ROCKMINER - miners using GEN3 ASICMINER chips - page 12.

minerpumpkin

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 500

A pumpkin mines 27 hours a night

Quote from: rockxie on April 13, 2014, 01:08:57 PM

I mean it's not as good as we are expecting.

Please keep us updated on additional tests. Do you reckon you're able to improve the consumption? When are you able to perform new tests? Will the new chips be exactly the same as the old ones you tested? How did you cool the chips?

Franktank

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Quote from: binaryFate on April 13, 2014, 01:35:03 PM

Franktank thanks for putting things into context, but I think you did not enter the numbers properly: 0.855W is per GH, not for the whole chip.

Yea, I've corrected it but then I've taken down the chart. In my enthusiasm, I hastily plugged in numbers in an excel sheet incorrectly. I'll wait until they have final specs up.

binaryFate

legendary

Activity: 1484

Merit: 1003

Still wild and free

Franktank thanks for putting things into context, but I think you did not enter the numbers properly: 0.855W is per GH, not for the whole chip.

teek

hero member

Activity: 667

Merit: 500

Quote from: Franktank on April 13, 2014, 01:28:42 PM

Quote from: Mabsark on April 13, 2014, 01:26:35 PM

That list contains hardware that doesn't even exist.

It's from The Genesis Block and I'm aware that all other numbers are purely hypothetical. The only solid numbers from that chart are the ROCKMiner blade, based off of initial tests.

uhm, how do you get 0.0742 w/gh? that would be amazing but isn't at all true.. Might want to put the right data in that list.. if i'm not mistaken the real data would put us middle of the pack at best..... 0.855W/G as the rest of this stuff is "at the wall" i think? Hopefully this is just because of a crude test bench setup..

Mabsark

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1004

Quote from: Franktank on April 13, 2014, 01:28:42 PM

Quote from: Mabsark on April 13, 2014, 01:26:35 PM

That list contains hardware that doesn't even exist.

It's from The Genesis Block and I'm aware that all other numbers are purely hypothetical. The only solid numbers from that chart are the ROCKMiner blade, based off of initial tests.

The Virtual Mining hardware listed are based on the 28nm eASIC design which got cancelled ages ago.

RoadStress

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1007

Quote from: Franktank on April 13, 2014, 01:22:31 PM

For those wondering comparisons with the competition:

Note: "Efficiency" is comparing the the ROCKMiner test blade with all other hardware. Data was obtained from The Genesis Block. ROCKMiner blade is only after very few, unoptimized tests. It is subject to change.

So 11.52 GH for 0.855W? Really? Useless chart is useless.

Franktank

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Quote from: Mabsark on April 13, 2014, 01:26:35 PM

That list contains hardware that doesn't even exist.

It's from The Genesis Block and I'm aware that all other numbers are purely hypothetical. The only solid numbers from that chart are the ROCKMiner blade, based off of initial tests.

Mabsark

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1004

That list contains hardware that doesn't even exist.

Franktank

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

For those wondering comparisons with the competition:

Note: "Efficiency" is comparing the the ROCKMiner test blade with all other hardware. Data was obtained from The Genesis Block. ROCKMiner blade is only after very few, unoptimized tests. It is subject to change.

EDIT: Here are the updated numbers, please let me know of any more issues. Sorry for the confusion all.

EDIT2: I've taken down the chart. I'll repost it again when they have the final specifications. I apologize for any issues.

rockxie

sr. member

Activity: 284

Merit: 254

I mean it's not as good as we are expecting.

RoadStress

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1007

Quote from: rockxie on April 13, 2014, 11:10:25 AM

http://blog.rockminer.com/#!/2014/04/13/Testing_Results_Of_BE200.md

Testing Results Of BE200

We've got the results of one good testing board,it seems not good,but sill can be accepted.We will receive more chips at next weekend if things are going well .

Results:

Board:one chip testing board
Frequency:360Mhz
Volt:0.72V
Hashrate per chip:11.52Ghash
Power consumption:6.375W per chip
Power consumption per Ghash:6.375/11.52=0.5539W/Ghash
After power supply changeover:0.5539/81% = 0.684W/Ghash（at blade）
Power consumption on wall:0.684/0.8 = 0.855W/G
Adding other components loss about 1KW/Thash
Tips:this result is not very accurate just for reference.

What do you mean with "it seems not good"?

pigheadbig

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: rockxie on April 13, 2014, 11:10:25 AM

http://blog.rockminer.com/#!/2014/04/13/Testing_Results_Of_BE200.md

Testing Results Of BE200

We've got the results of one good testing board,it seems not good,but sill can be accepted.We will receive more chips at next weekend if things are going well .

Results:

Board:one chip testing board
Frequency:360Mhz
Volt:0.72V
Hashrate per chip:11.52Ghash
Power consumption:6.375W per chip
Power consumption per Ghash:6.375/11.52=0.5539W/Ghash
After power supply changeover:0.5539/81% = 0.684W/Ghash（at blade）
Power consumption on wall:0.684/0.8 = 0.855W/G
Adding other components loss about 1KW/Thash
Tips:this result is not very accurate just for reference.

good to see that, waiting for the result of final testing.

rockxie

sr. member

Activity: 284

Merit: 254

http://blog.rockminer.com/#!/2014/04/13/Testing_Results_Of_BE200.md

Testing Results Of BE200

We've got the results of one good testing board,it seems not good,but sill can be accepted.We will receive more chips at next weekend if things are going well .

Results:

Board:one chip testing board
Frequency:360Mhz
Volt:0.72V
Hashrate per chip:11.52Ghash
Power consumption:6.375W per chip
Power consumption per Ghash:6.375/11.52=0.5539W/Ghash
After power supply changeover:0.5539/81% = 0.684W/Ghash（at blade）
Power consumption on wall:0.684/0.8 = 0.855W/G
Adding other components loss about 1KW/Thash
Tips:this result is not very accurate just for reference.

Anotheranonlol

hero member

Activity: 588

Merit: 504

Quote from: rockxie on April 12, 2014, 10:33:03 PM

We noticed that there is already an asset named of ROCKMINER at Counter Market (http://www.blockscan.com/assetinfo.aspx?q=ROCKMINER) when doing some testing,it is not issued by us,please be aware of it.

It seems that everyone can issue any name of assets in Counter Market.We worry that this would confuse shareholders if we issue shares through this way.

Of course anybody can register any asset name. This is the nature of a decentralized protocol.It was registered few hours after you mention you are considering XCP without reserving it, so somebody decide to take opportunity to squat. Seems it was brought by this user https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/coingifts-245197 . maybe he will transfer ownership to you.

You would be free to register any other asset name you like, and as long as you mention it is the official address (you can make a signed message with the key, or post announcement) no users need to be confused.
users do not need to be confused about difference between AM1 and AM100 on havelock for instance.

I will be looking forward to buying shares of rockminer via counterparty distributed exchange in future.

pigheadbig

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: rockxie on April 12, 2014, 10:33:03 PM

Quote from: 520Bit on April 11, 2014, 10:50:17 AM

Quote from: rockxie on April 09, 2014, 02:32:43 AM

Havelock said their policy is changed,and they only accept direct shares right now.
XCP is under developing,we will consider it if it really works well.
Thanks for your supporting.

Quote from: minerpumpkin on April 08, 2014, 11:21:20 AM

Should I contact Havelock about the terms and conditions of running a Passthrough?
Do we want to keep everything in whole shares or rather fractional shares (1/100 maybe, like AM100?).

Would an external operator of a passthrough be OK for ROCKMINER?

Counterparty is your best choice to issue your STOCK! Counterparty have a full functionality now.

You can pay dividend by both BTC and XCP, choose whatever you like to pay.

Moreover, you can issue your shares with nearly zero cost, because it just costs you 0.5 XCP to issue any asset.

Counterparty thread on Bitcointalk: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annxcp-counterparty-pioneering-peer-to-peer-finance-official-thread-395761
Counterparty official website: https://www.counterparty.co
Counterparty online wallet: https://counterwallet.co/
Counterpartyd(Command line client): https://github.com/PhantomPhreak/counterpartyd
Counterparty GUI client BoottleXCP: https://github.com/JahPowerBit/BoottleXCP

We noticed that there is already an asset named of ROCKMINER at Counter Market (http://www.blockscan.com/assetinfo.aspx?q=ROCKMINER) when doing some testing,it is not issued by us,please be aware of it.

It seems that everyone can issue any name of assets in Counter Market.We worry that this would confuse shareholders if we issue shares through this way.

should make it clear or just buy the asset named of ROCKMINER if possible.

rockxie

sr. member

Activity: 284

Merit: 254

Quote from: 520Bit on April 11, 2014, 10:50:17 AM

Quote from: rockxie on April 09, 2014, 02:32:43 AM

Havelock said their policy is changed,and they only accept direct shares right now.
XCP is under developing,we will consider it if it really works well.
Thanks for your supporting.

Quote from: minerpumpkin on April 08, 2014, 11:21:20 AM

Should I contact Havelock about the terms and conditions of running a Passthrough?
Do we want to keep everything in whole shares or rather fractional shares (1/100 maybe, like AM100?).

Would an external operator of a passthrough be OK for ROCKMINER?

Counterparty is your best choice to issue your STOCK! Counterparty have a full functionality now.

You can pay dividend by both BTC and XCP, choose whatever you like to pay.

Moreover, you can issue your shares with nearly zero cost, because it just costs you 0.5 XCP to issue any asset.

Counterparty thread on Bitcointalk: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annxcp-counterparty-pioneering-peer-to-peer-finance-official-thread-395761
Counterparty official website: https://www.counterparty.co
Counterparty online wallet: https://counterwallet.co/
Counterpartyd(Command line client): https://github.com/PhantomPhreak/counterpartyd
Counterparty GUI client BoottleXCP: https://github.com/JahPowerBit/BoottleXCP

We noticed that there is already an asset named of ROCKMINER at Counter Market (http://www.blockscan.com/assetinfo.aspx?q=ROCKMINER) when doing some testing,it is not issued by us,please be aware of it.

It seems that everyone can issue any name of assets in Counter Market.We worry that this would confuse shareholders if we issue shares through this way.

pigheadbig

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: _mr_e on April 11, 2014, 12:19:49 PM

Quote from: rockxie on April 11, 2014, 04:40:46 AM

Testing boards are arrived,one BE200 on each,but we found that there were something wrong with them,some of components bought from Huaqiang North market can't work normally.We are working hard on this,more info will be given out soon.

http://blog.rockminer.com/#!/2014/04/11/Rockminer_update_of_11_April

What do they mean that something is wrong with the chips? Is this AMs chips??

the PCB components ,not the chips

Franktank

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 500

Quote from: _mr_e on April 11, 2014, 12:19:49 PM

What do they mean that something is wrong with the chips? Is this AMs chips??

Quote from: rockxie on April 11, 2014, 04:40:46 AM

Testing boards are arrived,one BE200 on each,but we found that there were something wrong with them, some of components bought from Huaqiang North market can't work normally.We are working hard on this,more info will be given out soon.

_mr_e

legendary

Activity: 817

Merit: 1000

Quote from: rockxie on April 11, 2014, 04:40:46 AM

Testing boards are arrived,one BE200 on each,but we found that there were something wrong with them,some of components bought from Huaqiang North market can't work normally.We are working hard on this,more info will be given out soon.

http://blog.rockminer.com/#!/2014/04/11/Rockminer_update_of_11_April

What do they mean that something is wrong with the chips? Is this AMs chips??

pigheadbig

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: rockxie on April 11, 2014, 04:40:46 AM

Testing boards are arrived,one BE200 on each,but we found that there were something wrong with them,some of components bought from Huaqiang North market can't work normally.We are working hard on this,more info will be given out soon.

http://blog.rockminer.com/#!/2014/04/11/Rockminer_update_of_11_April

hope everything go well for the miner.

Topic: ROCKMINER - miners using GEN3 ASICMINER chips - page 12. (Read 52761 times)