Topic: ASICMiner BE300S Samples Arrived, <0.2W/G Achieved at Board Level - page 7. (Read 66401 times)
December 31, 2014, 10:17:37 PM
Novak and I are toying with the idea of a configurable USB-connected single-board miner for BE300 chips, something that could run off a DC brick (or better PSU, it'd have a barrel and screw terminals) with full under/overclocking options from the command line. Basically the Jalapeno market sector, except with tomorrow's power efficiency. Drop me a line if you think there's merit.
December 31, 2014, 10:11:08 PM
I've got several NF6 in the museum, not sure if they're Rev2 chips or not (USB miners is more novak's project). Swimmer, you built miners? Nice. We should talk sometime.
I'm was not the tech guy sidehack. Vs3 handled the designs. I just managed the build and did all the sales. USB miners were big business for 8-12 months. Love to figure out a way to bring them back. But with difficulty now they would have to be able to do 8 times what they did.
The guys that bought them usually got 5-10. Folks that could not get away with spending much or having a small jet engine in their home or office. Still a big market there if we can figure out a simple, cool, small form factor that will do 75-100 ghs. Still have the website setup.
December 31, 2014, 09:29:15 PM
I've got several NF6 in the museum, not sure if they're Rev2 chips or not (USB miners is more novak's project). Swimmer, you built miners? Nice. We should talk sometime.
December 31, 2014, 03:17:30 PM
Nanofury 6's using the rev.2 bitfury chip already achieved 15gh/s.
It might be a fun project but I don't see a market. I produced 100 of these and while we sold out, they did not go fast. That was 6 months ago.
I think you need to achieve 75-100 ghs to have anything marketable.
It might be a fun project but I don't see a market. I produced 100 of these and while we sold out, they did not go fast. That was 6 months ago.
I think you need to achieve 75-100 ghs to have anything marketable.
December 31, 2014, 02:17:54 PM
USB 2.0 will deliver 0.5A on 5V = 2.5 W
USB 3.0 will deliver 0.9-1A on 5V = 4.5-5.0 W (especially in PC, not all notebook/laptop USB 3.0 will deliver 1A)
As a complete and utter aside - note that these specifications are usually per port. Old portable 2.5" HDDs and optical drives would often include a split cable with one end of the Y-split being power+data, and the other just power, allowing a second USB port to deliver the extra oomph needed for the optical drive / HDD spin-up.USB 3.0 will deliver 0.9-1A on 5V = 4.5-5.0 W (especially in PC, not all notebook/laptop USB 3.0 will deliver 1A)
( Looks like most current external HDDs no longer use extra power, and some optical drives seem to come with a USB-USB cable and a USB-barrel cable )
I'd certainly view a USB miner that used shenanigans like that as still being a USB miner. Might have to draw the line at utilizing 4 ports, though
December 31, 2014, 01:57:09 PM
Depending how many you want to string, it might not be too bad. But stringing works best if you can divide the rail voltage, which for 5V means more chips than he's talking, so you'd need to build a VRM anyway. At that point it's much easier to just kick the voltage down to single-chip level and run several chips in parallel, standard topology.
Pretty sure the NF6 is strung chips, but it's also (as noted above) a very high current requirement. Not caring about standard USB port current limits changes the ballgame.
Also, he beat me to the punch but MrTeal is pretty much always right.
Pretty sure the NF6 is strung chips, but it's also (as noted above) a very high current requirement. Not caring about standard USB port current limits changes the ballgame.
Also, he beat me to the punch but MrTeal is pretty much always right.
December 31, 2014, 01:54:07 PM
How would you run a string design? If you want to avoid DC/DC altogether you'd need 8-9 chips to get the 5V down to 0.55V or so. I'm not sure how you'd get away from DC/DC on a USB miner.
December 31, 2014, 01:43:50 PM
PCB and heatsink aren't much more difficult if you put a bit of work into it. Heatsink on top of chips is not really any harder to accomplish than heatsink on top of board. Just stick your ASICs on the backside, control hardware on the top side; grease your chips, sink the backside and screw to it through the board.
Yep, there are some options, that why I ask about samples, all other we will see
For a string design to work AM have PMS01 chip. Without that chip string design is impossible(?) or more complicated if you want to replace that chip with avaivable IC parts. Either way string design on USB stick is like firing to fly with big gun...
Will check, and talk about this Dex
December 31, 2014, 11:34:53 AM
For a string design to work AM have PMS01 chip. Without that chip string design is impossible(?) or more complicated if you want to replace that chip with avaivable IC parts. Either way string design on USB stick is like firing to fly with big gun...
December 31, 2014, 11:33:25 AM
PCB and heatsink aren't much more difficult if you put a bit of work into it. Heatsink on top of chips is not really any harder to accomplish than heatsink on top of board. Just stick your ASICs on the backside, control hardware on the top side; grease your chips, sink the backside and screw to it through the board.
December 31, 2014, 11:04:41 AM
10Gh USB miner? 
Maybe?
As an aside: both the hex•fury and the NanoFury 6 already do 10Gh/s+. Maybe?I'd certainly welcome another addition, though
One that did 40GH to 50GH at a reasonable cost and power level would be nice!
About USB miners -
Bi•fury use 1A for ~5GH/s - USB 3.0 or powered hub needed
Hex•fury use 2A for +10GH/s - strong powered hub needed
USB 2.0 will deliver 0.5A on 5V = 2.5 W
USB 3.0 will deliver 0.9-1A on 5V = 4.5-5.0 W (especially in PC, not all notebook/laptop USB 3.0 will deliver 1A)
One BE300S chip deliver ~7.2 GH/s = ~1.8W
According to USB power we can use:
1.39 Chip on USB 2.0 = ~7.2 GH/s with 1 chip, ~10 GH/s with 2 chips.
2.78 Chip on USB 3.0 = ~10 GH/s with 2 chips, ~15.6 GH/s with 3 chips.
That look nice, and according to string design we can save some on BOM,
BUT according to new information about FCLGA - PCB and heatsink cost can pass out "reasonable" cost of USB miner on BE300 (not count AM itself of course)
December 30, 2014, 10:26:37 AM
Only one question. Samples?
You didn't provide any previously. That ended with two designs only, one foulty as hell. Maybe this time?
We will see if we can allocate some from the sample batch. The problem with MPW is that we only gotYou didn't provide any previously. That ended with two designs only, one foulty as hell. Maybe this time?
100 chips in hand and we need at least a large part of them for chip-wise variance testing.
I'm not saying that you should provide samples now (but it would be great)
Only one question. Samples?
beggars everywhere i don't want a sample, i just want to see if they make specs.+1
I'm also interested in some samples, will check usability BE300 for USB dongles
December 28, 2014, 04:51:46 PM
Quote
- Spondoolies Tech 0.05W/G mid 2015
- KnCMiner 16nm 0.07W/G early 2015
- Cointerra 16nm 5X (?) Q1 2015 (5X refers to their TerraMiner IV I guess)
- Bitfury sub-0.1J/G mid-year 2015
- KnCMiner 16nm 0.07W/G early 2015
- Cointerra 16nm 5X (?) Q1 2015 (5X refers to their TerraMiner IV I guess)
- Bitfury sub-0.1J/G mid-year 2015
When i will see intel and amd have a mature desktop cpu at 14nm, then! and only then i will believe those numbers!
The smaller we go the harder it is!
Just a shot in the dark: under .1w/g in 2016!
I think it will happen in 2015.
It will likely be possible, but being possible and being the shipping clocks for a product is another thing. Maybe we will see both, maybe just one.
My money is on Bitfury and SP-Tech
I concur. SP is the most transparent for both upcoming tech, support and refund policies. They continue to keep the industry notified and always respond usually within 24 hours to anyone's comment.
Whilst other competition is coming along nicely, they aren't transparent and simply don't communicate keeping us up to date. We get an email once a week if we're lucky, usually once every 14 days or so. This level of communication isn't satisfactory in today's highly competitive market.
If AM could either hire additional staff, or devote more time themselves, that could answer our questions, openly and in a timely manner, then they are likely to receive a warmer following and brighter future. SP is the leading example in all these areas. Bitmain towards the top, now falling like a stone. AM whatever you do, don't follow bitmain's example, rise above, communicate with us and show us what you can offer.
December 28, 2014, 04:21:57 PM
Yep...anyway this thread is about ASICMiner not SP
AM is shy to present us their 24 chip board.
December 28, 2014, 02:29:30 PM
Quote
- Spondoolies Tech 0.05W/G mid 2015
- KnCMiner 16nm 0.07W/G early 2015
- Cointerra 16nm 5X (?) Q1 2015 (5X refers to their TerraMiner IV I guess)
- Bitfury sub-0.1J/G mid-year 2015
- KnCMiner 16nm 0.07W/G early 2015
- Cointerra 16nm 5X (?) Q1 2015 (5X refers to their TerraMiner IV I guess)
- Bitfury sub-0.1J/G mid-year 2015
When i will see intel and amd have a mature desktop cpu at 14nm, then! and only then i will believe those numbers!
The smaller we go the harder it is!
Just a shot in the dark: under .1w/g in 2016!
I think it will happen in 2015.
It will likely be possible, but being possible and being the shipping clocks for a product is another thing. Maybe we will see both, maybe just one.
My money is on Bitfury and SP-Tech
a 28nm chip with exact same design is theoretically capable of almost 4x the efficiency. that would achieve around 0.2w/gh on an underclocked chip. 20nm would achieve around 0.1w/GH with slight underclocking I expect. implementing improvements like chained power distribution or perhaps larger die sizes could also improve on the numbers.
(in contrast, the Bitmain 55nm chip from the S1 is not much different. 2w/GH at full steam, but with a bottom value of about 0.9w/GH if undervolted to about 40% of the full speed. Thier 28nm chips (S3 and S5) are capable of 0.5-0.8w/GH and 0.25-0.6w/GH power ranges also - clearly showing the improvements found by thier 28nm//Rev2 chip in the S5)
December 28, 2014, 02:11:51 PM
Quote
- Spondoolies Tech 0.05W/G mid 2015
- KnCMiner 16nm 0.07W/G early 2015
- Cointerra 16nm 5X (?) Q1 2015 (5X refers to their TerraMiner IV I guess)
- Bitfury sub-0.1J/G mid-year 2015
- KnCMiner 16nm 0.07W/G early 2015
- Cointerra 16nm 5X (?) Q1 2015 (5X refers to their TerraMiner IV I guess)
- Bitfury sub-0.1J/G mid-year 2015
When i will see intel and amd have a mature desktop cpu at 14nm, then! and only then i will believe those numbers!
The smaller we go the harder it is!
Just a shot in the dark: under .1w/g in 2016!
That's a reasonable position to take, as manufacturing does become more difficult as you shrink the architecture, however, there is quite a bit of difference between a SHA256 ASIC and a CPU. The CPU is much more complex, as most of a SHA ASIC is simply repeated hash cores.
I think many manufacturers missed their efficiency targets at the last generation though (ASICMiner, Black Arrow, KnC, Spondoolies, and probably more), so that's not an unreasonable guess. However, reading this thread from ASICMiner indicates that they now have enough experience to design an ASIC at 28nm and hit or surpass expected efficiency. Whether or not companies can now drop down to 16-20nm or so and get the efficiency they think they can is the million dollar (actually probably a lot of millions) question. It looks like we have announcements from multiple companies attempting it by mid 2015, so it is entirely possible.
--
novak
December 28, 2014, 12:03:59 PM
Yep...anyway this thread is about ASICMiner not SP
December 28, 2014, 12:02:07 PM
...
sp tech has not met a target hash rate or power draw yet
Not my thread, I'm not sure I should reply here. Anyway:sp tech has not met a target hash rate or power draw yet
We exceeded our 1st gen goals, we've missed (and compensated) our 2nd gen goals.
Regarding our 3rd and 4th gen ...
December 28, 2014, 10:57:33 AM
...
sp tech has not met a target hash rate or power draw yet
Not my thread, I'm not sure I should reply here. Anyway:sp tech has not met a target hash rate or power draw yet
We exceeded our 1st gen goals, we've missed (and compensated) our 2nd gen goals.
Regarding our 3rd and 4th gen ...
so what were the expectations of the one generation that was released without customers funding it? it's pretty easy for you to say anything as it was not pre announced or pre sold.
December 28, 2014, 04:36:03 AM
...
sp tech has not met a target hash rate or power draw yet
Not my thread, I'm not sure I should reply here. Anyway:sp tech has not met a target hash rate or power draw yet
We exceeded our 1st gen goals, we've missed (and compensated) our 2nd gen goals.
Regarding our 3rd and 4th gen ...
Jump to: