Quote

One more month, or two... and we will see the results, in full technicolor detail. Tongue

I was referring to my specific orders... not his. Does he have full technicolor ability?

P.S. The cake is a lie!

So, as stated before, and the others have proven... Estimated values, are just estimates, even by a "regulatory board". (Regulatory boards use closed-loops, which are "perfect world" constants.) Saying it gets 34MPG and then it actually gets 42MPG would also be a "lie", so that german car defense is moot, and untrue BS. (I am sure a few cars are under-estimated, but not all german cars even have that information.)

The chips "nominal", and the "miners nominal" are/may not be the same. By your same analogy, you are not running the chip directly off the wall. It is part of a system, and the "system", is what determines the value it wants as nominal/normal. If you buy an overclocked unit, then the chip is not run at nominal speeds, though the oc-unit is running at a nominal level, for the unit. My GPU chips nominal use, by the MFG is 200W, the company that used the chip, runs it nominal {normal-stock} at about 225W. (It is an over-clockers card, pre-clocked.) Other versions of the card, cheap ones with poor regulators, nominally run about 180W to be "safe".

But anyways, you are complaining about a few watts, on specs that were an estimate, for a machine that didn't exist at the time, and is just being "made" now. Is that how you buy cars... You bitch about not getting 45MPG, because you only got 38MPG. And you have refused a good deal on a car, because you KNOW it will never get that MPG, at the speeds you want to drive it at.

Any-ways, now there is not much left for people to do, but nit-pick on the details. "Omg, it's blue in the picture and you sent me a red one!" By the way, nothing BFL said was even close to specs, and KNC is still ball-park, as were the Avalons, and every other created ASIC. Though, once delivered, they corrected the values a little. Avalons still crash at the rated speeds. Needing constant resetting.

I don't know why you can't fathom that ~600W is the estimated power for 1.2THs operation, and that ~300W is obviously the MINIMUM the unit runs at, at ???GHs. (That low is not stated. Why you would ever think that they are saying 300W @ 1.2THs is beyond my comprehension. That is not what it says.)

I just showed you that 1.2THs can be done at 420W, with plenty of room to spare, with those specific chips. "At the wall". My whole computer runs off 38W "at the wall", that is a 4GHz, quad-core, 8GB ram, 4 fans, and every component on the mother-board. (That is minus my 7x180W GPU's.) I am sure the rest of their system will consume less than that, which is still under 600W total.

My computer miners run from 800W - 1800W and get 4.4MHs (At the 1800W level they get the 4.4MHs, not at 800W, they only get about 3.0Mhs.) * This is a scrypt speeds, not sha-356 speeds. I make more money than a 120GHs sha-256 ASIC.
http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency/?sha256HashRate=120000.00&sha256Power=300.00&sha256PowerCost=0.1500&scryptHashRate=4400.00&scryptPower=1800.00&scryptPowerCost=0.1500&sha256Check=true&scryptCheck=true

Thus, why the 2x 1.2THs miner is the only viable option for the future. For me. (Time to retire my four scrypt miners, that cost me about $780 a month to operate, to replace them with something that only costs me about $128 a month to operate. I honestly don't care if it ends-up costing double that, in the end, in power.)
http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency/?sha256HashRate=2400000.00&sha256Power=1200.00&sha256PowerCost=0.1500&scryptHashRate=17600.00&scryptPower=7200.00&scryptPowerCost=0.1500&sha256Check=true&scryptCheck=true