Official statement = delayed until march '13.
Source?I was referring to the previous post(#21) and the call for an official statement on little single power consumption. It could've been better worded.
Topic: New SC Little Single better than SC Single ? (Read 3259 times)
I was referring to the previous post(#21) and the call for an official statement on little single power consumption. It could've been better worded.
Official statement = delayed until march '13.
Source?
Official statement = delayed until march '13.
Source? Hi, it seems the new Little Single (30Ghash) is better then the old SC Single 60Ghash, here's why:
1. Better value for money: 1 x 60Ghs Single = $1299, 2 x 30Ghs Singles ($649*2=$1298)
2. Better redundancy: If 1 x 60Ghs Single fails then you are down by 60Ghs, if one of the two 30Ghs Singles fails, then you are down by only 30Ghs
3. Even more redundancy: with 2 x Little SC Singles you get 2 power bricks.
I am personally disappointed that BFL now allows to upgrade the Japaleno orders to Little Singles, but does not allow the Standard Single to be changed into Little Singles orders.
-----------------------------------
Edited the numbers value mistake
-----------------------------------
1. Better value for money: 1 x 60Ghs Single = $1299, 2 x 30Ghs Singles ($649*2=$1298)
2. Better redundancy: If 1 x 60Ghs Single fails then you are down by 60Ghs, if one of the two 30Ghs Singles fails, then you are down by only 30Ghs
3. Even more redundancy: with 2 x Little SC Singles you get 2 power bricks.
I am personally disappointed that BFL now allows to upgrade the Japaleno orders to Little Singles, but does not allow the Standard Single to be changed into Little Singles orders.
-----------------------------------
Edited the numbers value mistake
-----------------------------------
You are so full of fail.
1) 2 Little Singles vs 1 SC Single is the difference of $1! One freaking dollar over a 1.3K USD investment? Who cares?
2) More parts =/= more redundancy. It just means more points of failure.
3) Same thing. If BFL has a 2% failure rates for their PSUs (I just made that number up), then you're twice as likely to get one that fails.
And as someone else said, you're also now looking at added costs of USB hubs, and space constraints.
Don't forget the added shipping cost. Additionally, the weakest is going to your usb hub. assume you're looking at 10 littles vs 5 singles. If your hub dies - maybe you have 6 usb on the motherboard. half your hash down until you've replaced that hub. If you keep replacements on hand, then you've driven the initial cost up. If you don't, then you're better off with the singles, because at least you probably plug all 5 into the mb and still have a port for a keyboard to launch your mining software.
Official statement = delayed until march '13.
Has BFL ever officially stated the small singles power consumption? Because I don't remember seeing official numbers like with the normal single
All their products have an advertised power consumption of 1watt per Ghash.
But as far as I remember they have never officialy stated that the little single uses 30 watts. It makes sense and I expect it to follow that rule, but I would like to see an official statement.
Has BFL ever officially stated the small singles power consumption? Because I don't remember seeing official numbers like with the normal single
All their products have an advertised power consumption of 1watt per Ghash.
Has BFL ever officially stated the small singles power consumption? Because I don't remember seeing official numbers like with the normal single
Nevermind what I said before about this topic- It's likely the case that ice chill just wants some free stuff 
With two little singles the cost of a unit going down is half that of a big single. However, the chance of a unit going down is twice as high as with a big single. As other have said, the net result is the same.
The only real benefit that I can see is that little single is going to use the same chassis and heatsink as the big single. Because of that it should run cooler and if BFL does allow the user to adjust the clock it will have more overclocking headroom.
The only real benefit that I can see is that little single is going to use the same chassis and heatsink as the big single. Because of that it should run cooler and if BFL does allow the user to adjust the clock it will have more overclocking headroom.
It does make sense that the effect of a failure of one Little Single would be of less consequence than a failure of a Single, although worrying about two Little Singles could be more trouble than it's worth. Asics should be highly reliable, so variance reduction may just not be worth it.
A bigger question - If these ASIC chips are highly overclockable, might air cooling using the reference heat pipe cooler favor the Little Single (as there are would only be 4 chips to cool)? I remember seeing in a post someplace that the Mini Single will use the same heat sink / fan setup as the Single. However, given the released design previews, water cooling kits may be made available as an option for future overclocking. In the case of a water-cooling setup, the long term advantage goes back to the SC Single.
I'd rather have an SC Single, due to simplicity of setup and long term efficiency- as scrybe said, redundant VRMs = waste. For me, Little Single is also a waste of potential for a beautifully designed board (that has potential to be used in a water-cooled setup).
A bigger question - If these ASIC chips are highly overclockable, might air cooling using the reference heat pipe cooler favor the Little Single (as there are would only be 4 chips to cool)? I remember seeing in a post someplace that the Mini Single will use the same heat sink / fan setup as the Single. However, given the released design previews, water cooling kits may be made available as an option for future overclocking. In the case of a water-cooling setup, the long term advantage goes back to the SC Single.
I'd rather have an SC Single, due to simplicity of setup and long term efficiency- as scrybe said, redundant VRMs = waste. For me, Little Single is also a waste of potential for a beautifully designed board (that has potential to be used in a water-cooled setup).
Hi, it seems the new Little Single (30Ghash) is better then the old SC Single 60Ghash, here's why:
1. Better value for money: 1 x 60Ghs Single = $1299, 2 x 30Ghs Singles ($649*2=$1298)
2. Better redundancy: If 1 x 60Ghs Single fails then you are down by 60Ghs, if one of the two 30Ghs Singles fails, then you are down by only 30Ghs
3. Even more redundancy: with 2 x Little SC Singles you get 2 power bricks.
I am personally disappointed that BFL now allows to upgrade the Japaleno orders to Little Singles, but does not allow the Standard Single to be changed into Little Singles orders.
-----------------------------------
Edited the numbers value mistake
-----------------------------------
1. Better value for money: 1 x 60Ghs Single = $1299, 2 x 30Ghs Singles ($649*2=$1298)
2. Better redundancy: If 1 x 60Ghs Single fails then you are down by 60Ghs, if one of the two 30Ghs Singles fails, then you are down by only 30Ghs
3. Even more redundancy: with 2 x Little SC Singles you get 2 power bricks.
I am personally disappointed that BFL now allows to upgrade the Japaleno orders to Little Singles, but does not allow the Standard Single to be changed into Little Singles orders.
-----------------------------------
Edited the numbers value mistake
-----------------------------------
You are so full of fail.
1) 2 Little Singles vs 1 SC Single is the difference of $1! One freaking dollar over a 1.3K USD investment? Who cares?
2) More parts =/= more redundancy. It just means more points of failure.
3) Same thing. If BFL has a 2% failure rates for their PSUs (I just made that number up), then you're twice as likely to get one that fails.
And as someone else said, you're also now looking at added costs of USB hubs, and space constraints.
By the way didn't BFL just come out and offer lifetime warranties on their gear? So the fail part of your analysis is not a very big deal? Also with the bricks, saving power is a big deal and cost item so would you not want to do something like cablez anyways to drop the brick from the device? Also having one power source and one USB item is less cost power and easier to manage so to save a buck I am not really seeing it. I think this kind of analysis needs to happen but this is what I am seeing.
Hi, it seems the new Little Single (30Ghash) is better then the old SC Single 60Ghash, here's why:
1. Better value for money: 1 x 60Ghs Single = $1299, 2 x 30Ghs Singles ($649*2=$1298)
2. Better redundancy: If 1 x 60Ghs Single fails then you are down by 60Ghs, if one of the two 30Ghs Singles fails, then you are down by only 30Ghs
3. Even more redundancy: with 2 x Little SC Singles you get 2 power bricks.
I am personally disappointed that BFL now allows to upgrade the Japaleno orders to Little Singles, but does not allow the Standard Single to be changed into Little Singles orders.
-----------------------------------
Edited the numbers value mistake
-----------------------------------
1. Better value for money: 1 x 60Ghs Single = $1299, 2 x 30Ghs Singles ($649*2=$1298)
2. Better redundancy: If 1 x 60Ghs Single fails then you are down by 60Ghs, if one of the two 30Ghs Singles fails, then you are down by only 30Ghs
3. Even more redundancy: with 2 x Little SC Singles you get 2 power bricks.
I am personally disappointed that BFL now allows to upgrade the Japaleno orders to Little Singles, but does not allow the Standard Single to be changed into Little Singles orders.
-----------------------------------
Edited the numbers value mistake
-----------------------------------
You are so full of fail.
1) 2 Little Singles vs 1 SC Single is the difference of $1! One freaking dollar over a 1.3K USD investment? Who cares?
2) More parts =/= more redundancy. It just means more points of failure.
3) Same thing. If BFL has a 2% failure rates for their PSUs (I just made that number up), then you're twice as likely to get one that fails.
And as someone else said, you're also now looking at added costs of USB hubs, and space constraints.
+1
Hi, it seems the new Little Single (30Ghash) is better then the old SC Single 60Ghash, here's why:
1. Better value for money: 1 x 60Ghs Single = $1299, 2 x 30Ghs Singles ($649*2=$1298)
2. Better redundancy: If 1 x 60Ghs Single fails then you are down by 60Ghs, if one of the two 30Ghs Singles fails, then you are down by only 30Ghs
3. Even more redundancy: with 2 x Little SC Singles you get 2 power bricks.
I am personally disappointed that BFL now allows to upgrade the Japaleno orders to Little Singles, but does not allow the Standard Single to be changed into Little Singles orders.
-----------------------------------
Edited the numbers value mistake
-----------------------------------
1. Better value for money: 1 x 60Ghs Single = $1299, 2 x 30Ghs Singles ($649*2=$1298)
2. Better redundancy: If 1 x 60Ghs Single fails then you are down by 60Ghs, if one of the two 30Ghs Singles fails, then you are down by only 30Ghs
3. Even more redundancy: with 2 x Little SC Singles you get 2 power bricks.
I am personally disappointed that BFL now allows to upgrade the Japaleno orders to Little Singles, but does not allow the Standard Single to be changed into Little Singles orders.
-----------------------------------
Edited the numbers value mistake
-----------------------------------
You are so full of fail.
1) 2 Little Singles vs 1 SC Single is the difference of $1! One freaking dollar over a 1.3K USD investment? Who cares?
2) More parts =/= more redundancy. It just means more points of failure.
3) Same thing. If BFL has a 2% failure rates for their PSUs (I just made that number up), then you're twice as likely to get one that fails.
And as someone else said, you're also now looking at added costs of USB hubs, and space constraints.
I posit that if the difficulty is increasing and you are out 30Gh/s for 1 week now and 1 week 6 months from now it will actually work out in your favor to have the partial outage rather than a full one.
I agree that it is not worth the hassle though.
...but just like a RAID0 array 2x30 has a greater chance of failure than 1x60.
Having 1 Single fail does not put the other one out of action, so it is more like RAID 1 and not RAID 0.
You should not mix in RAID terminology here, it is there for different reasons. RAID 1 is mirroring of data for protection, so the equivalent would be more like having 2 little singles doing exactly the same work in lockstep to prevent errors.
This is a lot more like a farm of servers (like a bunch of web servers)
There is a point where having more units of a smaller size can indeed reduce your risk that you will stop earning altogether, but it increases the risk that you will have a failure at the same time. Given the declining returns on mining, this could indeed be worth a few BTC if you get to keep mining instead of taking a week off. But as you add more and more units you have a larger and larger power overhead (it's more than double the power draw due to redundant VRM's) as well as the space and maintenance issues that come with more devices.
The point is that there is a trade-off. if you are only buying one SC Single, then getting 2 little ones might make sense, but don't double your unit count if you are getting several SC Singles.
This is not a new decision matrix for anyone who has had to choose between 2 (or 20) 8-socket servers and 8 (or 80) 2-socket ones.
...but just like a RAID0 array 2x30 has a greater chance of failure than 1x60.
Having 1 Single fail does not put the other one out of action, so it is more like RAID 1 and not RAID 0.
Hi, it seems the new Little Single (30Ghash) is better then the old SC Single 60Ghash, here's why:
1. Better value for money: 1 x 60Ghs Single = $1299, 2 x 30Ghs Singles ($649*2=$1298)
2. Better redundancy: If 1 x 60Ghs Single fails then you are down by 60Ghs, if one of the two 30Ghs Singles fails, then you are down by only 30Ghs
3. Even more redundancy: with 2 x Little SC Singles you get 2 power bricks.
I am personally disappointed that BFL now allows to upgrade the Japaleno orders to Little Singles, but does not allow the Standard Single to be changed into Little Singles orders.
-----------------------------------
Edited the numbers value mistake
-----------------------------------
1. Better value for money: 1 x 60Ghs Single = $1299, 2 x 30Ghs Singles ($649*2=$1298)
2. Better redundancy: If 1 x 60Ghs Single fails then you are down by 60Ghs, if one of the two 30Ghs Singles fails, then you are down by only 30Ghs
3. Even more redundancy: with 2 x Little SC Singles you get 2 power bricks.
I am personally disappointed that BFL now allows to upgrade the Japaleno orders to Little Singles, but does not allow the Standard Single to be changed into Little Singles orders.
-----------------------------------
Edited the numbers value mistake
-----------------------------------
You are so full of fail.
1) 2 Little Singles vs 1 SC Single is the difference of $1! One freaking dollar over a 1.3K USD investment? Who cares?
2) More parts =/= more redundancy. It just means more points of failure.
3) Same thing. If BFL has a 2% failure rates for their PSUs (I just made that number up), then you're twice as likely to get one that fails.
And as someone else said, you're also now looking at added costs of USB hubs, and space constraints.
...but just like a RAID0 array 2x30 has a greater chance of failure than 1x60.
By redundancy I meant that if a device fails independently and has to be sent back to BFL for repair.
2. Better redundancy: If 1 x 60Ghs Single fails then you are down by 60Ghs, if one of the two 30Ghs Singles fails, then you are down by only 30Ghs
If a device has 10% downtime, the 1 x 60GH/s gives you 54GH/s effective, the 2 x 30GH/s gives you 54GH/s effective, so no difference in there.If a device has a chance of a failure capable of bringing the host system down it also brings other mining devices down on that way. So if the chance of such type of failure is the same on a 30 vs 60 GH/s device, then a single 60GH/s is better than 2 times 30GH/s.
If the devices are build with chips capable of doing 1.5GH/s they need 40 chips for the 60GH/s and 20 for the 30GH/s device. If a single chip failure can bring the entire device, the 2 times 30 GH/s is better.
If the devices are build with smaller boards containing 5 chips of 1.5GH/s and a single chip failure would bring such a board down, if won't matter if you have 60 or 2 times 30 devices.
So, my conclusion is I don't know. I need to know more about the setup and possible risks to make a good judgement.
Jump to: