It certainly puts a feather in the cap for Bitfury. Of the shipping chips they are way out ahead of the pack (by 5x!).
Though at current pricing of $35 -> $54 per Gigahash (depending on overclock), the pricing is a bit meh.
https://megabigpower.com/shop/index.php?route=product/product&path=60&product_id=62
Topic: Break even difficulty by hardware efficiency (power cost = value of BTC) - page 5. (Read 18881 times)
August 26, 2013, 07:38:15 AM
August 26, 2013, 07:22:58 AM
I believe this thread is trying to calculate the "theoretical maximum economically sustainable system hash rate given various technologies", right?
Therefore all vaporware should simply be included in a separate category:
BTW, Thanks! And this is very interesting.
Therefore all vaporware should simply be included in a separate category:
Code:
Specs Process Eff (MH/J) Diff (mil) Hashrate (TH/s)
BFL 28nm ...
Cointerra 28nm ...
Hashfast 28nm 1200 25,146 180,000
KNC 28nm 400 8,382 60,000
Device Process Eff (MH/J) Diff (mil) Hashrate (TH/s)
Avalon 130nm 120 2,515 18,000
ASICMiner 110nm 130 2,724 19,500
BFL 65nm 200 4,191 30,000
Bitfury 55nm 1000 20,955 150,000
FPGA various 20 419 3,000
GPU various 3 63 450
BTW, Thanks! And this is very interesting.
August 26, 2013, 07:09:22 AM
Really?
They demonstrated that? It's for whole platform (like in OP charts) or chip itself? From 1666 you may easily get down to 1200 with poor PSU design...
I guess with KNC and Hashfast also in the list, you have to be consistent and also include Cointerra.
OR
You exclude all chips currently under development.
August 26, 2013, 07:03:38 AM
Cointerra has the most power efficient 28nm process at the moment.
1666 MH/J
Really?1666 MH/J
They demonstrated that? It's for whole platform (like in OP charts) or chip itself? From 1666 you may easily get down to 1200 with poor PSU design...
Most efficient vaporware indeed
I hate it when people start stating claims based on marketing materials as if they are a fact...
August 26, 2013, 06:57:10 AM
Cointerra has the most power efficient 28nm process at the moment.
1666 MH/J
Really?1666 MH/J
They demonstrated that? It's for whole platform (like in OP charts) or chip itself? From 1666 you may easily get down to 1200 with poor PSU design...
August 26, 2013, 06:03:36 AM
Cointerra has the most power efficient 28nm process at the moment.
1666 MH/J
1666 MH/J
August 26, 2013, 05:34:00 AM
Do I read this correctly, GPU miners are already not getting enough btc to break even?
At $100 exchange rate and $0.10 electrical rate? That is correct. Obviously each miner's efficiency will vary as will their electrical rates and their "pain threshold" (how negative of a margin they are willing to accept before shutting down) but generally speaking yes.
August 26, 2013, 02:32:14 AM
Do I read this correctly, GPU miners are already not getting enough btc to break even?
August 25, 2013, 08:20:09 PM
$0.30+ per kWh reporting in 
Ouch. The break even difficulty and hashrate would be 1/3rd of what is listed.
August 25, 2013, 08:19:53 PM
$0.30+ per kWh reporting in
Hello fellow Californian?
August 25, 2013, 08:18:53 PM
$0.30+ per kWh reporting in
August 25, 2013, 07:33:38 PM
It is useful to know what the electrical break even difficulty of a device in estimating future hashrate growth of the network. A miner is unlikely to continue to mine for any extended period of time at a negative operating margin. The break even difficulty is the point where the electricity consumed by the mining equipment equals the value of the coins mined. At the break even point it will cost the miner the same amount to mine a coin as it would to purchase it. The hardware cost is not considered in the electrical break even point as once purchased the hardware is a sunk cost and the miner is very likely to continue mining as long as it shows a positive operating margin (electricity < value of BTC). Just because the difficulty is below the break even point doesn't guarantee the miner a positive return.
The electrical break even point is based on three factors:
a) the current exchange rate (USD per BTC)
b) the price the miner pays for power (USD per kWh)
c) the efficiency of the mining hardware (J/GH)https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/smflogo.gif
Electrical break even point by hardware efficiency
Based on $100 BTC:USD exchange rate and $0.10 per kWh electrical power rate
Update (05/25/2014): I no longer have the time to research every new ASIC device. I have not seen a device that is significantly more efficient than 0.8 J/GH (at full clock) when measured at the wall and multiple devices have real world efficiency within +/-20% of that spec so it is a good place to start estimating difficulty. Remember miners are paying for full power consumption not just the power of the raw chip. The at the wall measurement is the only thing that matters. More efficient designs may eventually emerge but the low hanging fruit is now gone. If less than a year efficient of best device went from >8 J/GH to <0.8 J/GH. We aren't going to see a 1000% improvement in efficient in the next year. Even a 0.4 J/GH device (at the wall) would be an impressive improvement but only represents a doubling of the break even point.
