Topic: Official Thread: AMT - page 241. (Read 678353 times)

Well... this is something that I recently found... not sure how long ago it was added, but it wasn't readily easy to find.. however, you can at least put in your order # and email and it will tell you somewhat of a status.

http://advancedminers.com/shipping/

You know what? Best case will be to mine at 2048 diff and pretend your miner is 2t instead of one. 1t miner is one 1t miner and it is staying 1t no matter what diff you are using. Simple as that. However you can earn more btc with same miner if you use it properly but it is not making it 2t
Do you make a diff between broadcast any cast multicast and UNICAST address at all You look pathetic with your conclusions dude. And your tech explanations do sound like .........You have to learn a little bit before spreading wisdom all over. PERIOD!
Gys, to all of you who listen and take ISAWHIM posts seriously. I am strongly suggesting to start mining at 10K diff immediately and your hash rate will go up 10K times GUARANTEED . Make sure you are using TCP !!!BROADCAST!!! ADDRESS waiting for an "OK, got it" as suggested/wisely explained by ISAWHIM   . Otherwise you are in a deep shit and you will earn 0 BTC

And finally make sure your home switch do support IGMP (multicast) snooping group your miners and go to cisco academy at the end. That will bring you 10 times over your hash rate guaranteed! BUT you need CCNP certification at least  

Somebody posted a link to their flickr where they have a few more pictures. Here's the link in case anyone missed it from earlier:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/107201528@N06/10583836383/sizes/o/in/photostream/

No idea what to make of all of this. I agree with everyone AMT needs to state the number of chips and modules. And if units were supposed to ship this week it shouldn't be too hard to get a picture of the manufacturing facility (of which we know very little if not nothing about) and the miners on the assembly line.

I'm hopeful though, because like many, I am invested in this company.  If AMT would just spend 7$ an hour on some intern to respond to phone calls and emails I'm sure people would benefit tremendously.

Edit: noticed the pictures are old boards so they have no relevance to the 1.2 TH/s. Apologies.

what power supplies are you using.   Can i connect them to 208 v ?

You didn't miss anything. The only reason not to tell you, not to post pics of the boards they are having custom designed, is that they don't exist yet. Otherwise, they should be excited and proud to show off the upcoming product.

why is it AMT wont squash all this nonsense and just state how many chips they will be using? or did i miss this?

Hush, I was looking for an advantage to win! lol...

Waiting for my 80-chip 1.2THs miner to arrive, that operates under 600w max. "At the wall". (lol)

Seriously though... I don't want to have to wait a whole two weeks to find-out how many chips my miner will have. What will I do for all my days? Then have to spend the next three months eating my words, if it only delivers 1.2THs running at exactly 1200W. Though I still doubt that will be the case.

I... I.. I just want a hug! Throw me some feels!

You don't need to rewrite it. The new specs are only valid for orders placed after today. All previous orders must receive the stated specs at the time the order was placed.

So how many chips are in the 1.2THs miners... Now that I seem to have a challenge ahead of me... (Wait, he didn't accept my bid! lol... saved by the bell!)

I wrote that long-winded explanation for nothing... I am not re-writing all that with 1200W as the specs...
Short version...
0.91J/GH - 1.11J/GH is the worst to expect now, from nominal...
0.72J/GH - 0.835J/GH is the best to expect now, from nominal...

I am guessing that 48 chips is the design... (6 boards with 8 chips each)

New purchases... not existing orders... (Just wanted to have you clarify that. )

AMT just "updated" their wattage on the site  to "900W -1200W." Can you believe it! What if they come in "below" expectations, how cool would that be!?

Seriously guys, have a field day with it. We're still selling the most economic chip on the market.

And the dancing cat was just cute and excited don't you think. Today was a good day guys, lets make the best of it and get excited for next weeks miners.

Lead time on the 1.2Th's is still end of march. Orders that get in soon will still ship by March 31st, just a heads up we'll take down that offer on Friday.

1.2THs <- Spec #1
600-900W <- Spec #2

"Product specifications may differ from  (+/- 10% running variance)"
Two specs... (plural) two seporate +/-10% variations. If it was just speed, it would say only "Speed +/-10%".

So the range, of highs to possible lows are... (by specs)
1080Ghs lowest nominal speed you should ever get, within specs
1320Ghs highest nominal speed potential claimed, within specs

Both those speeds, potentially within...
810w lowest possible max the unit may be limited to, this is the -10%
990w highest possible wattage the unit is speced to, this is the +10%

So unless we have a dud PSU, that actually only delivers 990w for a minute, then 810w for an hour...
That places the estimates of worst power consumption at 990w, for obtaining the "nominal" of 1080GHs, and also the maximum draw possible from the unit, to reach 1320GHs.

That is 990w/1080GHs=0.92J/GH (worst case by specs max)*
That is 990w/1320GHs=0.75J/GH (best case by specs max)
* That would be a bum batch of chips, sucking lots of power from the PSU to stay in spec, over-volted.

You would not assume that hitting 1320GHs would be achievable at the PSU's lowest rating, or the highest low-rating of 810w. However, I would go so far as to say that the 1080GHs, should still be able to hit at 810w, as that would be -10% hash and -10% max-power, which should yield "nominal"...

So...
That is 810w/1080GHs=0.75J/GH (worst/worst case by specs min)*
Unrealistic is 810w/1320GHs=0.62J/HG (super-ideal case by specs min)
* That would be a bum PSU with hungry chips, which would have to be under-volted to be 1080GHs

So I believe, by the claims, that they are saying, 0.75J/GH to 0.92J/GH, as the (+/-10% to each spec, 0.835J/GH would be the average) I left-out the spec for 0.62J/GH, since that is unrealistic to specs intent, and thus, might never be possible.

The lower wattage would be for power-saving operation, and is irrelevant to the 1.2THs "nominal limits". They would only apply to how low you could under-volt it, and still provide power. Which the 600w -10% should handle.

So, to win the bet... The only source to beat would be 0.92J/GH to 0.835J/GH, as that would be low to average, within spec. Obviously someone may get a super-PSU and super-chips, and that would be unfair to judge with. Right?

Honestly, I am more interested in the maximum potential... electric consumption is nearly irrelevant at these hash-rates and yields. 1200w is roughly about $4.61 a day at $0.16/KWh... (I pay about $0.08)... Earnings are between $500-$150 per day, at the moment, after paying electric. If I get 50% more hashing-power at twice the electric-costs... That is $750-$255 per day, at the moment, after paying 2x the electric consumption. Yes, I estimated as 1200W, just for the sake of argument. (1200GHs * 150% = 1800GHs or 1.8THs) By the time I actually cash-out, to reinvest again... that should be about $3000-$1000 per day again, as if I earned that the whole time. Since cashing-out as you earn is the worst payout idea ever. lol. (Shh, it is those peoples losses that become my gains.)

Wow, now that is more structured of a bet... (The post that followed this quoted one. Saw it as I tried to reply.)

But it says +/- 10% on all specs... Power-consumption is one of the two specs... Power and speed.

For the bet, if you accept my public humiliation as payment... I will take the power +/- 10% (At the wall), as that is what one would assume, for the device. (Since that is what we get charged for, by the power company.)

In light of "friendly" betting... Since "I am not building these units", and I still assume any "estimated" specs are just that, until a unit they built is spec-ed out once it is in their hands. I have no way of knowing what path they have taken to build them. Running minimum chips, it is not possible. Running similar qty of chips (48), it is borderline possible. Running more than "my estimates", (more than 48 chips), it is absolutely possible. However, that is not mentioned anywhere. They may have done estimations with 50+ chips, and decided to build with 48. That has not been determined yet. (I think minimum I calculated would have been like 34 operating at turbo, which put wattage over 1200W, obviously.)

Also, I chose the power one, because the PSU is obviously limited to those specs. Thus, that will determine, with the number of chips, what the maximum speed is. (Not the average, because it says nominal +/- 10%, for speed and also +/-10% for the other specs. That is two separate statements, not one, since both specs are mentioned. It does not say speed only +/- 10%. But I will take power.)

If AMT responds with the qty of chips used... I can make a more clear/confident bet. Without that knowledge, I am left only to believe that they will try to fill the estimated obligations they outlined. Using however-many chips is needed to reach that target.

I still believe they spec-ed the original estimates "by chip", and "at the boards total draw"... which was a mistake to do. (Unless that was specified as the specs specifics.) However, I do believe the updated specs are "at the wall", and "for the unit as a whole". They have not stated otherwise, so that is a reasonable assumption. Remember, they had to create estimates off what the chip-producer said were the estimates. They just failed to say, "specs may change at any time, and are just estimates". But again, we all knew this item was not even created yet, except on a test-lab board, with one chip.

If I am allowed to help those two people tune the machines... then I accept random peoples submissions.. but they could purposely make it do less, or draw more power, or just not have the ability to tune it. Also, you can't pick the two people...

and I changed my beer to a coffee...

You're not the one making the measurements, as stated in my original bet proposition. No offense, but you have too much on the line to trust that you'll document the results fairly. All that is required is any two people reaching these numbers of all the customers that AMT has for their 1.2TH/s miners. I suppose I should add a caveat that the account must have registered prior to Sept 1 / 2013 (the beginning of the month this thread was started) and have at least 30 posts in 2013.

I am using the claimed efficiency of 0.75J/GH, and giving 10% on that (0.825J/GH). I also restructured it so that you could have the hashrate 10% lower than advertised with the same max power draw, which is actually easier to hit. Those are the terms for the bet I proposed.
If you would really like a bet where the minimum hashrate is 1.08TH/s and maximum power draw is 990W, I would entertain that, but only at 1:1 odds.

It is fair. They claim +/- 10%, you want to have -10% on hashrate *and* +10% on power draw which is the absolute most extremely lenient way to deliver. You can have both and be fair.

I can agree with the top portion... but saying one or the other, when hash-rate and power are both +/-10%, still seems unfair to the bet. If I happen to get one with slow chips, thus the lower hash-rate... I will be forced to draw more power, and vice-versa... If I get one that hits 222GHs per board (assuming it is 8-chip boards, and 6 boards)... it would unfairly reduce load on the PSU, if I made it run the lower end of the voltage. That is like flipping a coin on production errors. Not enough play to even be within the updated estimates.

How about this... If I am horribly wrong, and thus they don't come within those specs at all, by the 10%. (Which is possible that they are still under-estimating...) Then I will put a link to that public admittance of defeat in my signature, and leave it there for 3 months... (Why do I feel like I am going to be right on the edge on this bet. lol.)

If I win... you just enjoy your miner. And if you are ever visiting Florida, you will owe me a beer... even though I don't drink.

Voltage changes are fine, as long as they are software controllable. Having to remove and replace resistors to adjust the voltage is beyond the ability of most customers, and cannot be considered after sales tuning. Adding additional modules (which was the whole point of that) and then underclocking the boards to improve efficiency is likewise not "tuning".

I will give you the 10%, but only once. You can either have the hashrate +/- 10% (minimum 1080GH/s) at 900W, or the hashrate at 1.2TH/s and the power at 990W. This bet is primarily on AMT's unrealistic power efficiency claims, I have no doubt they will be able to hit their rated hashing speed.

Also, I don't particularly care if they only ship 90% of the USB, network or power cords.

Adjusting voltage is part of "tuning", and also part of the "max speed"... so that is unreasonable to say it would not be an option for consideration. Since 1.2THs is implied as a "potential" with the stated wattage. If it normally operates at 1.0THs, with a modest voltage, for stability or warranty, but peak is 1.2THs, running at the max-wattage the unit is designed for... then that has met the estimation criteria for "reaches speeds of", or "up to", or "peak"... also if it requires additional cooling, or "ideal conditions". Because running this in summer-time, near the equator would not be fair to judge against a guy in Siberia, in winter running it out in the snow. One will obviously hit the mark, while the other obviously will not. (I live in Florida, it is already getting to temps of 80F here. So I NEED to make provisions to "get ideal operating conditions". Like someone might have, running it in an air-conditioned shop or house.) Also demanding that the average has to be 1.2THs, when that is obviously an expected peak value, is a little demanding. Either I win the superbowl by 40 points, or it's a loss for my team.

Though, I can find a nice 30-min block to mine... solo, that should appease any average conditions.

BTW, software is used also to "tune" voltages and frequency... So that can't be ruled-out. However, throwing another PSU or swapping for a better PSU, or replacing components on the PCB would understandably be unacceptable.

I'll think about the bet...

As for the specs... (Right from the miners page)
1,200 GH/s nominal performance (+/– 10%)
Included accessories:
2x USB Cable
2x Network Cable
1x Power Cord
Bitcoin Miner Weight: 18 lb.
Dimensions: 18 x 7 x 18 high
Chip: Asic 28nm
Warranty: This unit’s system board has a
lifetime warranty from manufacture defect
or component failure.
Product specifications may differ from  (+/- 10% running variance)

1.2THs +/-10% and +/-10% Product specifications (Of which, power is a spec), IS exactly what they are selling... (now) xD

Thus, the minimum specs is 1.2THs - 10% (Least expected hashing power) and the maximum power would be 900W + 10% (Greatest consumed power while hashing)

Keep fudging the numbers. Eventually you'll be right.

+/- 10% hashrate and +/- 10% power draw is not what they are selling. They are selling 1.2 TH/s at 600-900 watts. If they do not meet or exceed both specs, then they have failed to deliver what was ordered.

Edit: Now I see the "+/- 10% variance" fine print. At the very extreme 1080 GH/s and 990 watts is still going to be quite a stretch. Including the "600" watt quote is very deceptive.

Balance your breakers. You should have two busses, and one neutral bus (usually physically two since it's also the ground, but they're tied together). Make sure you stagger the breakers so that if you have an even number, they are 1:1 on the two busses. Meters are actually fairly accurate, but they do count parasitic losses and unbalanced loads. The meter would have to be a much more complex and expensive device to do as you suggest, whereas balancing the load across the two busses is easy. Just make sure the main is off and/or you have high rated insulated gloves

And.. what chip-count was that quoted with? The "..." missing context is the important other half of that whole conversation... I believe the chip count was up near the 60's for that to be delivered, now it is down to the 50's, with the updated specs, which is still "near 600w" possibility. (I still agree that 900w is more realistic, for 120v systems.)

However, it is the "new miners" being quoted at those specs... I still "psychologically", hold some claim to the unit specs I purchased, at the price and time I made the purchase. (Which was around 600w. ) But, given the nature of the order and business and market, I would accept the current adjusted realistic 900W +/-10% as "acceptable".

When my order gets here, that will be taken into consideration too. Just like BFL had to double-up on chips, to get the specs within estimated projections. (Though BFL fell short on power by 5x loss. AMT would actually gain power by adding chips, running below nominal voltages. BFL was just a power-hungry chip with little room for adjustment.)

I would hope that they attempt to adjust for that claim. I'll dig-up that dead post when the time comes.