Why are people still talk about bfl vaporware......
When they have anything hashing al others have double or more hashrates.....
BFL does not deliver. There are still busy with backlog and dont even have the money to refund.
They are stealing at the moment, there is enough proof.
Butterfly Labs is officialy a criminal organisation at the moment.
Just look twice at what you are buying guys.
Topic: Monarch butterfly prototype (Read 7441 times)
Looks like the ends are made to snap off. I suppose that's not uncommon in the electronics industry when manufacturing PCB's.
Just remember that we seen their PCB for the 65nm stuff before October of 2012. Not buying any more of their bullshit.
Also, thanks BFL for using customer funds from 65nm orders to secretly develop your 28nm generation instead of ordering the necessary parts needed to finish this generation out faster. I'd rather take KnC's 550GH in November than wait for your dumb asses until Feb+
Also, thanks BFL for using customer funds from 65nm orders to secretly develop your 28nm generation instead of ordering the necessary parts needed to finish this generation out faster. I'd rather take KnC's 550GH in November than wait for your dumb asses until Feb+
+1
My point is that BFL isnt going to struggle with hotspots on that chip ... (snip)
What chip?
My point is that BFL isnt going to struggle with hotspots on that chip ... (snip)
What chip?
My point is that BFL isnt going to struggle with hotspots on that chip ... (snip)
What chip?
should be a heater
RUBBISH! bfl please find a tall building and jump off...do the whole scene a favour
cooling those single's is positively childsplay compared to that Monarch. The fact they managed to botch that is telling.
I would disagree. Of course we don't know how the die is internally attached or even if it's a single monolithic die, but the chances are that the silicon interface to the base of the heatsink will be much, much better than with the Singles. Keep in mind that we're talking similar power levels here, my Single pulls 300W from the wall. http://www.anandtech.com/show/6830/cpu-air-cooler-roundup-six-coolers-from-noctua-silverstone-and-cooler-master/4
Look at some good air or water coolers, and the whole die->heatspreader->paste->heatsink->ambient thermal path might have an effective impedance in the range of 0.25C/W to 0.5C/W.
Compare that to the even the exceedingly good and expensive thermal pads BFL uses.
http://www.fujipoly.com/usa/products/sarcon-thermal-management-components/thermal-gap-filler-pads/high-performance-gap-filler/xr-m.html (they use the 50X-Hm).
0.06Cin^2/W at a very high pressure of 72psi. Since the BFL die is 0.1in^2, that gives an effective thermal impedance of 0.6C/W just across the thermal pad, in the best case. In the case that one die is lower (or worse one is noticeably higher) those numbers could be much worse.
TL-DR, the thermal impedance of just BFL's expensive ($11/each if you cut 24 out of a full sheet) thermal pads is higher than the entire die to ambient impedance of a decent CPU cooler system.
cooling those single's is positively childsplay compared to that Monarch. The fact they managed to botch that is telling.
I would disagree. Of course we don't know how the die is internally attached or even if it's a single monolithic die, but the chances are that the silicon interface to the base of the heatsink will be much, much better than with the Singles. Keep in mind that we're talking similar power levels here, my Single pulls 300W from the wall. http://www.anandtech.com/show/6830/cpu-air-cooler-roundup-six-coolers-from-noctua-silverstone-and-cooler-master/4
Look at some good air or water coolers, and the whole die->heatspreader->paste->heatsink->ambient thermal path might have an effective impedance in the range of 0.25C/W to 0.5C/W.
Compare that to the even the exceedingly good and expensive thermal pads BFL uses.
http://www.fujipoly.com/usa/products/sarcon-thermal-management-components/thermal-gap-filler-pads/high-performance-gap-filler/xr-m.html (they use the 50X-Hm).
0.06Cin^2/W at a very high pressure of 72psi. Since the BFL die is 0.1in^2, that gives an effective thermal impedance of 0.6C/W just across the thermal pad, in the best case. In the case that one die is lower (or worse one is noticeably higher) those numbers could be much worse.
TL-DR, the thermal impedance of just BFL's expensive ($11/each if you cut 24 out of a full sheet) thermal pads is higher than the entire die to ambient impedance of a decent CPU cooler system.
They are stock and the base appears (eyeballing the board and heatsink photos larger than the package size.
According to the drawings on arctic's site:
http://www.arctic.ac/en/p/cooling/cpu/473/freezer-a30.html
(click on compatibility, then scroll down)
it looks like the contact base front to back is no deeper than ~21mm, maybe 25mm if you include the aluminium bracket which Im not sure is supposed to make contact; thats considerably less than the 41mm of the KnC heatspeader. What picture are you looking at?
Well the heat pipes are 8mm diameter each. So that puts the minimum width more like <32mm.
I took the KNC board photo measured the pixels across to get the resolution (pixels per mm). Then measured the pixels between the two mounting holes. Board has 6 mounting holes 4 inner which I believe are unused and two outer which are used for the heatsink. That gave me the distance between the two mounting holes. Then using the heatsink photo did the same thing to estimate the contact surface. I did this a month ago for my own research but I may have made a mistake.
cooling those single's is positively childsplay compared to that Monarch. The fact they managed to botch that is telling.
In fact, and slightly OT, Im looking forward to seeing some close ups of their cooling solution, AFAIk those intel and amd coolers from Artic dont have a base surface area large enough to cover their entire heatspreader. Did they order a custom batch; or is part of their heatspreader not covered?
They are stock and the base appears (eyeballing the board and heatsink photos larger than the package size. Not sure if that is intentional design choice on Artic's part or if KNC just lucked out that Artic's sinks are larger than average. Due to the direct heat pipe design there likely are some limits on how "short" the base of the pipes can be made.
Quote
My point is that BFL isnt going to struggle with hotspots on that chip and that its a smaller chip than KnC isnt their problem.
That wasn't my claim either. Smaller chip, higher power consumption, constrained device size combined create a significant thermal "challenge". Not impossible but BFL has had difficulty properly cooling devices with much lower power densities and much more "open" form factors.
BFL is no AMD and even AMD had issues (and 7 month delay) cooling the 7990 and the 7990 still uses less power than BFL design is simulated to use. If BFL is even over moderately it could go from insanely difficult to (economically) impossible.
I think they'll have less trouble cooling these devices than the Singles. The biggest problem with the Singles was the overdriven power supply running inefficiently and being poorly cooled prior to using all those little press on heatsinks everywhere, as well as being forced to use a gapfiller pad rather than paste due to levelness and coplanarity concerns. Remove the massive thermal impedance of the pad, and not only will your core temperatures drop, but you dump much less heat into the PCB and everything else stays cooler.
They are stock and the base appears (eyeballing the board and heatsink photos larger than the package size.
According to the drawings on arctic's site:
http://www.arctic.ac/en/p/cooling/cpu/473/freezer-a30.html
(click on compatibility, then scroll down)
it looks like the contact base front to back is no deeper than ~21mm, maybe 25mm if you include the aluminium bracket which Im not sure is supposed to make contact; thats considerably less than the 41mm of the KnC heatspeader. What picture are you looking at?
Quote
That wasn't my claim either. Smaller chip, higher power consumption, constrained device size combined create a significant thermal "challenge". Not impossible but BFL has had difficulty properly cooling devices with much lower power densities and much more "open" form factors.
BFL is no AMD and even AMD had issues (and 7 month delay) cooling the 7990 and the 7990 still uses less power than BFL design is simulated to use. If BFL is even over moderately it could go from insanely difficult to (economically) impossible.
BFL is no AMD and even AMD had issues (and 7 month delay) cooling the 7990 and the 7990 still uses less power than BFL design is simulated to use. If BFL is even over moderately it could go from insanely difficult to (economically) impossible.
I think we are largely in agreement there.
In fact, and slightly OT, Im looking forward to seeing some close ups of their cooling solution, AFAIk those intel and amd coolers from Artic dont have a base surface area large enough to cover their entire heatspreader. Did they order a custom batch; or is part of their heatspreader not covered?
They are stock and the base appears (eyeballing the board and heatsink photos larger than the package size. Not sure if that is intentional design choice on Artic's part or if KNC just lucked out that Artic's sinks are larger than average. Due to the direct heat pipe design there likely are some limits on how "short" the base of the pipes can be made.
Quote
My point is that BFL isnt going to struggle with hotspots on that chip and that its a smaller chip than KnC isnt their problem.
That wasn't my claim either. Smaller chip, higher power consumption, constrained device size combined create a significant thermal "challenge". Not impossible but BFL has had difficulty properly cooling devices with much lower power densities and much more "open" form factors.
BFL is no AMD and even AMD had issues (and 7 month delay) cooling the 7990 and the 7990 still uses less power than BFL design is simulated to use. If BFL is even over moderately it could go from insanely difficult to (economically) impossible.
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!!!
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.
They don't need to be mounted to a motherboard. They can be freestanding or placed in other containers. They will have USB connectors too.
All things being the same the higher the heat flux the more complex the cooling to remove the same amount of energy (watts) from a smaller space. Baring some exotic tech that means larger heat sinks, more efficient (heat pipes) heat sinks, and more airflow. With the constraint of a dual slot cooler that puts some boundaries on what is possible in the airflow and size parameters.
My point is that BFL isnt going to struggle with hotspots on that chip and that its a smaller chip than KnC isnt their problem. Putting a 1000mm² heatspreader on a 300 mm² die (or set of dies) isnt going to work miraculously better than a 300mm³ heatspreader with a similar sized cooler. In fact, most overclockers will tell you you get better results by removing the CPU heatspreader and putting the cooler directly on the much smaller die (which is the case with most GPU's). The more important reason for that heatspreader is not miraculous heat conductivity, but making it less likely that you crack the chip or misalign the cooler..
Anyway, removing the 350+W of heat in a dual slot GPU sized package will be a stiff challenge, no question about that. Putting more than 2 in a case probably damn near impossible. But I dont think it would be considerably easier with a monster size chip like KnC. In fact, and slightly OT, Im looking forward to seeing some close ups of their cooling solution, AFAIk those intel and amd coolers from Artic dont have a base surface area large enough to cover their entire heatspreader. Did they order a custom batch; or is part of their heatspreader not covered?
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.
True I was simplifying to avoid turning it into a page long post. However heat spreaders are larger than the die for a reason. The thermal conductivity between silicon and the IHS is generally higher than the IHS and heatsink (or waterblock or air). That is one reason the IHS is generally larger than the die. If one the die size and die heat flux mattered there would be no reason (well no thermal reason) to use a larger IHS then the die.
Quote
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.
That is a good point on the "even" heat flux however GPU unlike CPU tend to be mostly core engine and thus are more like mining ASICs in that respect. One ASIC vendor (HF) uses 4 9mm x 9mm dies with 5mm space between them in a single package to lower the heat flux.
Quote
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.
Well no. Thermal density does matter, it may not be a problem but it does matter. A Bitfury rig uses ~400W yet needs no heat sink. 200 USB miners use ~400W yet don't even need a fan. If you have a large lawn it probably has a thermal output (from IR exposure to the sun) of a couple KW (but at a very low heat flux) yet I doubt you run out there on a hot day and crank up a serious cooler to keep the lawn from bursting into flames.
All things being the same the higher the heat flux the more complex the cooling to remove the same amount of energy (watts) from a smaller space. Baring some exotic tech that means larger heat sinks, more efficient (heat pipes) heat sinks, and more airflow. With the constraint of a dual slot cooler that puts some boundaries on what is possible in the airflow and size parameters.
Don't you see the ETL/FCC and CE logos on the card??
Well, that is most strange part. It is not a prototype, it is just a PCB without the main processor. So how BFL managed to get this certifications without a finished prototype? This is really amazing. Look like everything goes backward in BFL business.
Instead to them...
Design -> Main processor -> PCB -> Quality Test -> Announcement -> Sales
They go by...
Sales -> Announcement -> Quality Test -> PCB -> Main processor -> Design
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!
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
Sooo....you are quoting about things you don't understand...oookayy...NEXT !
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!
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
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!
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.
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.
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!
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
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. 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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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!!!
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.
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.
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!!!
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.
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".
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
Step away from your monitor NOW. Go immediately to the optometrist and have your eyes checked.
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
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
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!!!
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.
I'd like to see his accreditation, to see if we can strip him of it.
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.
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.....
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.
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.
BFL, the fail that just keeps on giving.
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!!!
I have to admit, this is encouraging to me. I have an early preorder so I have to hope for the best.
Christ that thing is huge. Finally we're going to get more haphazardly kludged together fire hazards.
Either I'm a bit thick or Josh is an excellent strategist, but surely you have to buy a motherboard, a case and a PSU for every pair of these PCI cards? At 350W per card I can't see more than two being powered by a 850W PSU, maybe three at a stretch with a super expensive 1200W PSU. Is the community clamouring for this form factor?
Given BFL's history on predicting heat output on their previous product range I can see many issues on getting your case adequately ventilated as well. Perhaps Josh's new strategy is to delegate all real world problem solving to the customer now. Win!
Given BFL's history on predicting heat output on their previous product range I can see many issues on getting your case adequately ventilated as well. Perhaps Josh's new strategy is to delegate all real world problem solving to the customer now. Win!
Supposedly they don't need to be attached to a motherboard. They can be freestanding and controlled by USB. At least that's what they said at launch.
no pic...
someone repost?
Cheers,
QG
someone repost?
Cheers,
QG
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
max 300GH/s @ that size
Either I'm a bit thick or Josh is an excellent strategist, but surely you have to buy a motherboard, a case and a PSU for every pair of these PCI cards? At 350W per card I can't see more than two being powered by a 850W PSU, maybe three at a stretch with a super expensive 1200W PSU. Is the community clamouring for this form factor?
Given BFL's history on predicting heat output on their previous product range I can see many issues on getting your case adequately ventilated as well. Perhaps Josh's new strategy is to delegate all real world problem solving to the customer now. Win!
Given BFL's history on predicting heat output on their previous product range I can see many issues on getting your case adequately ventilated as well. Perhaps Josh's new strategy is to delegate all real world problem solving to the customer now. Win!
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?
No doubt, they will likely employ some non-zero number of "heat pipes"
Heat pipe 101
Like geothermal heat pumps, air conditioners, or that neat effect where perspiration on the skin evaporates, thereby changing from liquid to gas phase, it is possible to move more heat via phase change. 100% efficiency is not the actual limit for such things. Coefficient of performance in a heat pump really does exceed 100% efficiency for things like moving heat from one place to another... "heat pipes" are basically a passive "heat pump" without any moving parts...
Thermal conductivity of a "heat pipe" (which filled with a compressed gas / liquid which changes phase from liquid to gas, and vice-versa) is better than the thermal conductivity of a similar size & shape for a solid rod made of copper or silver (the two most thermally conductive metals in existence... followed by gold, aluminium, nickel, iron, etc. etc. etc.)
There's a reason modern GPUs and CPU coolers have heat pipes.
They're magic or something, see?
two 6 pin pcie plugs for 350 watts?
Pretty big chips, not as big as the KNCminer ones but still large, looks like 1,020 pins.
Interesting to see the Cyclone FPGA driving it, and the 32bit Atmel.
Interesting to see the Cyclone FPGA driving it, and the 32bit Atmel.
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?
As always, they will just redesign the board, then the cooler, then chip and ultimately come up with a different form factor. Dont worry, they will have it figured out by 2015.
So much for "our next gen will be pin-compatible with the current one"
BGAs don't even have pins so....
So much for "our next gen will be pin-compatible with the current one"
I have to admit, this is encouraging to me. I have an early preorder so I have to hope for the best.
you can use usb for it and let it thing out side of case.
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?
It's fully transparent semiconductors with fully transparent PCB and working at a fully imaginary Hash speeds.
Just remember that we seen their PCB for the 65nm stuff before October of 2012. Not buying any more of their bullshit.
Also, thanks BFL for using customer funds from 65nm orders to secretly develop your 28nm generation instead of ordering the necessary parts needed to finish this generation out faster. I'd rather take KnC's 550GH in November than wait for your dumb asses until Feb+
Also, thanks BFL for using customer funds from 65nm orders to secretly develop your 28nm generation instead of ordering the necessary parts needed to finish this generation out faster. I'd rather take KnC's 550GH in November than wait for your dumb asses until Feb+
is the hashing asic invisible?
"The heat is on"
gimme!
Just saw this... Can't believe that they have so many VRM to power the chips, a huge heat sink is going to be mounted in the middle
Jump to: