We've got info on KNC's die size and the like, how about an update to the OP?
Topic: Process-invariant hardware metric: hash-meters per second (η-factor) - page 3. (Read 25036 times)
July 20, 2013, 03:12:00 PM
July 12, 2013, 05:24:41 PM
Yes, I must had misunderstood the video when I had been watching it for first time. There they stated quite clearly, the chip (the package) would be the size shown, about 60 mm x 60 mm,
not the die, which will be much smaller.
The conclusion: η should be significantly greater than 90, and η' quite higher than 6.5.
not the die, which will be much smaller.
The conclusion: η should be significantly greater than 90, and η' quite higher than 6.5.
July 10, 2013, 10:42:33 AM
Collecting data for CPU comparison takes time, there are so many models.
In the meantime, I put together a table calculating how many GH/s can be put on a wafer with chips we know:
wafer (mm) chip process (nm) die(mm^2) chip GH/s dpw wafer GH/s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
300 avalon 110 16,13 0,282 4214 1188,35
300 bitfury 55 14,44 2 4717 9434,00
300 bfl 65 56,25 4 1167 4668,00
300 KnC 28 3025,00 100 11 1100,00
In the meantime, I put together a table calculating how many GH/s can be put on a wafer with chips we know:
wafer (mm) chip process (nm) die(mm^2) chip GH/s dpw wafer GH/s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
300 avalon 110 16,13 0,282 4214 1188,35
300 bitfury 55 14,44 2 4717 9434,00
300 bfl 65 56,25 4 1167 4668,00
300 KnC 28 3025,00 100 11 1100,00
You put the package size instead of KNC's die size (which is currently unknown I think).
Quote
Our ASIC package selection has been optimized, allowing the use of a smaller package. The selected package is a 55mm x 55mm HFCBGA package (2046 ball count), optimized for maximum thermal characteristics.
https://www.kncminer.com/news/news-22 July 10, 2013, 09:49:11 AM
In prev. (erased) post I hardly noticed that strike over 'r'! Now I see 
July 10, 2013, 08:27:07 AM
Ujka, bitfurry?
July 10, 2013, 02:41:02 AM
'dpw' (die count estimation) is calculated by the formula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafer_(electronics)#Analytical_die_count_estimation):
dwp = PI * wafer_diammeter * (wafer_diammeter/(4*die_size) - 1/sqrt(2*die_size))
Don't know the exact die size for ASICMiner chip - is it 17,5 or 21,7 mm^2?
17,5: dwp = 3877, GH/s per wafer = 1291,04
21,7: dwp = 3112, GH/s per wafer = 1036,30
(over here, we are using ',' for 'decimal point')
Cool, thanks. I don't think ASICMINER has published the die size of their chip. We only have estimates. But it's probably in that area, perhaps even smaller. dwp = PI * wafer_diammeter * (wafer_diammeter/(4*die_size) - 1/sqrt(2*die_size))
Don't know the exact die size for ASICMiner chip - is it 17,5 or 21,7 mm^2?
17,5: dwp = 3877, GH/s per wafer = 1291,04
21,7: dwp = 3112, GH/s per wafer = 1036,30
(over here, we are using ',' for 'decimal point')
July 09, 2013, 02:29:53 PM
'dpw' (die count estimation) is calculated by the formula (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafer_(electronics)#Analytical_die_count_estimation):
dwp = PI * wafer_diammeter * (wafer_diammeter/(4*die_size) - 1/sqrt(2*die_size))
Don't know the exact die size for ASICMiner chip - is it 17,5 or 21,7 mm^2?
17,5: dwp = 3877, GH/s per wafer = 1291,04
21,7: dwp = 3112, GH/s per wafer = 1036,30
(over here, we are using ',' for 'decimal point')
dwp = PI * wafer_diammeter * (wafer_diammeter/(4*die_size) - 1/sqrt(2*die_size))
Don't know the exact die size for ASICMiner chip - is it 17,5 or 21,7 mm^2?
17,5: dwp = 3877, GH/s per wafer = 1291,04
21,7: dwp = 3112, GH/s per wafer = 1036,30
(over here, we are using ',' for 'decimal point')
July 09, 2013, 11:50:58 AM
How do you calculate that, exactly?
Is it simply wafer_area/die_area*GH_per_chip? When I try that my numbers don't quite match up with yours (although they're close).
Also, what is the figure for ASICMINER's chips?
Is it simply wafer_area/die_area*GH_per_chip? When I try that my numbers don't quite match up with yours (although they're close).
Also, what is the figure for ASICMINER's chips?
July 09, 2013, 04:36:19 AM
Collecting data for CPU comparison takes time, there are so many models.
In the meantime, I put together a table calculating how many GH/s can be put on a wafer with chips we know:
wafer (mm) chip process (nm) die(mm^2) chip GH/s dpw wafer GH/s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
300 avalon 110 16,13 0,282 4214 1188,35
300 bitfury 55 14,44 2 4717 9434,00
300 bfl 65 56,25 4 1167 4668,00
300 KnC 283025,00 100 11 1100,00
EDIT: KnC die size is not known. In the early stage of the KnC website, I remember reading die size of 55x55mm. On the 'openday', they were talking about package size of 70x70mm or more. Latest info on website is for 55x55mm package size.
In the meantime, I put together a table calculating how many GH/s can be put on a wafer with chips we know:
wafer (mm) chip process (nm) die(mm^2) chip GH/s dpw wafer GH/s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
300 avalon 110 16,13 0,282 4214 1188,35
300 bitfury 55 14,44 2 4717 9434,00
300 bfl 65 56,25 4 1167 4668,00
300 KnC 28
EDIT: KnC die size is not known. In the early stage of the KnC website, I remember reading die size of 55x55mm. On the 'openday', they were talking about package size of 70x70mm or more. Latest info on website is for 55x55mm package size.
July 09, 2013, 04:12:08 AM
EldenTyrell, on the website Bitfurystrikesback.com Mr. Bitfury claims a hash rate of 2.7 GH/s per chip. In this thread, you claim 2.0 GH/s per chip. Please explain and/or correct this discrepancy. Thank you.
They did some tests at 2.7 GH/s, but probably chip wasn't stable - even their 25 GH/s boad uses 16 chips! July 06, 2013, 02:03:00 PM
Maybe it's just me, but when you tell me Bitfury has a 2800 score and KNC a score of 90, that really seems odd. Especially considering KNC's gigahash/watt is better than Bitfury's or BFL's. It really makes me question the relevance of this metric to me. Are you saying KNC, or someone, if they had access to KNC's design could replace it with a design that's 30 times more efficient? Are we saying KNC's design is basically one giant fuckup? Doesn't seem to make sense or accord with known facts.
I'm gonna assume that we simply just don't have enough technical details to make a determination and that's why KNC still hasn't been added to the OP list.
The highlighted part is incorrect. At least based on the announced specs for the KNC chip.I'm gonna assume that we simply just don't have enough technical details to make a determination and that's why KNC still hasn't been added to the OP list.
The power usage of the Bitfury chip is around 1 GH/J: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2635052
The power usage of the KNC chip is 400 Mhash/J: https://www.kncminer.com/categories/miners
July 06, 2013, 12:41:22 AM
EldenTyrell, on the website Bitfurystrikesback.com Mr. Bitfury claims a hash rate of 2.7 GH/s per chip. In this thread, you claim 2.0 GH/s per chip. Please explain and/or correct this discrepancy. Thank you.
July 06, 2013, 12:37:53 AM
And how would a consumer buying ASIC based product use this metric for choosing which product to buy?
You wouldn't— perhaps you've confused this for a thread in a marketplace section? Products are part of the subject of this subforum, but they're not the only part.This is a technology thread, not a what to buy thread. You'll note that there is no mention of prices in the original post: any what-to-buy thread would be useless with them.
