Monarch butterfly prototype - page 2.

joeventura

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

Quote from: MrTeal on October 02, 2013, 01:16:27 PM

Quote from: joeventura on October 02, 2013, 12:20:02 PM

From the BFL Forums:

There are some VERY poor design choices on that board:

While a switch to what appears to be a 5-phase regulator per chip is a very good design choice, the choice to use a non-synchronous regulator (you can spot one of these by the need to use a diode(s) in the power path) is very poor.

1/ Synchronous regulators are more efficient than non-synchronous regulators, particularly at low voltages.
2/ Non-synchronous regulators require a diode powerful enough to handle the full current of the output. (That's a BIG diode!)
3/ BFL engineers appear to think they can use lots of smaller diodes in parallel instead of one big diode - that's a big no-no! Google 'diodes in parallel' if you care to know why!

I can't remember the last time I saw a motherboard which had anything other than a multi-phase synchronous regulator for the CPU - and they don't have to deliver as much power as the Monarch does!

What are you talking about, that is a synchronous regulator. You can see the high and low side fets. Those aren't diodes, they're Panasonic polymer aluminum caps.

Just quoting someone on BFLs website

I am not an engineer but I play one on TV

MrTeal

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1004

Quote from: joeventura on October 02, 2013, 12:20:02 PM

From the BFL Forums:

There are some VERY poor design choices on that board:

While a switch to what appears to be a 5-phase regulator per chip is a very good design choice, the choice to use a non-synchronous regulator (you can spot one of these by the need to use a diode(s) in the power path) is very poor.

1/ Synchronous regulators are more efficient than non-synchronous regulators, particularly at low voltages.
2/ Non-synchronous regulators require a diode powerful enough to handle the full current of the output. (That's a BIG diode!)
3/ BFL engineers appear to think they can use lots of smaller diodes in parallel instead of one big diode - that's a big no-no! Google 'diodes in parallel' if you care to know why!

I can't remember the last time I saw a motherboard which had anything other than a multi-phase synchronous regulator for the CPU - and they don't have to deliver as much power as the Monarch does!

What are you talking about, that is a synchronous regulator. You can see the high and low side fets. Those aren't diodes, they're Panasonic polymer aluminum caps.

Threader

sr. member

Activity: 406

Merit: 250

I'm thinking this is in the pipeline for the 600gh Monarch

http://www.asus.com/ROG_ROG/ARES26GD5/

Puppet

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1040

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on October 02, 2013, 12:25:37 PM

To put that into perspective KNC package is 20.25 cm2 and chip only power consumption is ~160W. That is 7.9 W/cm2. Take a look at how large the heat sink is for KNC boards. HashFast package size is also 20.25 cm2 and chip only power consumption is ~250W. That works out to 12.34 W/cm2. HashFast is using waterblock (water has 20x the thermal conductivity of air) to remove that level of heat.

Thats not entirely fair. You measure the size of a heatspreader, the actual diesize will determine the thermal density and for KnC's sake, I hope thats no where near 1000mm². Moreover, the entire surface of these asics will generate about the same amount of heat per mm² very uniformly . On a modern cpu, something like 90% of the power is used by the cpu core which in most cases occupies only a small fraction of the die (the rest is cache, memory controller, etc). Im too lazy too look up numbers, but Im pretty sure a highend cpu will have a far higher thermal density at its core than any of these asics. Silicon has fairly good thermal conductivity, mitigating the problem for cpu's to some extend, but its no were as good as copper or even aluminum.

So thermal density isnt going to be problem with these chips. Of course you still need to get rid of 100's of watts of power, no doubt that requires a serious cooler, but the size of the chips wont make a lot of difference.

rograz

hero member

Activity: 575

Merit: 500

Quote from: DeathAndTaxes on October 02, 2013, 12:25:37 PM

If we assume BFL power requirements are accurate and the DC to DC regulators are 90% efficient. Then 350W *0.9 / 2 = 157.5W per chip. At 11.56 cm2 that is 13.6 W/cm2.

It's not unheard of with higher power density/mm2 for 2 slot coolers, Nvidia GTX 480 was a inefficient leaky monster and those things only caught fire sometimes!

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: joeventura on October 02, 2013, 12:20:02 PM

I can't remember the last time I saw a motherboard which had anything other than a multi-phase synchronous regulator for the CPU - and they don't have to deliver as much power as the Monarch does!

What about GPU? Honest question I have no idea.

Here is a HD 7970 PCB.
http://www.techage.fr/picto/photosredac/pcu57/radeon/HD7970-PCB.jpg
http://www.techage.fr/picto/photosredac/pcu57/radeon/HD7970-Alim.jpg

Loredo

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: joeventura on October 02, 2013, 12:20:02 PM

From the BFL Forums:

There are some VERY poor design choices on that board:

While a switch to what appears to be a 5-phase regulator per chip is a very good design choice, the choice to use a non-synchronous regulator (you can spot one of these by the need to use a diode(s) in the power path) is very poor.

1/ Synchronous regulators are more efficient than non-synchronous regulators, particularly at low voltages.
2/ Non-synchronous regulators require a diode powerful enough to handle the full current of the output. (That's a BIG diode!)
3/ BFL engineers appear to think they can use lots of smaller diodes in parallel instead of one big diode - that's a big no-no! Google 'diodes in parallel' if you care to know why!

I can't remember the last time I saw a motherboard which had anything other than a multi-phase synchronous regulator for the CPU - and they don't have to deliver as much power as the Monarch does!

Just another example of how they work, marketing/sales, and not technology, driven as they are.

For every one person who can spot an off-angle placement, or has the knowledge to assess the board's technical efficacy, there are hundreds of others who cry "Oh boy, oh boy! Just two more missing pieces and my Money Machine is ready to go!"

They are the same ones who cry, when McDonald's is having their Monopoly game, and they get a "Park Place" game piece and cry "Oh boy, oh boy! Just one game piece to go to get my million dollars." But their money is good, and they buy lots of Big Macs to try to get it.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

For those that are interested I eyeball the package size at ~34mm x 34mm. How? The power connector is a standard part with 13.8mm width (for 6 conductors). http://www.molex.com/elqNow/elqRedir.htm?ref=http://www.molex.com/pdm_docs/sd/050362377_sd.pdf In the photo using that component as a reference we can calculate the resolution at 5.36 pixels per mm. That puts the package size at ~34mm by 34mm.

However it makes me wonder even more how they intend to dissipate that level of energy density. If we assume BFL power requirements are accurate and the DC to DC regulators are 90% efficient. Then 350W *0.9 / 2 = 157.5W per chip. At 11.56 cm2 that is 13.6 W/cm2. This is already high and BFL doesn't have a very good track record of accurate power simulations. At 20% over it would be ~14 W/cm2 and at 50% over it would be ~17 W/cm2. These are some pretty challenging Heat fluxes.

How does the heat flux compare to other ASIC products. KNC package is 20.25 cm2 and chip only power consumption is ~160W. That is 7.9 W/cm2. Now take a look at how large the heat sink and fan is for a single chip and double it. HashFast package size is also 20.25 cm2 and chip only power consumption is ~250W. That works out to 12.34 W/cm2. HashFast is using waterblock (water has 20x the thermal conductivity of air) to remove that level of energy density.

joeventura

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

From the BFL Forums:

There are some VERY poor design choices on that board:

While a switch to what appears to be a 5-phase regulator per chip is a very good design choice, the choice to use a non-synchronous regulator (you can spot one of these by the need to use a diode(s) in the power path) is very poor.

1/ Synchronous regulators are more efficient than non-synchronous regulators, particularly at low voltages.
2/ Non-synchronous regulators require a diode powerful enough to handle the full current of the output. (That's a BIG diode!)
3/ BFL engineers appear to think they can use lots of smaller diodes in parallel instead of one big diode - that's a big no-no! Google 'diodes in parallel' if you care to know why!

I can't remember the last time I saw a motherboard which had anything other than a multi-phase synchronous regulator for the CPU - and they don't have to deliver as much power as the Monarch does!

krayzie32

sr. member

Activity: 479

Merit: 250

https://streamies.io/

Quote from: Loredo on October 02, 2013, 12:05:27 PM

Quote from: MrTeal on October 02, 2013, 09:17:38 AM

Quote from: joeventura on October 02, 2013, 07:55:55 AM

Quote from: greyhawk on October 02, 2013, 07:22:20 AM

Christ that thing is huge. Finally we're going to get more haphazardly kludged together fire hazards.

Don't you see the ETL/FCC and CE logos on the card??

It's safe!!!

Grin

Well, there aren't actually any traces yet, so I'd imagine it will be quite safe. It might just be an early component layout so that they can get the physical dimensions nailed down.

Yes, that is my opinion, too. The date on the board is August, as can be seen by zooming up.

Plus the one chip is cocked a little bit in the center of the board so there is no way it was soldered to a trace the way it sits now. Early board layout for sure, not a prototype by any stretch of the imagination.

Loredo

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: MrTeal on October 02, 2013, 09:17:38 AM

Quote from: joeventura on October 02, 2013, 07:55:55 AM

Quote from: greyhawk on October 02, 2013, 07:22:20 AM

Christ that thing is huge. Finally we're going to get more haphazardly kludged together fire hazards.

Don't you see the ETL/FCC and CE logos on the card??

It's safe!!!

Grin

Well, there aren't actually any traces yet, so I'd imagine it will be quite safe. It might just be an early component layout so that they can get the physical dimensions nailed down.

Yes, that is my opinion, too. The date on the board is August, as can be seen by zooming up.

DeathAndTaxes

donator

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1079

Gerald Davis

Quote from: testerx on October 02, 2013, 12:59:29 AM

How the hell are they going to deal with the cooling needs if these are supposed to be packed next to each other in PCI-E slots?

Simple you will only be able to mount 1 or 2 per computer chassis and thus defeating the major "advantage" of a "datacenter ready card".

Loredo

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: qwk on October 02, 2013, 06:38:17 AM

Quote from: erk on October 02, 2013, 05:27:04 AM

Pretty big chips, not as big as the KNCminer ones but still large, looks like 1,020 pins.

1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1019, 1020, yes, you're right Grin

Step away from your monitor NOW. Go immediately to the optometrist and have your eyes checked.

Wardan_reloadeD

newbie

Activity: 53

Merit: 0

Danaus plexippus

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danaus_plexippus

Dont trust BFL anymore, they fails 8 months of theirs prediction.

The difference in ROI is from 150 to 15 BTC.

THANKS BFL, i loose the ASIC train.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Monarch_In_May.jpg/330px-Monarch_In_May.jpg

MrTeal

legendary

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1004

Quote from: joeventura on October 02, 2013, 07:55:55 AM

Quote from: greyhawk on October 02, 2013, 07:22:20 AM

Christ that thing is huge. Finally we're going to get more haphazardly kludged together fire hazards.

Don't you see the ETL/FCC and CE logos on the card??

It's safe!!!

Grin

Well, there aren't actually any traces yet, so I'd imagine it will be quite safe. It might just be an early component layout so that they can get the physical dimensions nailed down.

dogie

legendary

Activity: 1666

Merit: 1185

dogiecoin.com

I'd like to see his accreditation, to see if we can strip him of it.

YipYip

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: Nemesis on October 02, 2013, 07:59:08 AM

I'm surprised BFL still use Nasser and not working with a real engineering firm. I dont know what the deal between them, Nasser is probably a co-owner to make any sense.

I despite Nasser because he sucks and fcked up every single design.

Look at all the new 28nm ASIC companies, they can finish within MONTHs because they have a proper engineers working for them. I'm sure this has caused BFL alot more than saving by hiring ONE lame engineer working abroad.

He is gurateed in on the action.....

Nemesis

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

I'm surprised BFL still use Nasser and not working with a real engineering firm. I dont know what the deal between them, Nasser is probably a co-owner to make any sense.

I despite Nasser because he sucks and fcked up every single design.

Look at all the new 28nm ASIC companies, they can finish within MONTHs because they have a proper engineers working for them. I'm sure this has caused BFL alot more than saving by hiring ONE lame engineer working abroad.

donch

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Updated ironic image.

BFL, the fail that just keeps on giving.

joeventura

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 500

Quote from: greyhawk on October 02, 2013, 07:22:20 AM

Christ that thing is huge. Finally we're going to get more haphazardly kludged together fire hazards.

Don't you see the ETL/FCC and CE logos on the card??

It's safe!!!

Grin

Topic: Monarch butterfly prototype - page 2. (Read 7436 times)