Topic: [BitBet] BitFury's ASIC WILL WORK WITH POWER < 1 W / GH/s - page 2. (Read 3996 times)

I wrote that it's 55nm scrypt chip (failed)
You're comparing full custom chips (BitFury rev1, rev2) to standard cell designs (RB, BM1384)
BM1385 is full custom, so is our 3rd gen.

brontosaurus,

I got to work BitFury chips 55nm rev.1 at 0.4w/gh. I'm not a strong developer. Is not the limit.
These chips are fabulous and gorgeous. 55nm rev.2 even better. I have no doubt, that all this reality.

But now, non-BitFury miners in a bad position, because they have no chance to compete.

2Spondoolies-Tech,

I don't have this image. This 55nm? Or 28nm, 16nm?
IMHO. Now, as two years ago. The only key parameter - w/Gh.

My miners on BitFury chips 55nm rev1(2) successfully work all the time and will work much more. Energy efficiency greater than non-downclock Spondoolies-Tech LTD «RockerBox» or BM1384. GH/mm^2 - minor optimization. A3255 and A3233 better BF756C55 at Gh/mm^2. But... They are turned off. Energy consumption.

Currently we do not have the choice of equipment. KnC, BitFury, Spondoolies-Tech not for sale. Miners can not go far on old-technology in downclock chips.

brontosaurus, I always like to read your posts.
A little tidbit I can share (not under any kind of NDA):
BitFury (Valery Nebesny) attempted to do async, domino logic 55nm 5 engine scrypt chip and failed.
Here is the chip floor plan:


I really liked George BS statement: https://twitter.com/BitfuryGeorge/status/639064051612524544

There are two all important parameters in Bitcoin ASICs:
GH/mm^2 - Capex and J/GH - Opex

With extreme design techniques, sub 0.1 J/GH is possible also on 28nm processes, the question is what will be the GH/mm^2 - miner cost.

Whenever BitFury gives efficiency numbers (J/GH), they never give the all important GH/mm^2 numbers.

When they're selling hosted hash-rate of their 28nm machines to their customers, they claim the machine efficiency is 0.35 J/GH

Dogie is bang on the money here, this announcement by Bitfury is simply an exercise in misdirection and PR bullshit. They have had several attempts to make a really high efficiency chip and obviously don't know the recipe. It's easy to say 'my chip can do xJ/GH/sec' without revealing key factors like how big it is (very important), what voltage it runs at and the clock speed at the rated efficiency. In all fairness to Bitmain with their BM1385 they have fullfiled most of these conditions, but no mention of the die size as yet.

To believe that Bitfury can go from an alleged 0.2 J/GH/sec in 28nm to 0.05 in 16nm is nonsense, unless they have very specific measurement points that bear no resemblance to actual operating conditions in practice. 16nm is not a magic bullet - at best you will get half of the power consumption of an existing 28nm design and maybe 2.5 - 3 x the transistor density, very much depending on your design and memory content. KNC tried this same trick with their solar chip, presumably to try to dissuade their competitors and this is more of the same.

The only company that has ever been totally transparent in what they claim to be able to achieve in terms of power efficiency AND tell you how they actually achieved it (eg domino logic) is Spondoolies, and that's largely due to the collective industrial experience of their people and their attention to detail. I'm pretty damn sure that if they were still selling to the public they could come out with all kinds of data about what they could achieve and how they could do it, but they have wisely stayed out of this game and left it to the bullshitters.

By the way, anyone every looked at the size of Bitfurys various 'boards' - they have an awful lot of people to pay......what on earth do they all do? Is this some kind of weird vanity project?

Of power claims? Its only evidence that they have money, and $60M buys you a lot of miners and a lot of PR.

Considering they make up nearly 1/3rd of the network alone .... thats evidence enough.

Bit of a weird thread to bump, but I'll believe it when I see it. The last 3 chips have never been independently verified or even seen outside of a super farm.

You mean like what those German guys were supposed to be doing for the last year?

I hopeeveryone realizes, soon as those 16nm chips come online at that power rating. If they just mine for themselves, they will singlehandly own the blockchain. Bitcoin will be effectively centralized therefore dead then.

BitFury's ASICs will work even better!

http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-completion-16nm-bitcoin-mining-asic/

When would it be idle?

Who cares about the power it uses if it's not affordable to most people

If someone thinks that is SCAM put your vote in the special topic/poll: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/pollbitfury-what-do-you-think-203107

Quite possibly, thanks for the info!

Is this what you are looking for?

Considering the notion of Elden Tyrell's 'Process Invariant' metrics, I have a feeling BitFury's efficiency per Watt will be high.


i.e. BFL's logic translated to transistor arrangement is poor considering, purportedly, on a 65nm process node.


And I'm quite sure that BitFury will not overlook the simple logic of setting the ASIC clocks to idle when there's no work in the queue - unlike BFL.



Too bad BitFury's opinion is that mining will eventually centralize - that can be used to speculate that BitFury is going to keep all of his hashpower in the hands of a private organization.


Blah....  sucks.


Edit:

BitFury, let me invest some cash in your operation

lol
This  4x better than BFL and Avalon

Just found in Russian subforum this BitBet link:

BitFury's ASIC will be demonstrated to mine Bitcoin either publicly, in an open to the public event announced at least two weeks in advance, or privately as confirmed by unaffiliated, well respected members of the community (this specifically excludes known shills such as Luke-jr) and will consume less than 1 W per GH/s for powering the chip and the board (excluding any cooling appliances).
Initiated by Bitfury, who placed the first Yes bet.

http://bitbet.us/bet/450/bitfurys-asic-will-work-with-power-1/

Bet resolution: 15/06/2013.
This bet was initiated by Bitfury.