Topic: Mining Equipment Manufacturers - page 7. (Read 55732 times)
Did they release a lead time for that? I thought I had to wait to put it up for some reason.
BFL Monarch 600 GH Bitcoin Mining Card ?
Really appreciate your will to take down " xCrowd " who uses the name of escrow to cover their identity and tracks. Thank You
If I can confirm their relationship with TSMC, that they are indeed creating an ASIC with them, I'll put them back on. They'll have met the minimum requirements at that point, but I don't blame you for the skepticism. Added Cointerra's new miner.
Taking down xCrowd until they reveal their manufacturer, or have a product.
Taking down xCrowd until they reveal their manufacturer, or have a product.
Really appreciate your will to take down " xCrowd " who uses the name of escrow to cover their identity and tracks. Thank You
Added Cointerra's new miner.
Taking down xCrowd until they reveal their manufacturer, or have a product.
Taking down xCrowd until they reveal their manufacturer, or have a product.
Updated lead times. Pushed all manufacturers back to Sept.
I think you should have another table with equipment that actually exist and is in customer hands: Avalon, BFLs, AsicMiner
Going through a list of these pre-order products is like looking at their marketing brochures. Nice to look at but it does not tell me what
I can buy today.
Put xCrowd or KNC on the list when they actually ship real product to real people.
Check out the 'Shipping' and 'Tested' columns.Going through a list of these pre-order products is like looking at their marketing brochures. Nice to look at but it does not tell me what
I can buy today.
Put xCrowd or KNC on the list when they actually ship real product to real people.
Why not simply post the spreadsheet itself? A few years back, I used a service called EditGrid, and I think Google has an online spreadsheet as well. You can set it up to be read-only, and I think you can even hide the formulas if you want. The benefits would be that people could download the data, sort it, even edit their local copies if they so choose. It also makes it easier for you to update, as all you'd have to do is upload the current version of your sheet.
I had the sheet posted before but I took it down once I noticed my data popping up in other places. I'll be ok with this eventually, but I'm really tired of my ideas being used by other people. I'm not implying that this is your objective, and I realize the strength that community involvement brings. I have a new policy of holding my cards a little closer to my chest, though. I would like to switch the page over to a completely new format. Same info, but much more useful. At the moment I am posting tables taken from a spreadsheet.
Why not simply post the spreadsheet itself? A few years back, I used a service called EditGrid, and I think Google has an online spreadsheet as well. You can set it up to be read-only, and I think you can even hide the formulas if you want. The benefits would be that people could download the data, sort it, even edit their local copies if they so choose. It also makes it easier for you to update, as all you'd have to do is upload the current version of your sheet. Fascinating! Thanks, You rock!
In only the most conservative growth scenarios does a new Gen1 AM Blade bought today make ROI. Then again the price of BTC could double in a month (or drop by 75%, weeeee!).
What I really want to see is 6 or 4 month ROI. Hope I get enough time to do that today. In only the most conservative growth scenarios does a new Gen1 AM Blade bought today make ROI. Then again the price of BTC could double in a month (or drop by 75%, weeeee!).
Just found out I'll be moving in a couple months, so I have a lot to do to prepare. I may be at the mercy of tips in the thread for a little while to keep all this going
Rumor has it that you cannot overclock the new blades without hardware modifications, like their current USB Block Erupters.
Expect an announcement from Friedcat soon.
Ok, thanks for the update. I haven't been watching his thread for a while, forgot things were moving again.Expect an announcement from Friedcat soon.
I would like to switch the page over to a completely new format. Same info, but much more useful. At the moment I am posting tables taken from a spreadsheet. It would be much more efficient, though, if I had a framework on the site that was searchable, translatable, sortable, instantly updated with current ticker price.
Is there anyone who would help me with this? I'm sure there would be a fairly easy way to make a template that I could reuse. Otherwise I will eventually go figure it out myself, but it may take a very long time as I can't even start it right now. I have a little programming experience, so I'm sure I could catch on to the js and html that would be required.
Thanks!
Hi FCTaiChi,
Any chance you can re-run numbers with updated ASICMiner 10G blade prices and max performance?
I think the price should be changed to 10.25 BTC - the current price of a group purchase via reseller. I think that the hashrate should also be changed to 13000 MH/s since people typically run this overclocked with extra cooling in most cases. Most miners also don't like leaving potential hashrate unused if it's an easy overclock.
Just wondering if the math looks a teensy bit better on these units. Could actually make them slightly profitable using your calcs, which would be quite an outlier on the low end.
Ok, I changed the price to 10.25BTC. That did help, but at the same time it is getting late in August to be using that as the lead month, so I switched to Sept. Even if a person got theirs today, that would still be only half the month to hash with, and after shipping time it seems much more reasonable to use next month.Any chance you can re-run numbers with updated ASICMiner 10G blade prices and max performance?
