Quote from: cicada on December 13, 2011, 05:05:41 AM

I think we need some fingerprint analysis on the digit reflected in the kill-a-watt, to be entirely sure that aliens were not involved.

No we don't 820MH on 82W is horrible. Nobody would fake that. That's 10MH/W. Other FPGA boards are getting >2x that.

So finally nearly 2 months later after all the speculation on their "insane performance breakthrough" it turns out there is no breakthrough. Performance per watt is inferior to existing designs which have already shipped. It was the performance per watt claim which was so implausible. Well beyond what current gen FPGA are capable of. The only tech capable of that level of performance (sASICS, etc) have such high upfront costs is seemed implausible that a company from nowhere would have that kind of capital. The reality was simpler ... It was never possible.

While needing to throttle the top speed due to power/thermal issues is understandable getting power consumption wrong by >400% isn't. I mean this isn't like saying 20W and it turns out to be 23W. It would be like Toyota claiming a Prius gets 130MPG and then at launch it turns out it gets worse gas mileage than every existing hybrid already on the market.

Generally it is a good idea of benchmark your own product before selling it w/ a specific level of performance claimed.

BTW where did the very exact performance numbers come from. 1.05GH. the .05 implies a high level of confidence, and thus testing. When did you see 1.05GH in the lab? Ever? Same thing w/ power. The claims wasn't ~20W it was 19.8W. You were that sure it was .8 not .7 or .9 to use the significant digit. Did you EVER see 19.8W in the lab?