My main concern with the S5 is why does it cost so much?
The C1 is $325 and has FOUR hashing boards. The C1 boards also have a DC/DC converter for every two chips IIRC. The buck controller ICs probably cost more per unit than their custom silicon.
There is a major BOM cost reduction going to the chained design. The controller looks the same (cost reduced beaglebone black), the new chips of course have an NRE that needs to be recouped so they're probably just milking the first batch of people who are gonna buy it just because it's new.
Not even considering the possibility of instability or catastrophic failure due to the chain design, I'm gonna sit on my hands for a while. I'm willing to bet the first few price drops will be pretty good.
Topic: Is the S5 string design safe and was it really tested properly? - page 3. (Read 5860 times)
December 23, 2014, 12:56:12 PM
December 23, 2014, 11:01:48 AM
Code:
[quote author=raskul link=topic=903102.msg9922620#msg9922620 date=1419319929]
I have some serious reservations about how Bitmain have gone about creating their newest miner, the S5.
After seeing the magazine adverts and watching the speculation build, it would seem, to me at least, that they are designing a miner which has a good chance of failure due to the risky design.
Bitmain have done a private batch of S3++ using the chain design on an entirely new chip, in preparation to sell the S5 en-mass.
S3++ hasn't been released to the public, so we can only presume that there are a few large farms, with vested interest, mining large scale, across the world on a private batch of S3++ miners.
The string design is a very bad method to use, after so many experienced the troubles with the Prisma from AM... and... AM had to recall an entire batch.
Sure the S5 is BMT's most efficient miner to date but it's quite late to the party, the SP20 can reach this efficiency [b]and below[/b] with proven dc2dc stable design and... without what seems to be, by Bitmain, a risky cost cutting exercise.
I can't help but think something is not quite right here... presuming that there were problems with the chips, or the boards on the S5's for them to appear this late after advertising... having an open-top design of the casing, surely won't allow enough airflow, either?
I can't get my head around what Bitmain are trying to accomplish here, so I'm putting it out there... it's a product which has high chance of failure and I can foresee many RMA'd units.
:-\
[/quote]
Seems serious old boy....
Is there any evidence of localized heating or hot spots on the boards?
How about in the Bui, any sign of uneven cooling?
Are you running at 12v or 9?
What guage cables are you running from the PSU and is there any sign of excess heating?
I have no evidence as units are yet to ship, simply from what I see on the announcement thread, makes me irk towards something not quite right about the design.
One wouldn't want to invest in something which has design problems. Do you have much experience in asic or electronic design yourself?
I never buy batch 1 miners for the specific reason that you just can't be sure and I only have experience in these fields from my home mining endeavours. It's a serious gamble to lay out vast amounts of money on something which has not gone through proper independent testing. I'd preferred to see a few independent reviews before any miner goes on sale, not just BMT.
I'll put my bulk order of 52 on hold till I hear back from you old chap.
I cannot make decisions for you, you should weigh up the facts for yourself and decide accordingly. I'd just like to see any initial bumps evened out before anyone puts their money into it.
Toodle pip for now....
all the best to you and yours this festive season.
December 23, 2014, 10:50:03 AM
I have some serious reservations about how Bitmain have gone about creating their newest miner, the S5.
After seeing the magazine adverts and watching the speculation build, it would seem, to me at least, that they are designing a miner which has a good chance of failure due to the risky design.
Bitmain have done a private batch of S3++ using the chain design on an entirely new chip, in preparation to sell the S5 en-mass.
S3++ hasn't been released to the public, so we can only presume that there are a few large farms, with vested interest, mining large scale, across the world on a private batch of S3++ miners.
The string design is a very bad method to use, after so many experienced the troubles with the Prisma from AM... and... AM had to recall an entire batch.
Sure the S5 is BMT's most efficient miner to date but it's quite late to the party, the SP20 can reach this efficiency and below with proven dc2dc stable design and... without what seems to be, by Bitmain, a risky cost cutting exercise.
I can't help but think something is not quite right here... presuming that there were problems with the chips, or the boards on the S5's for them to appear this late after advertising... having an open-top design of the casing, surely won't allow enough airflow, either?
I can't get my head around what Bitmain are trying to accomplish here, so I'm putting it out there... it's a product which has high chance of failure and I can foresee many RMA'd units.
After seeing the magazine adverts and watching the speculation build, it would seem, to me at least, that they are designing a miner which has a good chance of failure due to the risky design.
Bitmain have done a private batch of S3++ using the chain design on an entirely new chip, in preparation to sell the S5 en-mass.
S3++ hasn't been released to the public, so we can only presume that there are a few large farms, with vested interest, mining large scale, across the world on a private batch of S3++ miners.
The string design is a very bad method to use, after so many experienced the troubles with the Prisma from AM... and... AM had to recall an entire batch.
Sure the S5 is BMT's most efficient miner to date but it's quite late to the party, the SP20 can reach this efficiency and below with proven dc2dc stable design and... without what seems to be, by Bitmain, a risky cost cutting exercise.
I can't help but think something is not quite right here... presuming that there were problems with the chips, or the boards on the S5's for them to appear this late after advertising... having an open-top design of the casing, surely won't allow enough airflow, either?
I can't get my head around what Bitmain are trying to accomplish here, so I'm putting it out there... it's a product which has high chance of failure and I can foresee many RMA'd units.
Seems serious old boy....
Is there any evidence of localized heating or hot spots on the boards?
How about in the Bui, any sign of uneven cooling?
Are you running at 12v or 9?
What guage cables are you running from the PSU and is there any sign of excess heating?
One wouldn't want to invest in something which has design problems. Do you have much experience in asic or electronic design yourself?
I'll put my bulk order of 52 on hold till I hear back from you old chap.
Have a tidy profit from those nice chaps at GAW I'm looking to re invest and these look like just the ticket.
Toodle pip for now....
December 23, 2014, 10:49:22 AM
...
spondoolies is so kind that give me a new one just for free!!
But please use good cables this time...spondoolies is so kind that give me a new one just for free!!
December 23, 2014, 10:22:05 AM
...
spondoolies is so kind that give me a new one just for free!!
But please use good cables this time... spondoolies is so kind that give me a new one just for free!!
December 23, 2014, 10:20:09 AM
...and so endeth the lesson in customer service...
December 23, 2014, 10:18:34 AM
Today I bought 12 pieces Antminer S5
I trust them today more than SP20 , especially after seeing this picture. Because they have 4 PCI-E slot, For 600W.
SP20 has 4 PCI-E slot for 1200W (Max)
I have 3 x SP20 and
6pc SP20 purchased by December 17, to get my hands probably 29.12
I also have a 5pc KNC Neptune, with no burnt PCI-E slot.
The rest are all Bitmaintech production. (37x S3, 6x C1, 2x S4 )
It would be seen that picture before, then I would not have ordered more SP20.
THIS IS MY BADI trust them today more than SP20 , especially after seeing this picture. Because they have 4 PCI-E slot, For 600W.
SP20 has 4 PCI-E slot for 1200W (Max)
I have 3 x SP20 and
6pc SP20 purchased by December 17, to get my hands probably 29.12
I also have a 5pc KNC Neptune, with no burnt PCI-E slot.
The rest are all Bitmaintech production. (37x S3, 6x C1, 2x S4 )
It would be seen that picture before, then I would not have ordered more SP20.
spondoolies is so kind that give me a new one just for free!!
December 23, 2014, 08:12:23 AM
...
It would be seen that picture before, then I would not have ordered more SP20.
Thank you for the double post.It would be seen that picture before, then I would not have ordered more SP20.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9924332
December 23, 2014, 07:11:00 AM
Today I bought 12 pieces Antminer S5
I have 3 x SP20
I have 3 x SP20
[imghttp://i.imgur.com/3NeiVUI.jpg[/img]
modules and controller is fine, will it still cover in warranty if I replace the sockets my self?
modules and controller is fine, will it still cover in warranty if I replace the sockets my self?
How did that happen?
I know that smell
PSUs ok? What cable gauge? What PSU model? Cables came with the PSU?
PSU:Super Flower Leadex Platinum 1200W
Issue might be caused due to:
1. loose connectivity between the wire and the pin.
2. dis-connectivity of some of the wires causing over current on the connected wires.
3. over powering the PSU causing heat on wires to melt the connectors - can be for example due to wrong AWG or connectors that are not suitable for high power.
4. home made cables with long wires and unsuitable connector/wires.
Can you reply the following:
1. what was the power limit per each of the 4 inputs? (this is defined at the GUI)
2. did you use the ATX original cables?
3. what is the cable AWG?
4. what was the ambient temperature?
We'll check the PSU model you were using.
Please contact support for RMA, don't attempt to fix yourself. We kindly ask that you'll the PSU and cables for us for further testing.
Guy
2.no (but cable that of the picture is)
3.I cant tell, maybe 10AWG or 9AWG
4.32C report from another working SP20
i don't wanna go RMA because i think the problem is on my plugs, if you give me a new one that is really not fair to you, i just want to keep this miner cover in warranty after i replaced the socket myself.
you can see the problem. the user put the wrong cables.
December 23, 2014, 06:57:38 AM
Today I bought 12 pieces Antminer S5
I trust them today more than SP20 , especially after seeing this picture. Because they have 4 PCI-E slot, For 600W.
SP20 has 4 PCI-E slot for 1200W (Max)
I have 3 x SP20 and
6pc SP20 purchased by December 17, to get my hands probably 29.12
I also have a 5pc KNC Neptune, with no burnt PCI-E slot.
The rest are all Bitmaintech production. (37x S3, 6x C1, 2x S4 )
It would be seen that picture before, then I would not have ordered more SP20.
I trust them today more than SP20 , especially after seeing this picture. Because they have 4 PCI-E slot, For 600W.
SP20 has 4 PCI-E slot for 1200W (Max)
I have 3 x SP20 and
6pc SP20 purchased by December 17, to get my hands probably 29.12
I also have a 5pc KNC Neptune, with no burnt PCI-E slot.
The rest are all Bitmaintech production. (37x S3, 6x C1, 2x S4 )
It would be seen that picture before, then I would not have ordered more SP20.
December 23, 2014, 05:12:58 AM
December 23, 2014, 05:11:52 AM
this.
Interesting product. A lot will depend on pricing, but at similar pricing and efficiency I think you'd have to give the nod to the SP20 due to many of the reasons other people have listed here (established product, ease of changing settings), but also due to the potential risks inherent in the chained design. Bitmain saves significantly on costs by eliminating the VRMs and should get a small efficiency boost from it as well, but so did AM and everyone saw how the Prismas turned out. This wouldn't be a product I'd be investing a lot of money into until the first batch is field tested for awhile.
December 23, 2014, 05:09:02 AM
to be fair it's not just me with apprehension... cross-quoting these here as I've noted some of my own posts being deleted from the S5 thread:
Hi, there will be two kinds of possible fails. Both are possible.
But string design makes the PCB very simple, which left far more less possible reasons for the hardware to go wrong. That is what we have seen in the S3++, a private batch which use chained design with BM1382 chip.
Thank you for your reply. But like you said, there is still a chance of failure. With the current S4 for example. Even if one chip is completely dead. I can still use it. But with the chained design if one chip goes silent, that's it. End of story.
I like the power efficiency but your price tag.. and the chance of having one miner out of action just because of 1 single chip... I don't know, it's nagging me in my head...
Another thing that really worries me is the chained design. Does it mean if one chip fails, the whole board fails?
So instead of getting 00XX0X00 we get -----------------?
Please tell me I'm wrong.
So instead of getting 00XX0X00 we get -----------------?
Please tell me I'm wrong.
Hi, there will be two kinds of possible fails. Both are possible.
But string design makes the PCB very simple, which left far more less possible reasons for the hardware to go wrong. That is what we have seen in the S3++, a private batch which use chained design with BM1382 chip.
Thank you for your reply. But like you said, there is still a chance of failure. With the current S4 for example. Even if one chip is completely dead. I can still use it. But with the chained design if one chip goes silent, that's it. End of story.
I like the power efficiency but your price tag.. and the chance of having one miner out of action just because of 1 single chip... I don't know, it's nagging me in my head...
December 23, 2014, 03:18:16 AM
I have to say it looks a lot like the S3 as Raskul says it looks like an S3++ and frankly after the performance of my 18 x s3's - I have to say.
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck..........................its probably a duck.
I wouldnt invest my money in these.
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck..........................its probably a duck.
I wouldnt invest my money in these.
i never buy batch1 of any miner anyway so i'm reserving my full judgement until we can read some proper unbiased reviews. from reading your post in the S3 thread it does indeed seem like Bitmain had actually sent you refurbished units from prior batches, rather than new stock... I can only presume that the S5's which don't go up in smoke will be subject to the same.
And initially, I thought the open top idea was quite a novel way of dissipating the heat from the chips, but I was a bit drunk at the time. quack-quack.
December 23, 2014, 03:14:18 AM
I have to say it looks a lot like the S3 as Raskul says it looks like an S3++ and frankly after the performance of my 18 x s3's - I have to say.
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck..........................its probably a duck.
I wouldnt invest my money in these.
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck..........................its probably a duck.
I wouldnt invest my money in these.
December 23, 2014, 03:03:24 AM
It's a nice idea in that you save a hell of a lot of copper, I just don't know if anybody is actually able to pull it off. There's a lot of hints here that the Antminer chips use the same masks as the Bitfury ones, the specs of the Bitfury 1 and Antminer's first chips are almost identical other than the choice of package. It's suggested elsewhere that Bitfury would be making a new chip, what if this is it re-badged? I'd have a lot more faith in it working if the design is a third generation Bitfury rather than a third generation Antminer.
December 23, 2014, 02:32:09 AM
I have some serious reservations about how Bitmain have gone about creating their newest miner, the S5.
After seeing the magazine adverts and watching the speculation build, it would seem, to me at least, that they are designing a miner which has a good chance of failure due to the risky design.
Bitmain have done a private batch of S3++ using the chain design on an entirely new chip, in preparation to sell the S5 en-mass.
S3++ hasn't been released to the public, so we can only presume that there are a few large farms, with vested interest, mining large scale, across the world on a private batch of S3++ miners.
The string design is a very bad method to use, after so many experienced the troubles with the Prisma from AM... and... AM had to recall an entire batch.
Sure the S5 is BMT's most efficient miner to date but it's quite late to the party, the SP20 can reach this efficiency and below with proven dc2dc stable design and... without what seems to be, by Bitmain, a risky cost cutting exercise.
I can't help but think something is not quite right here... presuming that there were problems with the chips, or the boards on the S5's for them to appear this late after advertising... having an open-top design of the casing, surely won't allow enough airflow, either?
I can't get my head around what Bitmain are trying to accomplish here, so I'm putting it out there... it's a product which has high chance of failure and I can foresee many RMA'd units.
After seeing the magazine adverts and watching the speculation build, it would seem, to me at least, that they are designing a miner which has a good chance of failure due to the risky design.
Bitmain have done a private batch of S3++ using the chain design on an entirely new chip, in preparation to sell the S5 en-mass.
S3++ hasn't been released to the public, so we can only presume that there are a few large farms, with vested interest, mining large scale, across the world on a private batch of S3++ miners.
The string design is a very bad method to use, after so many experienced the troubles with the Prisma from AM... and... AM had to recall an entire batch.
Sure the S5 is BMT's most efficient miner to date but it's quite late to the party, the SP20 can reach this efficiency and below with proven dc2dc stable design and... without what seems to be, by Bitmain, a risky cost cutting exercise.
I can't help but think something is not quite right here... presuming that there were problems with the chips, or the boards on the S5's for them to appear this late after advertising... having an open-top design of the casing, surely won't allow enough airflow, either?
I can't get my head around what Bitmain are trying to accomplish here, so I'm putting it out there... it's a product which has high chance of failure and I can foresee many RMA'd units.
Jump to: