From the moment he, BFL_Josh, stated that he's "first in line" to get mining rigs from BFL for his own mining company I said he's an unethical SoB.
That violates pretty much every single ethical code in business ESPECIALLY considering that they are more than 5 months late in the delivery and likely to be 7 or 8 months late by the time they deliver something.
Topic: Is there something missing from this picture? (Read 1413 times)
Quote
Well guys, I had planned on updating everyone with a video of a board hashing here in KC tonight, but I haven't been able to get that together yet, so I'm probably going to have to push it off until tomorrow. We are targeting a start of shipment next week, but I'm not quite ready to commit to that at the moment, given our past estimates. It's imminent, though.
I know Chip Geek, I'm going to try to ship out a unit ,at least one, before APril first if it's at all possible.
Chip Geek, I'm not sure. We may miss our power targets, that's been part of hte hold up... we think there's a problem with the power consumption and we're trying to figure out where it's having an issue. However, in the interests of time, we are going to be shipping what we have and going back and fixing while we are shipping, just so people can have their units. People are welcome to wait for the revised boards that should help out with the power issue if they want to delay their shipments... (heh, riiiight).
The power is still far less than any other unit, so it's not like it's something crazy or anything, but it's not 1w/GH and we're trying to locate the source of the power drain. It may require a revision of the substrate and/or the PCB.
Haha it's WAYYY less than 620 watts even at it's worst.
What's causing even more consternation is the fact that the wafer we burned for tests runs at far less power than a second wafer we mounted on the BGA package... so it may be a wafer by wafer thing, and sicne we only have two datapoints, it's hard to nail down the issue. We're rolling the other 4 wafers off the line shortly (they may be done already I think) - and that wil at least give us an idea of the power consumption between wafers with 6 data points.
Bogart, the rest of the 6 wafers, we have been holding off on the last 5 layers for the rest of the chips to be sure we don't need to make a tweak in the metal layer due to the power issue. I think we've pretty much settled that hte power issue is NOT in the chip, but somewhere in the substrate or PCB (or if it were in the chip, it's not something that's easily and quickly fixed).
Barrett: Depends on the power draw, it may be that the power draw is too high for the board and we need to scale the hashrate back. If that's the case, we'll send multiple units to cover the hashrate difference for orders.
SgtSpike: We are trying to nail it down. We have some boards at 1.76w, some at 2.5 and some at 4 and one at 6 <- although I think the ones at 4 and 6 have either a broken power regulator and/or a bad power brick, because they power brick is only 120w and it's drawing like 195 watts which is ridiculous. When I get hte firmware here in KC, I'll be running it off of an ATX PSU to eliminate the power brick as the culprit. So you see, this is why the power issue is causing some difficulties
Yes, I'm aware that Bitcointalk trolls will have a field day with everything I've just said. Heh. Even a broken power regulator and a bad power brick is still better than an Avalon, but in all honesty, at this point with bitcoin prices at 90 bucks a coin, I'm thinking no one is going to care at hte moment they just want to hash. Which is why we'll be shipping and then improving as we go.
If the cooling becomes an issue, like I said, we'd scale it back and ship multiple units.
Smith88: We will ship whatever we have to to get people hashing at their expected GH.
Lap_Rat: No, worst case is 195w, but the power systems on the board aren't rated to handle that really I don't think, so we'd back off the hashrate before we'd let it get that high.
Yeah I think 120w is a nice comfortable number. It can probably got a bit higher than that, but 195w is probably not where we want to be.
I know Chip Geek, I'm going to try to ship out a unit ,at least one, before APril first if it's at all possible.
Chip Geek, I'm not sure. We may miss our power targets, that's been part of hte hold up... we think there's a problem with the power consumption and we're trying to figure out where it's having an issue. However, in the interests of time, we are going to be shipping what we have and going back and fixing while we are shipping, just so people can have their units. People are welcome to wait for the revised boards that should help out with the power issue if they want to delay their shipments... (heh, riiiight).
The power is still far less than any other unit, so it's not like it's something crazy or anything, but it's not 1w/GH and we're trying to locate the source of the power drain. It may require a revision of the substrate and/or the PCB.
Haha it's WAYYY less than 620 watts even at it's worst.
What's causing even more consternation is the fact that the wafer we burned for tests runs at far less power than a second wafer we mounted on the BGA package... so it may be a wafer by wafer thing, and sicne we only have two datapoints, it's hard to nail down the issue. We're rolling the other 4 wafers off the line shortly (they may be done already I think) - and that wil at least give us an idea of the power consumption between wafers with 6 data points.
Bogart, the rest of the 6 wafers, we have been holding off on the last 5 layers for the rest of the chips to be sure we don't need to make a tweak in the metal layer due to the power issue. I think we've pretty much settled that hte power issue is NOT in the chip, but somewhere in the substrate or PCB (or if it were in the chip, it's not something that's easily and quickly fixed).
Barrett: Depends on the power draw, it may be that the power draw is too high for the board and we need to scale the hashrate back. If that's the case, we'll send multiple units to cover the hashrate difference for orders.
SgtSpike: We are trying to nail it down. We have some boards at 1.76w, some at 2.5 and some at 4 and one at 6 <- although I think the ones at 4 and 6 have either a broken power regulator and/or a bad power brick, because they power brick is only 120w and it's drawing like 195 watts which is ridiculous. When I get hte firmware here in KC, I'll be running it off of an ATX PSU to eliminate the power brick as the culprit. So you see, this is why the power issue is causing some difficulties
Yes, I'm aware that Bitcointalk trolls will have a field day with everything I've just said. Heh. Even a broken power regulator and a bad power brick is still better than an Avalon, but in all honesty, at this point with bitcoin prices at 90 bucks a coin, I'm thinking no one is going to care at hte moment they just want to hash. Which is why we'll be shipping and then improving as we go.
If the cooling becomes an issue, like I said, we'd scale it back and ship multiple units.
Smith88: We will ship whatever we have to to get people hashing at their expected GH.
Lap_Rat: No, worst case is 195w, but the power systems on the board aren't rated to handle that really I don't think, so we'd back off the hashrate before we'd let it get that high.
Yeah I think 120w is a nice comfortable number. It can probably got a bit higher than that, but 195w is probably not where we want to be.
ROFL, thats not better then a fuckin avalon! Avalon has been shipping, BFL has not ...
yes avalon is shipping
and josh the bfl snake admits bfl units will eat 400-600 wats per 60 gh
but trys to word it so its not clear
thats why his a snake
Quote
Well guys, I had planned on updating everyone with a video of a board hashing here in KC tonight, but I haven't been able to get that together yet, so I'm probably going to have to push it off until tomorrow. We are targeting a start of shipment next week, but I'm not quite ready to commit to that at the moment, given our past estimates. It's imminent, though.
I know Chip Geek, I'm going to try to ship out a unit ,at least one, before APril first if it's at all possible.
Chip Geek, I'm not sure. We may miss our power targets, that's been part of hte hold up... we think there's a problem with the power consumption and we're trying to figure out where it's having an issue. However, in the interests of time, we are going to be shipping what we have and going back and fixing while we are shipping, just so people can have their units. People are welcome to wait for the revised boards that should help out with the power issue if they want to delay their shipments... (heh, riiiight).
The power is still far less than any other unit, so it's not like it's something crazy or anything, but it's not 1w/GH and we're trying to locate the source of the power drain. It may require a revision of the substrate and/or the PCB.
Haha it's WAYYY less than 620 watts even at it's worst.
What's causing even more consternation is the fact that the wafer we burned for tests runs at far less power than a second wafer we mounted on the BGA package... so it may be a wafer by wafer thing, and sicne we only have two datapoints, it's hard to nail down the issue. We're rolling the other 4 wafers off the line shortly (they may be done already I think) - and that wil at least give us an idea of the power consumption between wafers with 6 data points.
Bogart, the rest of the 6 wafers, we have been holding off on the last 5 layers for the rest of the chips to be sure we don't need to make a tweak in the metal layer due to the power issue. I think we've pretty much settled that hte power issue is NOT in the chip, but somewhere in the substrate or PCB (or if it were in the chip, it's not something that's easily and quickly fixed).
Barrett: Depends on the power draw, it may be that the power draw is too high for the board and we need to scale the hashrate back. If that's the case, we'll send multiple units to cover the hashrate difference for orders.
SgtSpike: We are trying to nail it down. We have some boards at 1.76w, some at 2.5 and some at 4 and one at 6 <- although I think the ones at 4 and 6 have either a broken power regulator and/or a bad power brick, because they power brick is only 120w and it's drawing like 195 watts which is ridiculous. When I get hte firmware here in KC, I'll be running it off of an ATX PSU to eliminate the power brick as the culprit. So you see, this is why the power issue is causing some difficulties
Yes, I'm aware that Bitcointalk trolls will have a field day with everything I've just said. Heh. Even a broken power regulator and a bad power brick is still better than an Avalon, but in all honesty, at this point with bitcoin prices at 90 bucks a coin, I'm thinking no one is going to care at hte moment they just want to hash. Which is why we'll be shipping and then improving as we go.
If the cooling becomes an issue, like I said, we'd scale it back and ship multiple units.
Smith88: We will ship whatever we have to to get people hashing at their expected GH.
Lap_Rat: No, worst case is 195w, but the power systems on the board aren't rated to handle that really I don't think, so we'd back off the hashrate before we'd let it get that high.
Yeah I think 120w is a nice comfortable number. It can probably got a bit higher than that, but 195w is probably not where we want to be.
I know Chip Geek, I'm going to try to ship out a unit ,at least one, before APril first if it's at all possible.
Chip Geek, I'm not sure. We may miss our power targets, that's been part of hte hold up... we think there's a problem with the power consumption and we're trying to figure out where it's having an issue. However, in the interests of time, we are going to be shipping what we have and going back and fixing while we are shipping, just so people can have their units. People are welcome to wait for the revised boards that should help out with the power issue if they want to delay their shipments... (heh, riiiight).
The power is still far less than any other unit, so it's not like it's something crazy or anything, but it's not 1w/GH and we're trying to locate the source of the power drain. It may require a revision of the substrate and/or the PCB.
Haha it's WAYYY less than 620 watts even at it's worst.
What's causing even more consternation is the fact that the wafer we burned for tests runs at far less power than a second wafer we mounted on the BGA package... so it may be a wafer by wafer thing, and sicne we only have two datapoints, it's hard to nail down the issue. We're rolling the other 4 wafers off the line shortly (they may be done already I think) - and that wil at least give us an idea of the power consumption between wafers with 6 data points.
Bogart, the rest of the 6 wafers, we have been holding off on the last 5 layers for the rest of the chips to be sure we don't need to make a tweak in the metal layer due to the power issue. I think we've pretty much settled that hte power issue is NOT in the chip, but somewhere in the substrate or PCB (or if it were in the chip, it's not something that's easily and quickly fixed).
Barrett: Depends on the power draw, it may be that the power draw is too high for the board and we need to scale the hashrate back. If that's the case, we'll send multiple units to cover the hashrate difference for orders.
SgtSpike: We are trying to nail it down. We have some boards at 1.76w, some at 2.5 and some at 4 and one at 6 <- although I think the ones at 4 and 6 have either a broken power regulator and/or a bad power brick, because they power brick is only 120w and it's drawing like 195 watts which is ridiculous. When I get hte firmware here in KC, I'll be running it off of an ATX PSU to eliminate the power brick as the culprit. So you see, this is why the power issue is causing some difficulties
Yes, I'm aware that Bitcointalk trolls will have a field day with everything I've just said. Heh. Even a broken power regulator and a bad power brick is still better than an Avalon, but in all honesty, at this point with bitcoin prices at 90 bucks a coin, I'm thinking no one is going to care at hte moment they just want to hash. Which is why we'll be shipping and then improving as we go.
If the cooling becomes an issue, like I said, we'd scale it back and ship multiple units.
Smith88: We will ship whatever we have to to get people hashing at their expected GH.
Lap_Rat: No, worst case is 195w, but the power systems on the board aren't rated to handle that really I don't think, so we'd back off the hashrate before we'd let it get that high.
Yeah I think 120w is a nice comfortable number. It can probably got a bit higher than that, but 195w is probably not where we want to be.
ROFL, thats not better then a fuckin avalon! Avalon has been shipping, BFL has not ...
No, but really, thank you Josh for filling in the blanks tonight. Here's a quick transcript:
Quote
Well guys, I had planned on updating everyone with a video of a board hashing here in KC tonight, but I haven't been able to get that together yet, so I'm probably going to have to push it off until tomorrow. We are targeting a start of shipment next week, but I'm not quite ready to commit to that at the moment, given our past estimates. It's imminent, though.
I know Chip Geek, I'm going to try to ship out a unit ,at least one, before APril first if it's at all possible.
Chip Geek, I'm not sure. We may miss our power targets, that's been part of hte hold up... we think there's a problem with the power consumption and we're trying to figure out where it's having an issue. However, in the interests of time, we are going to be shipping what we have and going back and fixing while we are shipping, just so people can have their units. People are welcome to wait for the revised boards that should help out with the power issue if they want to delay their shipments... (heh, riiiight).
The power is still far less than any other unit, so it's not like it's something crazy or anything, but it's not 1w/GH and we're trying to locate the source of the power drain. It may require a revision of the substrate and/or the PCB.
Haha it's WAYYY less than 620 watts even at it's worst.
What's causing even more consternation is the fact that the wafer we burned for tests runs at far less power than a second wafer we mounted on the BGA package... so it may be a wafer by wafer thing, and sicne we only have two datapoints, it's hard to nail down the issue. We're rolling the other 4 wafers off the line shortly (they may be done already I think) - and that wil at least give us an idea of the power consumption between wafers with 6 data points.
Bogart, the rest of the 6 wafers, we have been holding off on the last 5 layers for the rest of the chips to be sure we don't need to make a tweak in the metal layer due to the power issue. I think we've pretty much settled that hte power issue is NOT in the chip, but somewhere in the substrate or PCB (or if it were in the chip, it's not something that's easily and quickly fixed).
Barrett: Depends on the power draw, it may be that the power draw is too high for the board and we need to scale the hashrate back. If that's the case, we'll send multiple units to cover the hashrate difference for orders.
SgtSpike: We are trying to nail it down. We have some boards at 1.76w, some at 2.5 and some at 4 and one at 6 <- although I think the ones at 4 and 6 have either a broken power regulator and/or a bad power brick, because they power brick is only 120w and it's drawing like 195 watts which is ridiculous. When I get hte firmware here in KC, I'll be running it off of an ATX PSU to eliminate the power brick as the culprit. So you see, this is why the power issue is causing some difficulties
Yes, I'm aware that Bitcointalk trolls will have a field day with everything I've just said. Heh. Even a broken power regulator and a bad power brick is still better than an Avalon, but in all honesty, at this point with bitcoin prices at 90 bucks a coin, I'm thinking no one is going to care at hte moment they just want to hash. Which is why we'll be shipping and then improving as we go.
If the cooling becomes an issue, like I said, we'd scale it back and ship multiple units.
Smith88: We will ship whatever we have to to get people hashing at their expected GH.
Lap_Rat: No, worst case is 195w, but the power systems on the board aren't rated to handle that really I don't think, so we'd back off the hashrate before we'd let it get that high.
Yeah I think 120w is a nice comfortable number. It can probably got a bit higher than that, but 195w is probably not where we want to be.
I know Chip Geek, I'm going to try to ship out a unit ,at least one, before APril first if it's at all possible.
Chip Geek, I'm not sure. We may miss our power targets, that's been part of hte hold up... we think there's a problem with the power consumption and we're trying to figure out where it's having an issue. However, in the interests of time, we are going to be shipping what we have and going back and fixing while we are shipping, just so people can have their units. People are welcome to wait for the revised boards that should help out with the power issue if they want to delay their shipments... (heh, riiiight).
The power is still far less than any other unit, so it's not like it's something crazy or anything, but it's not 1w/GH and we're trying to locate the source of the power drain. It may require a revision of the substrate and/or the PCB.
Haha it's WAYYY less than 620 watts even at it's worst.
What's causing even more consternation is the fact that the wafer we burned for tests runs at far less power than a second wafer we mounted on the BGA package... so it may be a wafer by wafer thing, and sicne we only have two datapoints, it's hard to nail down the issue. We're rolling the other 4 wafers off the line shortly (they may be done already I think) - and that wil at least give us an idea of the power consumption between wafers with 6 data points.
Bogart, the rest of the 6 wafers, we have been holding off on the last 5 layers for the rest of the chips to be sure we don't need to make a tweak in the metal layer due to the power issue. I think we've pretty much settled that hte power issue is NOT in the chip, but somewhere in the substrate or PCB (or if it were in the chip, it's not something that's easily and quickly fixed).
Barrett: Depends on the power draw, it may be that the power draw is too high for the board and we need to scale the hashrate back. If that's the case, we'll send multiple units to cover the hashrate difference for orders.
SgtSpike: We are trying to nail it down. We have some boards at 1.76w, some at 2.5 and some at 4 and one at 6 <- although I think the ones at 4 and 6 have either a broken power regulator and/or a bad power brick, because they power brick is only 120w and it's drawing like 195 watts which is ridiculous. When I get hte firmware here in KC, I'll be running it off of an ATX PSU to eliminate the power brick as the culprit. So you see, this is why the power issue is causing some difficulties
Yes, I'm aware that Bitcointalk trolls will have a field day with everything I've just said. Heh. Even a broken power regulator and a bad power brick is still better than an Avalon, but in all honesty, at this point with bitcoin prices at 90 bucks a coin, I'm thinking no one is going to care at hte moment they just want to hash. Which is why we'll be shipping and then improving as we go.
If the cooling becomes an issue, like I said, we'd scale it back and ship multiple units.
Smith88: We will ship whatever we have to to get people hashing at their expected GH.
Lap_Rat: No, worst case is 195w, but the power systems on the board aren't rated to handle that really I don't think, so we'd back off the hashrate before we'd let it get that high.
Yeah I think 120w is a nice comfortable number. It can probably got a bit higher than that, but 195w is probably not where we want to be.
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/vbshout.php?message=&username=BFL_Josh&hours=&from%5Bmonth%5D=2&from%5Bday%5D=20&from%5Byear%5D=2013&filter%5Bshout%5D=1&chatroomid=0&orderby=DESC&perpage=100&s=&do=archive&instanceid=1
lol i got it
customer news !!!!!
nice big empty box thats what u will get if u succkkred in into ordering lol
nice empty box and part with ur money
or worst yet with ur btc
ouch
BTW: Do you understand that the power miss they are talking about probably means they cannot use the board design they have shown because the power density will be too high to cool properly? It's not a small issue. There is a reason Avalon boards have their chips so widely separated.
The cockiness of those arrogant cowboys is seriously hard to grasp: They produce tons of boxes with fans. Casings. PCBs. High gloss boxing that would fit perfectly in an Apple store. All before they knew if their ASICS are working. All before they had a working prototype.
It was a 1:1000 chance. BFL was just too cocky. All the way ...
agreed bullshit spin master josh
lol, ur josh nicknames are hilarious. thank you
SO ,....
1. You're late on delivering your product by 5 months
2. Your power estimates are above what you advertised.
3. You have no proof still of a working prototype, just more talk.
4. And people will just not care because the price of bitcoin is high, lol....i love how that is an "out" for BFL...wishful thinking Josh.
5. You don't have time to make a simple video of a unit you are testing that is hashing?....i call this last one here BULLSHIT.
Anyone who made a product worth releasing to customers would MAKE time to video tape it, photo shoot it, put makeup on it, and start spamming ads about it all over the internet. But as usual with Josh/BFL it is just more talk. Nothing of value.
Keep waiting BFL investors.
EDIT: I am not a troll of BFL. I am simple stating the facts and my views. A troll has been defined as anyone who says something you dont want to hear....Josh doesnt want to hear what us "trolls" say.
1. You're late on delivering your product by 5 months
2. Your power estimates are above what you advertised.
3. You have no proof still of a working prototype, just more talk.
4. And people will just not care because the price of bitcoin is high, lol....i love how that is an "out" for BFL...wishful thinking Josh.
5. You don't have time to make a simple video of a unit you are testing that is hashing?....i call this last one here BULLSHIT.
Anyone who made a product worth releasing to customers would MAKE time to video tape it, photo shoot it, put makeup on it, and start spamming ads about it all over the internet. But as usual with Josh/BFL it is just more talk. Nothing of value.
Keep waiting BFL investors.
EDIT: I am not a troll of BFL. I am simple stating the facts and my views. A troll has been defined as anyone who says something you dont want to hear....Josh doesnt want to hear what us "trolls" say.
5. You don't have time to make a simple video of a unit you are testing that is hashing?....i call this last one here BULLSHIT.
agreed bullshit spin master josh was busy wording his update for a few hours im sure
to hide the fact that 60gh of fl will use 400-600 watts of power like a avalon
and still no fakin video of a working unit ofourse
I think they saw the ads! LOL
My Bs is rusty but..
The translation: Yeah we couldnt get the camcorder to work but... the pictures are still real tho.
We are gonna ship the badly designed broken asics which will over heat but we will fix it after we have shipped!
Did we mention that we are soooo not sorry! In fact if it wasnt for the ads and the general feeling that an army of geeks and their lawyers might show up any minute at our headquarters we wouldnt even be making this announcement. (spit)
oh did we spit on you again?, sorry for that! we apologies. From now on when reading our announcements please be prepared for us to spit lugis in your face and tell you to go **** yourself. The next time you give us money be prepared to get F******, and spit on and we might, by that time have the camera going to we can replay us screwing you over ..over and over again!
Somebody dedicate an AVALON so we can fund a bigger ad campaign!
My Bs is rusty but..
The translation: Yeah we couldnt get the camcorder to work but... the pictures are still real tho.
We are gonna ship the badly designed broken asics which will over heat but we will fix it after we have shipped!
Did we mention that we are soooo not sorry! In fact if it wasnt for the ads and the general feeling that an army of geeks and their lawyers might show up any minute at our headquarters we wouldnt even be making this announcement. (spit)
oh did we spit on you again?, sorry for that! we apologies. From now on when reading our announcements please be prepared for us to spit lugis in your face and tell you to go **** yourself. The next time you give us money be prepared to get F******, and spit on and we might, by that time have the camera going to we can replay us screwing you over ..over and over again!
Somebody dedicate an AVALON so we can fund a bigger ad campaign!
It's all pretty sad. I've been silently watching the whole ASIC soap opera/train wreck for a few months now.
I personally do hope that there is some viable competition in the ASIC space soon, for sake of decentralization of mining. Congrats to Avalon for being first to market, and I hope BitSyncom continues to manufacture and distribute.
Ideally, I do hope BFL does own up to their agreements with their customers, and finally delivers the promised product, or adequately compensates for shortcomings. They are beyond the need to get a PR/press department though, or at least some well trained customer service rep(s). However they may as well hire a janitor to cleanup the relations mess they've created with the BTC community and their customers. I understand that labor rates in MO are pretty competitive.
I personally do hope that there is some viable competition in the ASIC space soon, for sake of decentralization of mining. Congrats to Avalon for being first to market, and I hope BitSyncom continues to manufacture and distribute.
Ideally, I do hope BFL does own up to their agreements with their customers, and finally delivers the promised product, or adequately compensates for shortcomings. They are beyond the need to get a PR/press department though, or at least some well trained customer service rep(s). However they may as well hire a janitor to cleanup the relations mess they've created with the BTC community and their customers. I understand that labor rates in MO are pretty competitive.
SO ,....
1. You're late on delivering your product by 5 months
2. Your power estimates are above what you advertised.
3. You have no proof still of a working prototype, just more talk.
4. And people will just not care because the price of bitcoin is high, lol....i love how that is an "out" for BFL...wishful thinking Josh.
5. You don't have time to make a simple video of a unit you are testing that is hashing?....i call this last one here BULLSHIT.
Anyone who made a product worth releasing to customers would MAKE time to video tape it, photo shoot it, put makeup on it, and start spamming ads about it all over the internet. But as usual with Josh/BFL it is just more talk. Nothing of value.
Keep waiting BFL investors.
EDIT: I am not a troll of BFL. I am simple stating the facts and my views. A troll has been defined as anyone who says something you dont want to hear....Josh doesnt want to hear what us "trolls" say.
1. You're late on delivering your product by 5 months
2. Your power estimates are above what you advertised.
3. You have no proof still of a working prototype, just more talk.
4. And people will just not care because the price of bitcoin is high, lol....i love how that is an "out" for BFL...wishful thinking Josh.
5. You don't have time to make a simple video of a unit you are testing that is hashing?....i call this last one here BULLSHIT.
Anyone who made a product worth releasing to customers would MAKE time to video tape it, photo shoot it, put makeup on it, and start spamming ads about it all over the internet. But as usual with Josh/BFL it is just more talk. Nothing of value.
Keep waiting BFL investors.
EDIT: I am not a troll of BFL. I am simple stating the facts and my views. A troll has been defined as anyone who says something you dont want to hear....Josh doesnt want to hear what us "trolls" say.
Heh strangely enough that was a screenie of the website right after the pasted customer news!
Yeah - writeup was an edit - sorry!
Yeah - writeup was an edit - sorry!
Perhaps it's obvious... no customer news?
...edit.
Ha! I only saw the graphic, didn't see your writeup. heh.
...edit.
Ha! I only saw the graphic, didn't see your writeup. heh.
No, but really, thank you Josh for filling in the blanks tonight. Here's a quick transcript:
Quote
Well guys, I had planned on updating everyone with a video of a board hashing here in KC tonight, but I haven't been able to get that together yet, so I'm probably going to have to push it off until tomorrow. We are targeting a start of shipment next week, but I'm not quite ready to commit to that at the moment, given our past estimates. It's imminent, though.
I know Chip Geek, I'm going to try to ship out a unit ,at least one, before APril first if it's at all possible.
Chip Geek, I'm not sure. We may miss our power targets, that's been part of hte hold up... we think there's a problem with the power consumption and we're trying to figure out where it's having an issue. However, in the interests of time, we are going to be shipping what we have and going back and fixing while we are shipping, just so people can have their units. People are welcome to wait for the revised boards that should help out with the power issue if they want to delay their shipments... (heh, riiiight).
The power is still far less than any other unit, so it's not like it's something crazy or anything, but it's not 1w/GH and we're trying to locate the source of the power drain. It may require a revision of the substrate and/or the PCB.
Haha it's WAYYY less than 620 watts even at it's worst.
What's causing even more consternation is the fact that the wafer we burned for tests runs at far less power than a second wafer we mounted on the BGA package... so it may be a wafer by wafer thing, and sicne we only have two datapoints, it's hard to nail down the issue. We're rolling the other 4 wafers off the line shortly (they may be done already I think) - and that wil at least give us an idea of the power consumption between wafers with 6 data points.
Bogart, the rest of the 6 wafers, we have been holding off on the last 5 layers for the rest of the chips to be sure we don't need to make a tweak in the metal layer due to the power issue. I think we've pretty much settled that hte power issue is NOT in the chip, but somewhere in the substrate or PCB (or if it were in the chip, it's not something that's easily and quickly fixed).
Barrett: Depends on the power draw, it may be that the power draw is too high for the board and we need to scale the hashrate back. If that's the case, we'll send multiple units to cover the hashrate difference for orders.
SgtSpike: We are trying to nail it down. We have some boards at 1.76w, some at 2.5 and some at 4 and one at 6 <- although I think the ones at 4 and 6 have either a broken power regulator and/or a bad power brick, because they power brick is only 120w and it's drawing like 195 watts which is ridiculous. When I get hte firmware here in KC, I'll be running it off of an ATX PSU to eliminate the power brick as the culprit. So you see, this is why the power issue is causing some difficulties
Yes, I'm aware that Bitcointalk trolls will have a field day with everything I've just said. Heh. Even a broken power regulator and a bad power brick is still better than an Avalon, but in all honesty, at this point with bitcoin prices at 90 bucks a coin, I'm thinking no one is going to care at hte moment they just want to hash. Which is why we'll be shipping and then improving as we go.
If the cooling becomes an issue, like I said, we'd scale it back and ship multiple units.
Smith88: We will ship whatever we have to to get people hashing at their expected GH.
Lap_Rat: No, worst case is 195w, but the power systems on the board aren't rated to handle that really I don't think, so we'd back off the hashrate before we'd let it get that high.
Yeah I think 120w is a nice comfortable number. It can probably got a bit higher than that, but 195w is probably not where we want to be.
I know Chip Geek, I'm going to try to ship out a unit ,at least one, before APril first if it's at all possible.
Chip Geek, I'm not sure. We may miss our power targets, that's been part of hte hold up... we think there's a problem with the power consumption and we're trying to figure out where it's having an issue. However, in the interests of time, we are going to be shipping what we have and going back and fixing while we are shipping, just so people can have their units. People are welcome to wait for the revised boards that should help out with the power issue if they want to delay their shipments... (heh, riiiight).
The power is still far less than any other unit, so it's not like it's something crazy or anything, but it's not 1w/GH and we're trying to locate the source of the power drain. It may require a revision of the substrate and/or the PCB.
Haha it's WAYYY less than 620 watts even at it's worst.
What's causing even more consternation is the fact that the wafer we burned for tests runs at far less power than a second wafer we mounted on the BGA package... so it may be a wafer by wafer thing, and sicne we only have two datapoints, it's hard to nail down the issue. We're rolling the other 4 wafers off the line shortly (they may be done already I think) - and that wil at least give us an idea of the power consumption between wafers with 6 data points.
Bogart, the rest of the 6 wafers, we have been holding off on the last 5 layers for the rest of the chips to be sure we don't need to make a tweak in the metal layer due to the power issue. I think we've pretty much settled that hte power issue is NOT in the chip, but somewhere in the substrate or PCB (or if it were in the chip, it's not something that's easily and quickly fixed).
Barrett: Depends on the power draw, it may be that the power draw is too high for the board and we need to scale the hashrate back. If that's the case, we'll send multiple units to cover the hashrate difference for orders.
SgtSpike: We are trying to nail it down. We have some boards at 1.76w, some at 2.5 and some at 4 and one at 6 <- although I think the ones at 4 and 6 have either a broken power regulator and/or a bad power brick, because they power brick is only 120w and it's drawing like 195 watts which is ridiculous. When I get hte firmware here in KC, I'll be running it off of an ATX PSU to eliminate the power brick as the culprit. So you see, this is why the power issue is causing some difficulties
Yes, I'm aware that Bitcointalk trolls will have a field day with everything I've just said. Heh. Even a broken power regulator and a bad power brick is still better than an Avalon, but in all honesty, at this point with bitcoin prices at 90 bucks a coin, I'm thinking no one is going to care at hte moment they just want to hash. Which is why we'll be shipping and then improving as we go.
If the cooling becomes an issue, like I said, we'd scale it back and ship multiple units.
Smith88: We will ship whatever we have to to get people hashing at their expected GH.
Lap_Rat: No, worst case is 195w, but the power systems on the board aren't rated to handle that really I don't think, so we'd back off the hashrate before we'd let it get that high.
Yeah I think 120w is a nice comfortable number. It can probably got a bit higher than that, but 195w is probably not where we want to be.
https://forums.butterflylabs.com/vbshout.php?message=&username=BFL_Josh&hours=&from%5Bmonth%5D=2&from%5Bday%5D=20&from%5Byear%5D=2013&filter%5Bshout%5D=1&chatroomid=0&orderby=DESC&perpage=100&s=&do=archive&instanceid=1
Jump to: