Topic: Break even difficulty by hardware efficiency (power cost = value of BTC) - page 4. (Read 18879 times)

Another thing to consider is that BFL claims you will also have the option to use USB interface instead of pci-e as a standalone device as well.  I'll try and dig you up a link....

Edit: Here's info (Monarch btw)
https://products.butterflylabs.com/homepage-new-products/600-gh-bitcoin-mining-card.html

Was this on the reduced speed boards?  The reason I ask is if the boards intended for 25 GH/s are getting 21 GH/s then they are essentially underclocked (even if unwillingly) and that will improve efficiency. 
Was the 116W increase at the wall? 

Good list.

Bitfury is somewhat better than that though, I measured +116W for adding a 150GH/s Bitfury unit to my rig. Gold-rated 1300W PSU at 440W@230V total now so I'd assume about 90% efficiency. Anyway, <0.8J/GH at the wall for Bitfury. Another guy had similar results.

Lowered efficiency of Avalon from 8.5 J/GH to 8.8 J/GH.  The Avalon miner is shipped in multiple configurations with 2, 3, or 4 modules in three different batches, using different power supplies.  The goal of the table is to provide an average break even point.  Reported efficiency "at the wall" ranges from 8.5 J/GH to 9.3 J/GH. 

.0718 kwh here in Manitoba and lots of cold air in the winter

Thanks for this OP.  I've had this conversation so many times but needed the numbers to back it up!

@ muyuu,

I think you misread (or I wasn't clear).  The scenario is the network is in equilibrium (hashrate growth changes with exchange rate because the difficulty is near the collective break even point for the network).  To illustrate lets say the exchange rate is $200 per BTC and there is a miner with an older 130nm rig which requires $180 in electricity to produce 1 BTC (based on difficulty, efficiency, and power cost).  Now the exchange rate falls and remains below $150 for thirty days.  At some point that miner is going to stop producing one BTC worth <$150 using >$180 in electricity and just buy BTC because it is cheaper.  People may make bad long term plans but generally make better short term ones.  When you are spending >1 BTC to produce 1 BTC it is pretty easy to see you should stop.  On the other hand he is unlikely to throw his rig away.  If the price (or more importantly price/difficulty) rebounds then we will turn his rig on.  The bad news for this marginal miner is that the higher price/difficult will bring in new investment likely by miners with lower power cost and more efficient gear so difficulty will likely overshoot his break even point and he will have to idle again. 

We aren't concerned with hardware costs for the break even point as you indicate they are a sunk cost even if a miner has a lifetime loss it still makes sense to mine to reduce that loss UNTIL difficulty exceeds the break even point.  At that point any additional mining is just increasing the loss for the miner.  

We saw this in dynamic in the GPU era where difficulty would track price.  Today it doesn't simply because we are no where near the break even point for the network.  For even the least efficient gear and the highest power cost user it would be >6PH/s.

I'm not so sure of the conclusion that a price fall will be closely followed by a hashrate fall. ASICs have mostly no alternative use and there is no outside market for them.

Provided they are in profit, they will remain on. Even at a loss many people won't bother turning them off.

https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-31




Raised (improved) estimate for KNC to 1.8 J/GH (from 2.5 J/GH) at the wall.  KNC reports efficiency is less than 1.6 J/GH however it is unclear what the reported efficiency includes.  I have asked KNC for a clarification but they haven't responded yet.  The break even difficulty is based on wattage "at the wall" (120V/230V measured/estimated at the plug).

If 1.6 J/GH refers to the ...
... system efficiency at the wall (AC load) then efficiency in table should be 1.6 J/GH.
... system total DC load then efficiency in the table should be 1.8 J/GH.
... ASIC boards (chips + DC PSU) but excludes the fans, controller, and ATX PSU then efficiency in the table should be 1.9 J/GH.
... ASIC chips and excludes the DC to DC supply, fans, controllers, and ATX PSU then efficiency in the table should be 2.0 J/GH.

I feel that based on the wording of the news and considering the PSU is not included, the second scenario is the most likely so the efficiency table will reflect 1.8 J/GH until more information is available.  I would have imagined that if KNC was reported "at the wall" efficiency they would have conditioned it with language like "with 80Plus Gold or better power supply, "as tested on power supply model #####", or "assuming 90% DC to AC efficiency". 

On edit: KNC supporters you can stop PM me.  I will change the table when either KNC confirms the "at the wall" efficiency or we have user provided benchmarks in the field.  If you want it updated, ask KNC to provide clarification.

mark！

Updated to include estimates for Cointerra & Monarch.  Given the high efficiency of most devices switched efficiency units to J/GH.

Thanks.  I sent a PM to cointerra to confirm.  The fact that it is only on coindesk and not repeated anywhere on Cointerra website or in any of their posts makes me want confirmation.  I asked them also to confirm is the wattage estimate is at the chip level or at the wall. 

For BFL I likely will need to estimate an average system load to make it apples to apples.  That is ugly but with every other ASIC manufacturer building complete systems I don't see a better way.

The replacement cost is calculated based on all hashing power coming from a single design so it shouldn't be taken as likely but more an upper bound.  I think there might be an error in the math as well.

The cost to reach the "break even point" is based on current cost so I don't find it too useful, because cost will decline significantly.  The network will approach a small margin below the break even point.  It is only a matter of time.  You can consider that the equilibrium point, we have seen it occur in the GPU era for a couple of years.  If more efficient hardware is produced then the hashrate will rise, if the exchange rate rises then the hashrate will rise, as mining moves to lower cost areas the hashrate will rise, if the exchange rate falls the hashrate will fall.  However the network will approach and stay close to a margin below the break even point.  How close?  It really depends on miners and what risk they are taking.

So it looks pretty safe to say that the network will be less than 250 PH/s using the 28nm technology at the current prices.

You can find it here:
http://thegenesisblock.com/cointerra-announces-2ths-asic-bitcoin-miner-for-15750/

The issue here is you are comparing the chip level for one product to the board level for another product to the system level for the rest of the products.

For example if BFL delivers a 600 GH/s card which has 1,666 MH/J efficiency it requires a host system with one or more PCIe slots (50W min), case fans (3x12W ea?), and a AC PSU which is say 90% efficient at load.  So BFL would have a total DC load of 436W which is a 484W AC load (assume 90% efficient PSU).  600 GH/s / 484W = 1240 MH/J.  Of course with more fans, higher system wattage, or worse PSU it would be even lower.

Cointerra is even more an unknown.  We don't even know the board level wattage (@12V), what type of controller will be used, is it a custom enclosure, if so how many fans, etc.  That makes trying to estimate a system wattage totally unknown.  Also as indicated above I can't see to find a cite for Cointerra indicating a specific efficiency even just for the chip. However even if Cointerra chip(s) deliver 2TH/s using 1200W the ASIC (like all other ASICs will run at @0.8V to 1.2V) and need a DC to DC PSU to convert the 12V supplied by the AC PSU to the ~1V required by the chip.  The DC wattage would then be 1200/0.9 = 1,333W @ 12VDC.  If we assume the balance of the system is a Pi or other micro controller (5W and 3x 1A fans) it would make total system wattage 1374W DC = 1527W AC.  That would put the efficiency at the plug ~1300 MH/J.

Simple version
System AC ("at the wall") wattage = System DC Wattage / ATX PSU efficiency *   
System DC wattage = ASIC Board(s) wattage + balance of system (controllers, fans, waterpump, etc) **
Board DC Wattage = ASIC Wattage / DC to DC PSU ***

* Depends on ATX PSU efficiency at the particular load.  As a power customer you pay for wattage at the wall.  This will always be higher than the DC wattage used by the system due to PSU inefficiency.  If unknown a good upper bound is 90% efficiency.  More efficient PSU are possible but they generally require 230V and are more expensive (google "80 Plus Titanium")

** Rasberry Pi uses <5W.  BFL PCIe card will require a system with one or more PCIe slots which means a "traditional" motherboard and >50W.  If case fans or pumps are unknown an estimate of 12W per 120mm fan and 20W per pump (HashFast) is reasonable.  Without knowing the exact components we can't know the exact system wattage but for example nobody is going to use fans which use half a watt or a water pump that uses 100W or PC host which uses 10W.

*** ATX PSU supplies high current power at 12V however no ASIC runs at that voltage.  Each ASIC board will need to convert the 12V to the voltage used by the ASIC.  This will vary from ASIC to ASIC but is generally in the range of 0.6V to 1.3V.  Good high current DC to DC power supplies are expensive (up to $1 per watt) and generally are less than 90% efficient.  Lower cost PSU will provide significantly reduced efficiency (80% to 84%).

Do you have a link to this.  I thought Cointerra simply said significantly below 1GH/W.  Also I need full system power not the chip.  Even if it is an estimate the manufacturer I will use it if they are willing to put it into writing.

Here I've added cost of the cheapest technology to make this particular technology obsolete

Anybody care to add a calculation for the total cost to achieve the listed hashrate for each of the respective models?

ie.
for the HashFast product and corresponding breakeven point of 25trillion it's $352Million in hardware costs
For BFL's 65nm is $188Million

etc.