Quote from: PuertoLibre on April 27, 2013, 10:56:31 PM

BFL's 65nm chips perform nearly as bad as 110nm chips.

Wait, what? I thought, chip for chip, BFL's chips seriously outperform the Avalon ones. Hence why Avalon uses 108 or something chips to achieve 60GH/s, while BFL only uses (im assuming) 16. And while they did seriously miss their power specs, the point is still true that they're more energy efficient per GH/s. I don't run with the "well, everything is alright" crew, as it clearly is not, but at the same time, anyone expecting BFL to ship on time is an idiot, and anyone expecting BFL to be even reasonably close with their power estimates is also incredibly stupid. From the get-go, I knew they would be delayed at a minimum of 4-5 months. So I took that into account. I also knew that they'd miss their power target significantly (not nearly as significantly as they did, but I still knew they'd miss it). I don't support the "BFL are all assholes and fuck everything up" nor the "BFL will make everything alright". I stick to facts. Fact is they've screwed up a lot of things, but do appear to be shipping out now. The quoted section is nowhere near fact. You can say that ordering a batch 1 Avalon is a lot better than a first day BFL, sure (citing the fact that what those customers have now earned will last them thousands of years of electricity costs based on the fact that Avalon uses more electricity than a BFL for same hash power - they're already and forever will be ahead). But based on 2 actual products that exist and have been shown to exist by serveral customers with them in hand, you can't start coming up with crap to troll BFL customers with (despite how entertaining it is from time to time).