I think it might be the label, actually. When one sees "Cost Efficiency", one thinks "bigger = more efficient is better". Maybe this can be corrected to "Cost per gigahash".
(Also, it's inconsistent with Power Efficiency. You should probably decide on one way to display the numbers and use it for both. It's confusing otherwise.)
(Also, it's inconsistent with Power Efficiency. You should probably decide on one way to display the numbers and use it for both. It's confusing otherwise.)
That's a good point. I changed the headings to just show the unitsand reversed the power / GH ratio to match the cost.
This is the info I entered:
- 5 x K1 nano @ $275(250 + 25 shipping)
- Same 10W power @ .12kw/h cost
- 1.75GH/s | 1775MH/s Hash Rate(Assuming an overclock @350MH/s)
Here's where things get interesting. According to this calculator, in 6 months I'll still be about $80 in the hole. Where as bitcoinX says I'd have made 152 bucks, with the hardware paying itself off roughly at the end of month 3. I'm a bit confused because one says I'll spend more than I'll ever make, while the other says I'd make an okay profit.
Not sure which I should believe?
Dree seems to have answered your question well, but this raises the point that we need to make it easier to share the inputs. I'll try and get a solution out in a week or so.