Pages:
Author

Topic: Process-invariant hardware metric: hash-meters per second (η-factor) - page 6. (Read 24982 times)

donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1004
felonious vagrancy, personified
Updated with info for the BFL SC card, thanks to BFL themselves (hint to their competitors: maybe you might want to consider releasing figures like they have?)


This increases the urgency of getting an exact die size for the Spartan-6.  We've always known the die size is less than 300mm^2: for one, the package cavity is square but the chip is rectangular: in FPGA editor it's almost twice as tall as it is wide.  There's no guarantee that aspect ratio matches the silicon, but it's unlikely to be off by so much that it's square in real life.

I really doubt that BFL is squeezing nearly 2x the eta-factor out of their chips as anybody else, so I now suspect that the Spartan-6 die is substantially smaller than the 300mm^2 package cavity.  Unfortunately I seem to have lost the two dead chips I had… argh.  I'm almost tempted to sacrifice one of the occasionally-flaky-but-mostly-working ones.

Also keep in mind that there's a substantial amount of per-die overhead for I/O pads and clocking infrastructure, so using two huge chips (like BFL does) instead of five tiny ones (like Bitfury would to get the same hashrate) is inherently a more efficient use of silicon -- but not 2x more efficient.  Sadly there aren't any bitstreams for Virtex-class devices that have had as much care put into them as the Bitfury/Tricone/BFL bitstreams for their respective devices.


Edit: the die size estimate for the Spartan-6 was off by 250%; I have actual measurements now (see below).
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1004
felonious vagrancy, personified
i want to go to heaven now. will you take me home with soft wings?

No problem.  That's my specialty.
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1004
felonious vagrancy, personified
the η-factor is listed by bitstream, per chip -- just like hashrates.

So you're saying your metric isn't much use since you can't list the most common mining FPGA's?

Please go troll somewhere else.  That isn't even remotely close to what I said.

All but one of the boards you listed use the exact same chip.


I can't calculate that because I don't know the die size for the chip in the BFL Single.  If BFL or somebody else posts this information I'll be happy to update it.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ok-i-confirmed-the-model-of-fpga-they-are-using-in-bfl-single-79825 <- 6 months ago

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ok-i-confirmed-the-model-of-fpga-they-are-using-in-bfl-single-79825 <- The die size is not listed in that thread.

Again, please go troll in another thread.
legendary
Activity: 4466
Merit: 1798
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4

When firstly it ignores the majority of the non-GPU devices currently mining
Icarus, Lancelot, ModMiner, Cairnsmore …

None of these mine without a bitstream.  The bitstream affects the hashrate (and therefore the η-factor) a lot while the particular board has very little impact aside from the number of chips on it.  That's why the η-factor is listed by bitstream, per chip -- just like hashrates.
So you're saying your metric isn't much use since you can't list the most common mining FPGA's?

There are bitstreams and devices used WAY more than anything you listed (ignoring GPUs)

BFL Singles,

I can't calculate that because I don't know the die size for the chip in the BFL Single.  If BFL or somebody else posts this information I'll be happy to update it.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ok-i-confirmed-the-model-of-fpga-they-are-using-in-bfl-single-79825 <- 6 months ago
sr. member
Activity: 966
Merit: 311
i want to go to heaven now. will you take me home with soft wings?

i want to see for myself how many angels can dance up on the head of a pin

we can quantify them in units hash-yoctometers per second
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1004
felonious vagrancy, personified
So ... reading through the first post ... I've not spotted where it says what use this is.

Here, I'll put it in red for you:

When firstly it ignores the majority of the non-GPU devices currently mining
Icarus, Lancelot, ModMiner, Cairnsmore …

None of these mine without a bitstream.  The bitstream affects the hashrate (and therefore the η-factor) a lot while the particular board has very little impact aside from the number of chips on it.  That's why the η-factor is listed by bitstream, per chip -- just like hashrates.


BFL Singles,

I can't calculate that because I don't know the die size for the chip in the BFL Single.  If BFL or somebody else posts this information I'll be happy to update it.


22.5 MH/s/nm vs 4,333 H/s/nm

The "M" was a typo (fixed).  All the numbers in that column have the same units.
legendary
Activity: 4466
Merit: 1798
Linux since 1997 RedHat 4
So ... reading through the first post ... I've not spotted where it says what use this is.

When firstly it ignores the majority of the non-GPU devices currently mining
BFL Singles, Icarus, Lancelot, ModMiner, Cairnsmore ...

and secondly you forgot to multiply by the colour Tongue

I'm also not sure how a Bitfury FPGA can come up ~5,192.7 times higher than a BFL SC.
22.5 MH/s/nm vs 4,333 H/s/nm
Makes it seem meaningless.
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1004
felonious vagrancy, personified
Updated with die size for BFL SC.  We now have the first ASIC η-factor figures!  Thanks for the transparency, BFL.  Hopefully your competitors will follow suit.
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1004
felonious vagrancy, personified
Updated to list BFL as 65nm.  Still no die size.
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1004
felonious vagrancy, personified
I've also added figures for the ATI 5870 since it seemed to be the popular card (I've never mined with GPUs so I'm probably wrong here).  I was initially surprised to find that it is has an η-factor that is actually on par with most Spartan-6 bitstreams.  Three reasons for this:

1. We have an exact die size for the 5870 but only an upper bound for the Spartan-6.  The Spartan-6 is definitely smaller than 300mm2, but Xilinx won't say how much smaller and I haven't gotten around to grinding the top off of one of my dead chips yet.

2. If you think about it, FPGAs have an enormous amount of routing, and any given design uses only a tiny fraction of it (probably under 5%).  Since η measures only how efficiently the silicon is used and has no bearing on power efficiency, it shouldn't be all that surprising that the unused routing on an FPGA accounts for about the same amount of silicon as the architecture-task mismatch on a GPU.  The main difference is that on an FPGA that unused routing sits idle and consumes no power.

3. The $/(MH/s) for 5870's and volume-priced Spartan-6's using a high-end bitstream is nearly identical -- 2 $/(MH/s).  Unfortunately the mining-hardware market is a lot smaller than the GPU market, so FPGA mining board vendors' markups have to be a lot higher than ATI's.


Edit: it turns out that my estimate of the die size for Spartan-6 was wildly off -- wrong by 250%.  See below for actual measurements from a demolished chip.
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1004
felonious vagrancy, personified
First you are multiplying by area, than in example you divide by it. (I assume the latter is correct.)


you have to multiply by lambda (in meters) rather than divide by it.

Yes, I swapped the multiplication and division in the instructions.  Thanks for catching this!  I've fixed it.

RHA
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
If you want to see how efficiently the transistors are utilized, you have to multiply by lambda (in meters) rather than divide by it.
In effect the units will be actually H/ms, but the calculated values will be a dozen orders of magnitude smaller.
RHA
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
Nice concept, but you've messed the SI units a bit. Do edit the text.
First you are multiplying by area, than in example you divide by it. (I assume the latter is correct.)

Take the hashrate (in H/s), multiply by the die area (in square
meters), and divide by the square of the process's lambda (in meters).
The resulting quantity is measured in hashes per meter-second.

For the above you would get Hm/s.

Example
The Bitfury hasher gets 300MH/s: 300*106H/s
It runs on a Spartan-6, which is a 45nm device with lambda=22.5nm on a 300mm2 die.
Dividing the hashrate by the area gives:  1*106H/(s*mm2)
Converting from mm2 to m2 gives  1H/(s*m2)
Dividing this by lambda (22.5*10-9 meters) gives  0.0444*109H/(s*m)
which is 44.44*106 H/(s*m) or roughly 44MH/s*m.

Summary
To compute the metric, take the overall throughput of the device
(hashes/sec), divide by the chip area measured in square meters and
divide again by the lambda factor for the process used.

For the above you get H/m3s  rather than H/ms.
donator
Activity: 980
Merit: 1004
felonious vagrancy, personified
      UPDATED 21-Jul-2013: added column showing delivery/verification status.  "Verified" means by an independent third party.  "Delivered" means at least a few have been sold in arm's-length transactions (i.e. not special favors to developers or reviewers).
      UPDATED: 22-Jun-2013 changed BFL numbers from post-tapeout claim (7.5GH/s) to actual measurement (4GH/s).
      UPDATED: 21-Jun-2013 added Bitfury 65nm 55nm figures (and fixed arithmetic error).

      Known Figures

      Design    MH/s        Device        Process node, $\lambda$        Area        η    (H*pm/s)    status

      Bitfury 55nm 2 GH/s   Custom    55nm, 27.5nm   14.44 mm2    
      2,880.45
      Pages:
      Jump to:
      © 2020, Bitcointalksearch.org