Topic: Official Thread: AMT - page 281. (Read 678353 times)

You want a full report on the 1.2THs miner. Once I get it, I will do a full unboxing, tear-down, power-evaluation, and show yield reports at various "modified" levels.

This would include any "future potential", of the miner, as I am sure power/speed will simply be limited by the included power-supply and case-design's thermal-dissipation potential.

Some of this information, I am sure, can be used for the other miners as-well. Since they will be using similar/same hardware inside.

I still wish that other guy would follow-up with more posts of the smaller machine, if that is the same board that will be used in the THs models. (Which I would also like answered, if it can be answered, by AMT. Along with updating the website for the specific chip that is being used, and the quantity of chips for the miners. Knowing it is 28nm is as descriptive as saying "Car has wheels and engine." )

jeezus. with that dumb ass rationale nobody would be able to purchase a miner and then come here to check on things - which is EXACTLY what i did. your tinfoil hat theories make me laugh.

And you know that from newbie section u jumped straight to ATM section and u posted like 6 messages to deffend ATM!!!
Obviously you not related to ATM

http://bitmine.ch/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/CoinCraft-A1.pdf

1.2THs = 1200GHs

The spec-sheet says...
(20GHs @ 0.35W/GH = 7W) = 1 Chip
1200GHs/20GHs = 60 Chips
60 * 7W = 420W

Respectively... On the top-end...
(40Ghs @ 1.0W/GH = 40W) = 1 Chip
1200GHs/40GHs = 30 Chips
30 * 40W = 1200W

So... By the specs, they are not wrong by saying the chips can run as low as 420W, and SPEEDS up to 1.2THs. (Seeing as the number of chips is not stated, and power/speed/cooling may be the final determining factor of the shipped unit.)

Now, "at the wall", 420W may be close to 600W. (But that is not specified, as there is no regulations for listing rated power, in any country. Unless you explicitly register for a power-rating by an external regulatory board.)

But I digress... Provided they use the "more chips" option, or the "nominal chip option"... There is plenty of room to "adjust to taste", for growth in the future.

Also note, 1.2THs, I am sure, is the "peak speed", not the "nominal average speed". But, by now, you should know that. Nothing runs in peak speed 100% of the time. There are too many factors that interfere with that limit. (Collision, heat, errors, new-block-resetting, time-to-setup-jobs, time-to-reply-results, stale-submits, usb traffic, cpu-busy, idle-wake-state-delays, thread response times.)

Plus, "new-specs" are always "estimated", based on "design-specs", provided by the MFG. Real-world adjustments usually follow. I am sure they have a kill-a-watt handy to measure wattage, "At the wall". Which is what normal people consider to be "consumed watts", since that is what we pay for. But, until they do that... expect the numbers to be slightly off, respectfully.

I hope it comes with the "more chips" option... then I just have to add a huge PSU to get double speed, up to 2.4THs in the future. Ok, that and some kick-ass cooling! Submerged in water, like that chinese miner does... or move to the artic, and use natural cooling, like the other miner guy did.

A few months ago, I asked Bitmine what speed their chip would run at in lowest power mode (0.35W/GH at the chip level) since they only advertise hashrate of their chip in nominal mode (0.6 W/GH) and turbo mode (1W/GH) :
http://bitmine.ch/?page_id=863

The answer was that while the chip should work at 0.65V (low power mode) he wasnt sure yet what speed it could achieve at the lowest voltage, and would wait until after receiving silicon and characterizing the chip before specifying. Which is an honest answer btw. Predicting extreme ends of voltage/clock relationship is a bit stabbing in the dark.

For AMT to base themselves on that number, one would have to conclude they do not know yet how many Coincraft A1s will be in their miner, because they wouldn't know how many it takes to achieve 1.2TH. One would also have to conclude the machine should be able to hash at considerably more than 1.2 TH in nominal mode (likely 30+%)  and  >2 TH in turbo mode, but for some reason they wouldnt exploit that.

You actually believe AMT's spec of 300W-600W for the 1.2TH/s unit, when Bitmine.ch (the ones actually making the boards and chips) claim their units will consume more than 0.5J/GH in power save mode?
http://bitmine.ch/?page_id=893

Even if they hit their estimate of 0.35J/GH at the chip level in power save mode, it would be impossible to get 300W. It's just deceptive advertising, and it's up to you whether you want to believe they are doing it maliciously or they're just too ignorant to realize it's wrong.

Dec 10th is before Dec 13th.  That is actually why I included the date.
http://bitmine.ch/?p=4192

well, was the delay announced after Dec. 13? i would agree with you that deadline would be hard to meet given that information.

Ok. Quoted for shill-ness. See you in 2 weeks.

On December 10th the manufacture of the chips stated they had a 3 week delay in receiving the chips.  That puts delivery of the chips in Switzerland on Dec 31st at the earliest.  I have a very hard time believing chips arriving on the 31st at the earliest will end up as a miner from AMT on a delivery truck to you within 7 days of the chips arriving...

On Dec. 13 i was told by Jim my 1.2TH, order #610, will ship the first week of January.

Flame on trolls.

Thats not what the changed topic says. What it does say is that AMT seems to find it more important what is being said about them than how they conduct their business.

AMT, if you dont like whats being said, all you have to do is change your conduct. If you look for instance in the Bitmain thread, it also starts with some healthy skepticism, but it took only a few pages and weeks for that skepticism to vanish completely and be replaced by mostly happy customers posting their experience. Delivering the goods you promised in a timely fashion while providing at least adequate customer service is all it takes really. Works miles better than paying shills.

If I was battling "trolls" with my 25 shill accounts all day; I'm not sure I'd have time to assemble any miners either.

There wouldn't be trolls if there weren't failures to begin with. The only reason things started to get bad in this thread is because AMT wasn't 100% transparent about things from the beginning. Why they decided to spend the time to fight back personally, or even offer 5% and priority shipping to those who help fight back for them, is ridiculous and beyond me, but... what they choose to do with their time is their own choice. Just don't expect the customers or potential customers to be happy about it.

Either way, I still looking forward to having my order fulfilled. I'd be awfully pissed if AMT chooses not to deliver. I'll remain hopeful, but if they want any return business from me, they're going to have to make a bigger effort on communicating with customers, and spend less time fighting petty arguments on forums.

But still the trolls are the ones responsible for their failures as the title of this topic says.

Not exactly like I can do anything about the orders I placed even if my faith were wavering considering their inability to return my calls and/or emails. And quite honestly, it's beginning to.

I'm normally a "trust needs to be earned" person as well, but with the way MOST mining hardware companies have released their stuff, I'm pretty sure if we stuck to that when it came to the bitcoin ecosystem, we'd all be sitting on a big pile of nothing.

I admire your faith. So far AMT haven proven to be misleading or lying about most things; shipping dates, performance claims (which allegedly they will fix by adding more boards, but no word how they will compensate the "many" customers already served), power consumption figures seem extremely improbable, the no VAT in the EU lie, they are paying off shills, and now they pretend that they will receive 28nm chips this week when even their supplier said a while ago it wont happen until next year.

Every new asic vendor is met with a lot of skepticism here, sometimes even too much, but AMT is doing a good job showing just why that is. Trust has to be earned, and so far AMT has earned none in my book.

Actually, the boards they're using are clearly rated by the manufacturer to consume more power than what AMT suggests their complete systems' minimum power consumption is. I'm not trying to discredit them or anything, I'm merely stating a fact. Even underclocked the rates don't add up right. However, power consumption isn't an issue for me, but I feel that other people should know that they can expect slightly higher power consumption than what AMT's advertised rates were. That's nothing special, and nothing to worry about. Even Avalon, BFL and KnC had that exact problem as well.

Either way, I'm not trying to discredit them or anything. If you paid any attention, I ordered a smaller miner as well as a larger miner from AMT, even despite the power consumption differences which are to be expected. I'm not sure why you feel you have to be defensive when there's no need to be.

My only problem with AMT is their lack of communication with paying customers. I sent multiple emails and left multiple phone calls and have yet to hear back from them. This has been over a three week period. And from what I hear, I'm not the only one having extreme difficulties getting in touch with them. It's a valid concern.

Another option is that they don't overclock and put in more miners into the system.  This way they run cooler and use less watts.  Ever thought of that?

Order #805 AMT 128GHash/sec. I guess I'm behind this guy. ;p