Quote from: physalis on September 04, 2013, 07:14:32 PM

dexX7, I really appreciate your posts, contrary to most here, they're always really informative Cool

I too expect the chips to underperform. Actually, everything above 70% would really surprise me.
But I don't think it matters much. The share price is still way too low if they have working chips, even if they just perform at 40%.
In every scenario where they actually start hashing, we're good.

Thanks!

I agree. And even if they only achive half of what BitFury did, it's still fine with an estimated cost of $ 9-10 chip.

Quote from: Ytterbium on September 04, 2013, 07:23:42 PM

The W/mm² issue has to do with the size of the physical chip, not the size of the packaging. There's only so much heat that can be removed from silicon for a given temperature gradient.

Secondly, they expect 2,000 chips and 3-4H/s. That comes out to just 1.5-2gh/s/chip, not 4.8. So they are already expecting about half the theoretical max output of their chips. And, at 2.7W/gh/s, that comes out to just 4-5.4W, not 12.8.

I'm aware of that. Labcoin 1st gen has a die size of 6,5 mm x 6,5 mm and Avalon 7 mm x 7 mm. Also: "... underperform ... in comparison to the original announcement ... would approximately match a deployment of 3 TH/s+ [as lately announced]". Please don't get me wrong, my only intention was to provide a reasonable context, nothing more.

The following might have been a hint from TheSwede75:

Quote from: TheSwede75 on August 29, 2013, 04:05:45 PM

As we hope is clear Labcoins 1st gen chips are not 'state of the art' chips that will push the limits on power consumption and effective but rather Labcoin focuses on pushing the envelope in terms of chip cost and time to market. As it looks now, we should be able to compete in price/hash-rate with December competition, and deliver chips as early as 2 months ahead of them, something that should be ROI+ no matter power cost for the mining public.