Well stable, the BFL unit is > 4x the hashrate than ztek and more than double ngzhang. Power draw is also more than double ngzhang (Dunno what ztek power draw is). Even allowing for a 10% efficiency decrease for "real world" scenario vs the test data, the numbers still hold.
Ztek, rph, and ngzhang's boards all have roughly the same power effciency ~20MH/W (+/-10%) which is mainly driven by the power demand of the FPGA.
It would seem this board has similar power efficiency? I would just like to restate for my record it was way back on page 1 that I indicated that 50MH/W was implausible for a FPGA (45nm). That is what lead to all the speculation of sASICS and the likelihood of scam given the costs involved w/ sASIC development, etc.
Just to clarify you were comparing the 0 error hashrate not the higher 50% error hashrate right?
Thanks for providing more ballpark details.
What is somewhat alarming is not getting performance specs wrong. Shit happens but how does a company get the claimed wattage that wrong. I mean if you are using FPGA x it's power draw is not going to vary by +/- 80%. So what performance you get out of the chip may vary by bitstream, cooling, power regulation, the particular FGPA used, speed rating, etc the wattage shouldn't be that variable.