To calculate the break even difficulty at a different exchange and/or power rate use the following formula:
Examples:
Why J not W?
Because J (Joule) is a measure of energy and W (Watt) is a measure of power. One Joule per second is one watt. You can't compare watts (energy over time) to a timeless value like Gigahash. Efficiency can be measured either in W per GH/s or J/GH bu not W/GH. It would be like saying a car gets 30 MPH per gallon or the spot price of gold is $1500 per ounce second. You can safely assume is someone writes W/GH they mean J/GH (or W per GH/s). I put this here because I have already gotten "corrections" by PM. Simple version: W per GH/s or J/GH are correct, W/GH is not.
Why did you make this?
I find it silly people have projections with difficulty going to 1 trillion or more (I think the highest I have seen is 200 trillion). At a mere 300 billion difficulty all current and proposed mining devices would be operated at a significant loss (assuming $100 exchange rate & $0.10 electrical rate). So at 1 trillion in difficulty even a Cointera rig would be converting $4 in electricity into $1 in Bitcoins. Anyone think that is likely? Significantly higher difficulty is going to require either more efficient hardware, a higher exchange rate, or the average cost of power for the network to decline.
Notes:
[1] Numbers used are from mining hardware comparison where available or based on benchmarks reported by owners/manufacturer. For apples to apples comparison all units are based on wattage at the wall (including all system power and inefficiencies). For devices where total wattage at the wall is unavailable it has been estimated. For unreleased devices ("specs") the efficiency reported by manufacturer is used.
[2] Cointerra did not provide system efficiency "at the wall" however did indicate that chip wattage would be better than 0.55 J/GH, based on that I project the at wall efficiency to be ~0.7 J/GH. Updated to 0.6 J/GH at the chip and 0.75 J/GH at the wall based on official statement. This is based on the following assumptions. Chip power: 0.60 W per GH/s * 2000 GH/s = 1200W @ 0.785 VDC. DC to DC board PSU 90% efficient 1200W/0.9 = 1333W @ 12VDC. Balance of system controller & cooling/fans = 50W @ 12 VDC. Total system DC wattage 1383W @ 12VDC. ATX PSU 90% efficient 13832/0.9 = 1537W @ 120VAC. 1537W / 2000 GH/s = ~0.8 J/GH.
[3] Updated to 1.1 J/GH (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3307091). 455W @ 1 VDC running at 502 GH/s. Assume 90% DC to DC conversion and 90% AC power supply efficiency results in estimated 560W at the wall.
[4] The Monarch card is reported by BFL to use 350W. It is not clearly indicated if this is 350W at the chip or the card but I will assume the 350W is the total 12VDC wattage for entire card (to include one or more ASIC processors, host interface, card fan, and DC to DC board PSU. The balance of system is provided by the user so some assumptions are necessary to estimate efficiency at the wall. To be used in a PCIe slot the card requires a "traditional motherboard" with one or more PCIe slot, 100W min is assumed for system and fans. Total DC wattage for single card system is 450W DC. Assuming a 90% efficient ATX PSU 450W DC/0.9 = 500W @ 120V AC. 500W/600GH/s = ~0.8 J/GH. Actual wattage may be significantly higher depending on the components selected by the user.
[5] Given BFL's delivery track record and after the fact changes I don't feel comfortable making any prediction. I would recommend users be very conservative and pad the delivery timeframes provided by BFL.
[6] Due to multiple configurations power efficiency varies by number of modules, batch version, and PSU efficiency. The following efficiencies have been reported 9.4 J/GH (66 GH/s @ 620W), 8.8 J/GH (85 GH/s @ 750W), 8.5 J/GH (82 GH/s @ 700W).
[7] Based on reported efficiency at the wall of less than 350W and nominal performance of greater than 400 GH/s of the BabyJet with single hashing board.
The electrical break even point is based on three factors:
a) the current exchange rate (USD per BTC)
b) the price the miner pays for power (USD per kWh)
c) the efficiency of the mining hardware (J/GH)https://bitcointalk.org/Themes/custom1/images/smflogo.gif
Electrical break even point by hardware efficiency
Based on $100 BTC:USD exchange rate and $0.10 per kWh electrical power rate
Code:
Device Process Eff (J/GH) [1] Diff (mil) Hashrate (PH/s)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPU various 330.0 60 0.4
FPGA various 50.0 400 2.9
Avalon 110nm 8.8 [6] 2,400 17.2
ASICMiner 130nm 7.7 2,700 19.3
BFL (SC) 65nm 5.0 4,200 30.1
KNC 28nm 1.1 [3] 18,250 130.6
Bitfury 55nm 0.9 23,300 166.8
Hashfast 28nm ~0.8 [7] 25,100 179.7
Cointerra 28nm ~0.8 [2] 25,100 179.7
BFL (Monarch) 28nm ~0.8 [4] 25,100 179.7
Update (05/25/2014): I no longer have the time to research every new ASIC device. I have not seen a device that is significantly more efficient than 0.8 J/GH (at full clock) when measured at the wall and multiple devices have real world efficiency within +/-20% of that spec so it is a good place to start estimating difficulty. Remember miners are paying for full power consumption not just the power of the raw chip. The at the wall measurement is the only thing that matters. More efficient designs may eventually emerge but the low hanging fruit is now gone. If less than a year efficient of best device went from >8 J/GH to <0.8 J/GH. We aren't going to see a 1000% improvement in efficient in the next year. Even a 0.4 J/GH device (at the wall) would be an impressive improvement but only represents a doubling of the break even point.
To calculate the break even difficulty at a different exchange and/or power rate use the following formula:
Code:
Adjusted difficulty = base difficulty * (exchange rate / $100) * ($0.10/power rate)
Examples:
Code:
Avalon break even difficulty @ $200 exchange rate and same power rate. 2,400 * ($200/$100) * ($0.10/$0.10) = 4,800
BFL (SC) break even difficulty @ $0.15 power rate and same exchange rate. 4,200 * ($100/$100) * ($0.10/$0.15) = 2,800
Bitfury break even difficulty @ $200 exchange rate and $0.05 power rate. 21,000 * ($200/$100) * ($0.10/$0.05) = 84,000
Why J not W?
Because J (Joule) is a measure of energy and W (Watt) is a measure of power. One Joule per second is one watt. You can't compare watts (energy over time) to a timeless value like Gigahash. Efficiency can be measured either in W per GH/s or J/GH bu not W/GH. It would be like saying a car gets 30 MPH per gallon or the spot price of gold is $1500 per ounce second. You can safely assume is someone writes W/GH they mean J/GH (or W per GH/s). I put this here because I have already gotten "corrections" by PM. Simple version: W per GH/s or J/GH are correct, W/GH is not.
Why did you make this?
I find it silly people have projections with difficulty going to 1 trillion or more (I think the highest I have seen is 200 trillion). At a mere 300 billion difficulty all current and proposed mining devices would be operated at a significant loss (assuming $100 exchange rate & $0.10 electrical rate). So at 1 trillion in difficulty even a Cointera rig would be converting $4 in electricity into $1 in Bitcoins. Anyone think that is likely? Significantly higher difficulty is going to require either more efficient hardware, a higher exchange rate, or the average cost of power for the network to decline.
Notes:
[1] Numbers used are from mining hardware comparison where available or based on benchmarks reported by owners/manufacturer. For apples to apples comparison all units are based on wattage at the wall (including all system power and inefficiencies). For devices where total wattage at the wall is unavailable it has been estimated. For unreleased devices ("specs") the efficiency reported by manufacturer is used.
[2] Cointerra did not provide system efficiency "at the wall" however did indicate that chip wattage would be better than 0.55 J/GH, based on that I project the at wall efficiency to be ~0.7 J/GH. Updated to 0.6 J/GH at the chip and 0.75 J/GH at the wall based on official statement. This is based on the following assumptions. Chip power: 0.60 W per GH/s * 2000 GH/s = 1200W @ 0.785 VDC. DC to DC board PSU 90% efficient 1200W/0.9 = 1333W @ 12VDC. Balance of system controller & cooling/fans = 50W @ 12 VDC. Total system DC wattage 1383W @ 12VDC. ATX PSU 90% efficient 13832/0.9 = 1537W @ 120VAC. 1537W / 2000 GH/s = ~0.8 J/GH.
[3] Updated to 1.1 J/GH (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3307091). 455W @ 1 VDC running at 502 GH/s. Assume 90% DC to DC conversion and 90% AC power supply efficiency results in estimated 560W at the wall.
[4] The Monarch card is reported by BFL to use 350W. It is not clearly indicated if this is 350W at the chip or the card but I will assume the 350W is the total 12VDC wattage for entire card (to include one or more ASIC processors, host interface, card fan, and DC to DC board PSU. The balance of system is provided by the user so some assumptions are necessary to estimate efficiency at the wall. To be used in a PCIe slot the card requires a "traditional motherboard" with one or more PCIe slot, 100W min is assumed for system and fans. Total DC wattage for single card system is 450W DC. Assuming a 90% efficient ATX PSU 450W DC/0.9 = 500W @ 120V AC. 500W/600GH/s = ~0.8 J/GH. Actual wattage may be significantly higher depending on the components selected by the user.
[5] Given BFL's delivery track record and after the fact changes I don't feel comfortable making any prediction. I would recommend users be very conservative and pad the delivery timeframes provided by BFL.
[6] Due to multiple configurations power efficiency varies by number of modules, batch version, and PSU efficiency. The following efficiencies have been reported 9.4 J/GH (66 GH/s @ 620W), 8.8 J/GH (85 GH/s @ 750W), 8.5 J/GH (82 GH/s @ 700W).
[7] Based on reported efficiency at the wall of less than 350W and nominal performance of greater than 400 GH/s of the BabyJet with single hashing board.
Jump to: