to minimal hardware costs.
- ASICMINER - 10.64watts/Gh source
Final specs have been revised.
4.2W /
- revised hashrate has not been published. Assumed to be around .5-.7 GH.Can you please provide a link?
Taking the best estimate here would be 4.2w / .7Gh == 6 watts per 1 Gh
OP has been updated.
yay competition , we should including pricing estimates as well though so we can have the full picture.
, we should including pricing estimates as well though so we can have the full picture.Power consumption is the topic of the thread!
If I have missed any information though, please let me know. Hopefully other manufacturers will be able to give estimates with as much certainty as BFL.
- ASICMINER - 10.64watts/Gh source
Final specs have been revised.
4.2W /
- revised hashrate has not been published. Assumed to be around .5-.7 GH.
yay competition , we should including pricing estimates as well though so we can have the full picture.
, we should including pricing estimates as well though so we can have the full picture.
Having already ordered a jalapeno, I'd say im pretty happy that the power usage will be so low. If I can run this straight from the usb ports on my raspberry pi, I will be very happy.
If these generate a considerable amount of heat, I might even use it to warm my little sisters hermit crab tank, and heaters like that use around the same amount of power.
I just wonder when the new "little SC's" will be available, I might purchase one if I can somehow use my jalapeno order towards the price.
Its cool to see all these asics popping up, I wonder what kind of miners will come up next? Huge supercooled quantum miners?
If these generate a considerable amount of heat, I might even use it to warm my little sisters hermit crab tank, and heaters like that use around the same amount of power.
I just wonder when the new "little SC's" will be available, I might purchase one if I can somehow use my jalapeno order towards the price.
Its cool to see all these asics popping up, I wonder what kind of miners will come up next? Huge supercooled quantum miners?
Hello fellow bitcoiners,
I was going to post this in another thread, but I think it's best to make a new post.
One of the biggest costs in running mining equipment is going to be power consumption. 1Gh/w is far and away the BEST offer in this area thus far. We've had others offer estimates so far, and to be fair, these are all estimates until the equipment is running in the hands of the community.
Avalon seems to be unsure of their power usage, thus the wide range. ASICMINER seems pretty sure of their wattage estimates which are 10x more than BFL! I'm not sure about you guys, but 6x the power consumption when you start running any sizable amount of equipment is HUGE.
If there is more info out there that I have not seen, leave a reply and I'll add it in.
Best,
gigavps
I was going to post this in another thread, but I think it's best to make a new post.
One of the biggest costs in running mining equipment is going to be power consumption. 1Gh/w is far and away the BEST offer in this area thus far. We've had others offer estimates so far, and to be fair, these are all estimates until the equipment is running in the hands of the community.
- BFL - 1 watt/Gh +- 10% source
- Avalon - 2-6 watts/Gh source
- ASICMINER - 4.2 watts/Gh source
- bASIC -2w/Gh source
- DeepBit "Reclaimer" -???/Gh
Avalon seems to be unsure of their power usage, thus the wide range. ASICMINER seems pretty sure of their wattage estimates which are 10x more than BFL! I'm not sure about you guys, but 6x the power consumption when you start running any sizable amount of equipment is HUGE.
If there is more info out there that I have not seen, leave a reply and I'll add it in.
Best,
gigavps
Jump to: