Topic: Bitfury: "16nm... sales to public start shortly" - page 46. (Read 108641 times)

and Bitfury are not Chinese advertisers , aren't they  ?

What is your problem now, and is it Bitfury related?

+1 because this is a fight for hash rate!

After halving everybody will be relax, but now is war!

AHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA 

You should take that act on the road.

+ infinity :-)

Wrong order = bitfury build another huge bitcoin mine(s) =  mines like crazy = maybe sells chips & miners 

You think they'll sell chips & miners ASAP

Think again,maybe after the halving you'll SEE a miner of theirs.

THEN many months later you can buy a used one 

bitfury releases 16nm miners to public = bitfury sells miners = bitfury build another huge bitcoin mine(s).

lol

Which is why I exist around here. Consumers need protection the from unscrupulousness, probably even more so now that we have a mix of hyper-corporations and OEMs.

At least I eventually got a rig from AMT even if >4months late and by then nearly obsolete tech Most folks didn't or got them without PSU's.

You are right in that as final users of the chips we could/should care less what the physical chip does vs what design simulations (and any pre-order hype) said as long as it performs as advertised with the typical real-world specs when sold.

Just saying that once a chip is on silicon and in production it can then benchmarked to see what the real world performance is. At that  point any difference between initial expectations and physical product is between the chip OEM and foundry to work out. However once engineering samples are released and folks develop reference designs/actual complete miners based on those proven nominal performance specs it is expected that each chip used does all it is supposed to.

Deviation outside of nominal = either the chip vendors having to under-spec the chip to cover slow ones and use more ASIC's in their mining rigs to assure rig performance  (but in turn make for possible OC'ing) or if production tolerances or tweaked performance expectations per-batch get out of hand then just sell the chips like Bitmain did - different miner batch #'s with different advertised performance. btw: Bitmain has/is compensated its customers for the lower than expected performance batch. I still from time to time get a 0.01btc input to my wallet from them over it.

You are just projecting your misfortune. I'll repeat specifications are worth nothing without the appropriate contract enforcement mechanisms, either legal like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_credit or extralegal like .

Both Bitfury and Spondoolies have history of not meeting the predicted specifications. But for them and their customers things worked out because they had the right mixture of business and technical skills. I already wrote about Bitfury, so I'm just going to mention that Spondoolies did things like refunds for underperformance and advised customers to use hair dryers to warm up miners that wouldn't start in the cold climates.

http://bitfury.com/products#application-form



Apply with them maybe they will send you some chips to test.

Does any one know what testing tool software are Bitfury guys are using in their 16nm ASIC demo vidoe's?

Um, tell that to the customers screwed by AMT/Bitmine.ch over the A1 kerfuffle when it was introduced. Inno's A1 failing to meet design specs cost us final customers 100's of k$ in total or more. For most folks it looks like their money is never to be seen again as the lawsuits are in limbo. And ja Bitmine.ch's horrible board design was the icing on the crap cake.

BirFury, Bitmain, et al care very much about spec as that is what they base their miner designs on, eg how many chips in it running what speed will give us advertised throughput/power usage.

Sure miner chips are vastly simpler than the various processors used in mobile devices. Just simple I/O, bit of memory, coms and the SHA256 cores vs hundreds of I/O and scads of different core components including critical L1/2/3 cache memory. That simplicity should in turn give more good chips vs yield from making mobile processors and their ilk.

Exactly...Apple has pretty much financed probably a huge chunk of R&D costs for the last few die shrinks. Their deal probably works something along the lines of "here are billions of dollars, buy the equipment and create the process for x node, and gives us 10 million chips by this date....we don't care what your yield is."

Of course this is a win win for both parties...apple gets its new energy efficient Ax chips first, and the foundries develop a working process for that node and make their profits from the customers of the likes of Nvidia and bitfury

See this comment from this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1344103.20

Well, Well, Well...

Have a look here everyone.


http://www.allied-control.com/solutions/immersion-cooling-container-datacenter

You start sounding weird... Not enough caffeine this morning? Or too much?

The whole point of mining ASIC is that there's no "spec". It is 100% self-love. All they have to do is twiddle their own little thumbs really fast and gaze at it's own navel. The theoretically most demanding application for them would be if they are daisy chained and have to talk to their brothers from the same wafer or same batch that is sitting few centimeters away on the same board. No need to interface e.g. a DRAM chip or obey some IEEE standard.

The only 3 things that miners care are:

1) Ghash per sec/W
2) Ghash per sec/$
3) delivery time

There's no "stated speed" or "100% cores". Everything else can be and will be worked around at the board layout and software driver level.

Interesting. I was told by my contacts at TSMC that some of their EUV systems from ASML are now running production and were responsible for the improved yields.

As for Apple accepting 40% yield per wafer, for initial runs - yes. That is between them and the foundries. I guarantee that with their clout they are only paying for the good chips and forcing the foundries to eat the scrap.Their only compensation is that Apple and other customers know that initial pricing will be very high to finance the R&D needed and capital equipment costs. Worse for the foundries is pricing is based on a mandatory rapidly downward sliding price per-chip giving foundries great incentive to get better.

The other little niggling bit pertains to the complexity of the chip. As you said, mobile device processors and such have very little to no built-in redundant circuitry to get around mfg defects. Couple with them being highly dependent on timing of the functions and that can explain the oft-cited in the past low yields.

re: production volumes for mining ASIC's, sure they can produce in volume if Bitfury/Bitmain et al pony up the $$. If the simpler chips make it easier to get higher yield so much the better.

And please read again carefully:

According to TSMC’s Mark Liu, “As you can see in our 7-nanometer development schedule that probably will not using EUV. But we are planning to exercise EUV using the 7-nanometer technology and currently we are planning to use EUV at 5-nanometer. But of course it does depend certain development criteria, milestones to be reached. And it has a good benefit from our assessment on the 7 — on the 5-nanometer that reduce a lot of many masking layers and increase a lot of better control for the 5-nanometer.”

TSMC thinks that they can even handle 7nm without EUV!

In principle it sounds like you know what you are talking about. But in this case you should also know that GloFo and Samsung have an identical 14nm FinFET node (with identical litho tools).
This deal was made in 2014, because Samsung was looking for a second source and GloFo was struggling with its own 14nm development. Glofo licensed the Samsung technology and brought it up in its US fab (Fab 8 ).

And I'm also pretty sure that there is absolutely no EUV litho involved in the 14/16nm technologies. Just double patterning for the critical masks. (What do you think what I do day by day? )

And no fab would announce ready for volume production if they would only have 40% yield for a typical SoC product like the iPhone 6 processor, which is produced in millions since last year in both Samsungs’s 14nm and TSMCs 16nm FinFET technologies. Do you really think, that Apple would accept 40% yield?
On top of that the iPhone 6 processor is much more yield critical than a Bitcoin mining ASIC, because it includes MBits of SRAM and does not tolerate any logic fault.

Of course, TSMC/Samsung and Glofo have already EUV tools working in their fabs, but only because they are already developing 10/7/5 nm technologies and running first prototypes e.g. to bring up the SRAM yield, which is the first thing they do. The other stuff is easy afterwards.

I'm also not really sure, what you are trying to say.
Something like: "Don’t worry! Bitfury has a super chip, but they can't produce it in volume, because the yield is low and TSMC doesn't care about $10M … $20M revenue."?