I think the price should be changed to 10.25 BTC - the current price of a group purchase via reseller. I think that the hashrate should also be changed to 13000 MH/s since people typically run this overclocked with extra cooling in most cases. Most miners also don't like leaving potential hashrate unused if it's an easy overclock.
Just wondering if the math looks a teensy bit better on these units. Could actually make them slightly profitable using your calcs, which would be quite an outlier on the low end.
The overclocking is an issue that others have asked about. If being overclocked is the norm for a certain product I don't mind posting it that way. Currently every miner on the list has their manufacturer spec up. I moved the 10GH to 10752 like it shows on their site, but I would consider moving it up to 13000 if someone has a link that shows that this is the way that most people will actually use it.
Basically if you move the columns over one step to the right is what you get from looking at it at 13GH.
Rumor has it that you cannot overclock the new blades without hardware modifications, like their current USB Block Erupters.
Expect an announcement from Friedcat soon.
Fascinating! Thanks, You rock!
In only the most conservative growth scenarios does a new Gen1 AM Blade bought today make ROI. Then again the price of BTC could double in a month (or drop by 75%, weeeee!).
In only the most conservative growth scenarios does a new Gen1 AM Blade bought today make ROI. Then again the price of BTC could double in a month (or drop by 75%, weeeee!).
Hi FCTaiChi,
Any chance you can re-run numbers with updated ASICMiner 10G blade prices and max performance?
I think the price should be changed to 10.25 BTC - the current price of a group purchase via reseller. I think that the hashrate should also be changed to 13000 MH/s since people typically run this overclocked with extra cooling in most cases. Most miners also don't like leaving potential hashrate unused if it's an easy overclock.
Just wondering if the math looks a teensy bit better on these units. Could actually make them slightly profitable using your calcs, which would be quite an outlier on the low end.
Ok, I changed the price to 10.25BTC. That did help, but at the same time it is getting late in August to be using that as the lead month, so I switched to Sept. Even if a person got theirs today, that would still be only half the month to hash with, and after shipping time it seems much more reasonable to use next month.Any chance you can re-run numbers with updated ASICMiner 10G blade prices and max performance?
I think the price should be changed to 10.25 BTC - the current price of a group purchase via reseller. I think that the hashrate should also be changed to 13000 MH/s since people typically run this overclocked with extra cooling in most cases. Most miners also don't like leaving potential hashrate unused if it's an easy overclock.
Just wondering if the math looks a teensy bit better on these units. Could actually make them slightly profitable using your calcs, which would be quite an outlier on the low end.
The overclocking is an issue that others have asked about. If being overclocked is the norm for a certain product I don't mind posting it that way. Currently every miner on the list has their manufacturer spec up. I moved the 10GH to 10752 like it shows on their site, but I would consider moving it up to 13000 if someone has a link that shows that this is the way that most people will actually use it.
Basically if you move the columns over one step to the right is what you get from looking at it at 13GH.
Hi FCTaiChi,
Any chance you can re-run numbers with updated ASICMiner 10G blade prices and max performance?
I think the price should be changed to 10.25 BTC - the current price of a group purchase via reseller. I think that the hashrate should also be changed to 13000 MH/s since people typically run this overclocked with extra cooling in most cases. Most miners also don't like leaving potential hashrate unused if it's an easy overclock.
Just wondering if the math looks a teensy bit better on these units. Could actually make them slightly profitable using your calcs, which would be quite an outlier on the low end.
Any chance you can re-run numbers with updated ASICMiner 10G blade prices and max performance?
I think the price should be changed to 10.25 BTC - the current price of a group purchase via reseller. I think that the hashrate should also be changed to 13000 MH/s since people typically run this overclocked with extra cooling in most cases. Most miners also don't like leaving potential hashrate unused if it's an easy overclock.
Just wondering if the math looks a teensy bit better on these units. Could actually make them slightly profitable using your calcs, which would be quite an outlier on the low end.
One error. The xCrowd Pavonis 30GH is listed at 60000 MH/s. One number or the other is wrong.
Thanks!Both your answers are very much relevant I think 
I did not notice you sorted by the 13% column, but this shows that the difficulty, the GH per dollar and the estimated delivery time and have quite a bit of influence, but it's still hard to grasp which one is the most crucial, so I'm looking forward to the 6 month ROI chart, since this would give another interesting perspective.
The time of delivery is the most crucial, partly because it's the biggest unknown but also because of the sharp difficulty increase that is happening. That is why on each individual manufacturer got their own page so you can decide what the chances they will deliver on time, and plan accordingly depending on which month you think they will deliver, vs the rise in difficulty you expect. I did not notice you sorted by the 13% column, but this shows that the difficulty, the GH per dollar and the estimated delivery time and have quite a bit of influence, but it's still hard to grasp which one is the most crucial, so I'm looking forward to the 6 month ROI chart, since this would give another interesting perspective. Thanks for this new arrangement, I think it's quite a fair way to represent the list. I did notice that if you would sort them based on a higher difficulty rise (such as 20%) the table would look quite different. I'm not entirely sure why this is.
I sort by the middle column to show a likely result. As the table is 1 year ROI at x difficulty rise, it would take a tremendous amount of hardware to push past 13%. I agree with your sentiment, though. The way that I am planning on fixing this is to change over to 6 month ROI, or lower. I will have to look at when the current speculated set of miners become irrelevant and push it out that far. When I do this I will be able to show much higher percentages, and therefore something close to 20% as the normative value.
My plan was to start this today or tomorrow, I should be able to post the results soon.
-edit lol, OH I get your question. I thought you were on to my next plan..
The ROI is different in the other columns because of GH/BTC (the one useful thing about it) and when you get your machine. Lets take the first time this happens as the example. If you compare the Pavonis 30GH with the Elysium 150GH, the Elysium is just a better deal. Twice the price but 2.5 times hashing power. This really starts to show once the difficulty rises.
Lead time plays into this a lot too.
Weird, looking at this somehow the Arsia got left off of the profitability table. I should sleep sometimes.
Both your answers are very much relevant I think
I did not notice you sorted by the 13% column, but this shows that the difficulty, the GH per dollar and the estimated delivery time and have quite a bit of influence, but it's still hard to grasp which one is the most crucial, so I'm looking forward to the 6 month ROI chart, since this would give another interesting perspective.
One error. The xCrowd Pavonis 30GH is listed at 60000 MH/s. One number or the other is wrong.
Thanks for this new arrangement, I think it's quite a fair way to represent the list. I did notice that if you would sort them based on a higher difficulty rise (such as 20%) the table would look quite different. I'm not entirely sure why this is.
I sort by the middle column to show a likely result. As the table is 1 year ROI at x difficulty rise, it would take a tremendous amount of hardware to push past 13%. I agree with your sentiment, though. The way that I am planning on fixing this is to change over to 6 month ROI, or lower. I will have to look at when the current speculated set of miners become irrelevant and push it out that far. When I do this I will be able to show much higher percentages, and therefore something close to 20% as the normative value.
My plan was to start this today or tomorrow, I should be able to post the results soon.
-edit lol, OH I get your question. I thought you were on to my next plan..
The ROI is different in the other columns because of GH/BTC (the one useful thing about it) and when you get your machine. Lets take the first time this happens as the example. If you compare the Pavonis 30GH with the Elysium 150GH, the Elysium is just a better deal. Twice the price but 2.5 times hashing power. This really starts to show once the difficulty rises.
Lead time plays into this a lot too.
Weird, looking at this somehow the Arsia got left off of the profitability table. I should sleep sometimes.
Recalc ROI on 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
8% won't be seen until maybe the end of 2014 with asic saturation.
We are going to be entering a heavy growth phase for the next 4 to 8 months, and it doesn't pay to be low on estimates.
8% won't be seen until maybe the end of 2014 with asic saturation.
We are going to be entering a heavy growth phase for the next 4 to 8 months, and it doesn't pay to be low on estimates.
Agreed. Even 10% is a pipe dream.
Recalc ROI on 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
8% won't be seen until maybe the end of 2014 with asic saturation.
We are going to be entering a heavy growth phase for the next 4 to 8 months, and it doesn't pay to be low on estimates.
8% won't be seen until maybe the end of 2014 with asic saturation.
We are going to be entering a heavy growth phase for the next 4 to 8 months, and it doesn't pay to be low on estimates.
I must agree with the GH/Btc misleading ranking, but we can try to overcome it "normalizing" the value on the whole network hashpower.
You should already have an estimation of that value from the difficulty projections, so the trick can be (just proposing):
- device power/network hashrate
- device cost per GH/daily share of mined BTC per GH
Given that the number of blocks is the same every day, the result should be a negative line representing the decline of each device from its purchase until its break even point.
Correct if I'm wrong, but in this way the device with the biggest chart area should be the most competitive
You should already have an estimation of that value from the difficulty projections, so the trick can be (just proposing):
- device power/network hashrate
- device cost per GH/daily share of mined BTC per GH
Given that the number of blocks is the same every day, the result should be a negative line representing the decline of each device from its purchase until its break even point.
Correct if I'm wrong, but in this way the device with the biggest chart area should be the most competitive
Jump to: