Quote from: Vycid on July 21, 2013, 07:34:15 PM

Quote from: HyperMega on July 21, 2013, 02:46:53 PM

Quote from: titomane on July 21, 2013, 01:33:39 PM

Quote from: ujka on July 20, 2013, 04:57:57 PM

Now that there is new data on die size, I updated the GH/wafer table:

Code:

wafer(mm) chip process(nm) die(mm^2) GH/s(per die) DpW GH/s(per wafer)
300 KnC 28 441,00 25 128 3200,00
300 bitfury 55 14,44 2 4717 9434,00
300 bfl 65 56,25 4 1167 4668,00
300 asciminer(?) 130 17,50 0,333 3877 1291,04
300 avalon 110 16,13 0,282 4214 1188,35
300 asciminer(?) 130 21,7 0,333 3112 1036,30
(DpW, die per wafer; yield percentage not taken into account)

Die size is less than 336mm2.
I think 18x18mm

Another detail for a better table. As far as I know, 130nm(110nm) are still manufactured based on 200mm wafers. 65nm(55nm) nodes were the first built with 300mm.

Ummmm. KnC is doing a 28nm process and getting only a third of the GH/s per wafer that bitfury is getting at 55nm?

We don't have the numbers in yet to be able to say for sure. But partly Bitfury is doing a full custom ASIC and will likely result in a more efficient chip overall than KNC's, at least for this generation.