Quote
There are only 2 metric that are useful:
1) Cost in $/GH for manufacturer to make - only few know what it is exactly and can vary by 200%-500%
2) Cost in $/GH for consumer to buy
Ha. On the contrary, I think both of those metrics are irrelevant. What matters— when it comes to buying mining products at this time— is what is available when. ... but all three of these are offtopic for _this thread_. Please keep further discussion here to the subject of set out in the first post.1) Cost in $/GH for manufacturer to make - only few know what it is exactly and can vary by 200%-500%
2) Cost in $/GH for consumer to buy
Obviously price goes hand in hand with availability.
But you still didn't answered how is this (hash-meters per second (η-factor)) useful to anyone?
July 06, 2013, 12:31:03 AM
And how would a consumer buying ASIC based product use this metric for choosing which product to buy?
You wouldn't— perhaps you've confused this for a thread in a marketplace section? Products are part of the subject of this subforum, but they're not the only part.This is a technology thread, not a what to buy thread. You'll note that there is no mention of prices in the original post: any what-to-buy thread would be useless with them.
Quote
There are only 2 metric that are useful:
1) Cost in $/GH for manufacturer to make - only few know what it is exactly and can vary by 200%-500%
2) Cost in $/GH for consumer to buy
Ha. On the contrary, I think both of those metrics are irrelevant. What matters— when it comes to buying mining products at this time— is what is available when. ... but all three of these are offtopic for _this thread_. Please keep further discussion here to the subject of set out in the first post. 1) Cost in $/GH for manufacturer to make - only few know what it is exactly and can vary by 200%-500%
2) Cost in $/GH for consumer to buy
July 06, 2013, 12:16:17 AM
And how would a consumer buying ASIC based product use this metric for choosing which product to buy?
Sounds to me like it's a calculation for the sake of calculation.
Not useful in any shape or form to anyone.
There are only 2 metric that are useful:
1) Cost in $/GH for manufacturer to make - only few know what it is exactly and can vary by 200%-500%
2) Cost in $/GH for consumer to buy.
2.1) Cost in $/GH of running the system
Sounds to me like it's a calculation for the sake of calculation.
Not useful in any shape or form to anyone.
There are only 2 metric that are useful:
1) Cost in $/GH for manufacturer to make - only few know what it is exactly and can vary by 200%-500%
2) Cost in $/GH for consumer to buy.
2.1) Cost in $/GH of running the system
July 05, 2013, 10:48:00 PM
So ... who gave a moderator a blowjob to remove this particular post of mine?
It is indeed directly on topic and valid unless the moderator was a moron?
It wasn't deleted, it was moved to offtopic: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/noise-from-the-process-invariant-hardware-metric-thread-250364It is indeed directly on topic and valid unless the moderator was a moron?
Quote
The Avalon chip that hashes slower than the chip used in the old BFL FPGA, and uses at least 1.5 times the power of a BFL SC (per MH/s) and requires ~15 times the number of chips compared to a BFL SC (per MH/s) and a box somewhere between 5 and 10 times of a BFL SC Single ... rates:
[...]
The Avalon above the BFL SC
Not only that, but the BFL SC is pure custom ASIC, whereas the Avalon seems more and more each day to be a quick a dirty hack implementation.
Again these numbers are irrelevant to anyone but someone who wants to name a new number and pretend it's important.
Yeah good on removing all the other crap, but no reason at all to remove this one.[...]
The Avalon above the BFL SC
Not only that, but the BFL SC is pure custom ASIC, whereas the Avalon seems more and more each day to be a quick a dirty hack implementation.
Again these numbers are irrelevant to anyone but someone who wants to name a new number and pretend it's important.
And it _is_ offtopic: This whole thread is about a _process invariant_ metric. Its an approximation of the performance if fabricated on a similar process with a similar die size. The absolute performance of the devices as fabricated are available all over (and even in the OP, at least in per-chip form).
You can yabber on about how BFL is "pure custom" and avalon is a "dirty hack"— but thats irrelevant to the thread, the thread is about the proposed process invariant number and your message was not, so it got moved with all the other off-topic dicksizing which it had inspired.
July 05, 2013, 10:07:11 PM
So ... who gave a moderator a blowjob to remove this particular post of mine?
It is indeed directly on topic and valid unless the moderator was a moron?
Yeah good on removing all the other crap, but no reason at all to remove this one.
It is indeed directly on topic and valid unless the moderator was a moron?
So ... I come back again and find ...
The Avalon chip that hashes slower than the chip used in the old BFL FPGA, and uses at least 1.5 times the power of a BFL SC (per MH/s) and requires ~15 times the number of chips compared to a BFL SC (per MH/s) and a box somewhere between 5 and 10 times of a BFL SC Single ... rates:
The Avalon above the BFL SC
Not only that, but the BFL SC is pure custom ASIC, whereas the Avalon seems more and more each day to be a quick a dirty hack implementation.
Again these numbers are irrelevant to anyone but someone who wants to name a new number and pretend it's important.
The Avalon chip that hashes slower than the chip used in the old BFL FPGA, and uses at least 1.5 times the power of a BFL SC (per MH/s) and requires ~15 times the number of chips compared to a BFL SC (per MH/s) and a box somewhere between 5 and 10 times of a BFL SC Single ... rates:
Code:
Avalon 275 MH/s Custom 110nm, 55nm 16.13mm2 2,836.52
BFL SC 4.0GH/s Custom 65nm, 32.5nm 56.25mm2 2,441.11
The Avalon above the BFL SC
Not only that, but the BFL SC is pure custom ASIC, whereas the Avalon seems more and more each day to be a quick a dirty hack implementation.
Again these numbers are irrelevant to anyone but someone who wants to name a new number and pretend it's important.
Yeah good on removing all the other crap, but no reason at all to remove this one.
July 05, 2013, 01:16:47 AM
Data for many old and new CPUs, author colected most data we need here (die size, process node, benchmarks). I will try to put some of those in a spreadsheet.
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Computing/Computing_Power.htm
EDIT: Even better page:
http://www.x86-guide.com/en/marques/Intel.html
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Computing/Computing_Power.htm
EDIT: Even better page:
http://www.x86-guide.com/en/marques/Intel.html
Maybe just looking at AMD vs Intel over the past few years be an interesting gauge right? There is a clear "winner" in those two designs... I wonder if this metric would agree with the market?
July 04, 2013, 04:00:43 AM
Data for many old and new CPUs, author colected most data we need here (die size, process node, benchmarks). I will try to put some of those in a spreadsheet.
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Computing/Computing_Power.htm
EDIT: Even better page:
http://www.x86-guide.com/en/marques/Intel.html
http://www.alternatewars.com/BBOW/Computing/Computing_Power.htm
EDIT: Even better page:
http://www.x86-guide.com/en/marques/Intel.html
July 04, 2013, 03:45:37 AM
2) You shouldn't be praising BFL's chip because they barely got it working at all. They missed their clock rate AND power targets AND delivery date by a country mile. But they gave you a free unit before their customers go them so we are inflicted with your sycophancy.
And yes even though they missed their specs they are still better specs than anything else available ... lol3) BFL maybe more efficient in hashes "per chip" but that is a useless metric. BFL uses 3.5 times the die size in a process that gives 4 times the density for 14 times as much logic. .275 x 14 = 3.850. That is why Avalon compares favorably to BFL using the reported specs.
Correct, this drivel makes the crappy Avalon chip compare favourably.Exactly why it is drivel.
I think KANO would detest and argue against any metric that would compare Avalons favorably to BFL whether or not they were valid. That is what I would call bias. So we can disregard him and let the thread get back on track. Measuring things not posting personal opinions about chips and companies. Please post elsewhere Kano we get it you don't want to explore this metric. Can you guys take your bickering elsewhere please!
Bumping my question for the OP to the front again:
Quote
Can the metric say be bench marked against say past CPU chips to see how it compares existing tech development over the years and possibly show it is a reliable metric? That way we can pretty much shut down the hype-filled and adjective wielding fanboys on both sides, but particularly Kano as he seems to really take offense to anything that shines negatively on BFL for some unknown reason, and get to the meat "the quality of the underlying designs."
Jump to: