litecoin asic miner price
Litecoin Mining Comparison Bitcoin Mining Comparison Cloud Mining Comparison do not guarantee that the data on this page is correct or up-to-date.Litecoin ASIC Mining Hardware(currently available on the market) HashCoins Ares 256 8.00 0.08 2048 3099 USB to PC/RPI No 4U No KnCMiner Titan 300 2.50 0.03 750 9995 Ethernet No Custom ?Alpha Technology Viper 50MH/s 50 7.50 0.02 375 2100 Ethernet No 3U Q1 2015?No Alpha Technology Viper 250MH/s 250 7.50 0.03 1875 8500 Ethernet No 3U Q1 2015?No EHS Miner Wolf V1 2GH/s 2048 2.93 0.10 6000 20995 Web interface Yes 4U Q2/Q3 2015 Yes EHS Miner Wolf V1 1GH/s 1048 2.86 0.09 3000 11995 Web interface Yes 4U Q2/Q3 2015 Yes FlowerTec Lilac 300 1.80 0.04 540 7900 Ethernet No 4U ?
No Hashra Astro Warp 2 200 6.00 0.23 1200 880 USB to PC/RPI No 4U February 2015?
ethereum price estimatesNo Hashra Astro Warp 3 300 6.00 0.23 1800 1290 USB to PC/RPI Yes 4U March 2015?No MinersLab Scrypter 300 0.70 0.07 430 4210 Integrated Yes 4U March 2015?No MinersLab Scrypter Pro 900 0.92 0.10 830 8770 Integrated Yes 4U March 2015?AMD's high-end R9 graphics card range is getting a lower-priced option with the Radeon R9 280.Spec-wise, the R9 280 is almost identical to AMD's Radeon HD 7950 with Boost, which first launched in August 2012.It has clock speeds up to 933 MHz, with 1792 stream processors, 112 texture units and 32 ROP units.It has 3 GB of 5 GHz GDDR5 memory on a 384-bit interface, and has a typical power draw of 250W.
Hexus notes that the R9 280 will mainly square off with Nvidia's GeForce GTX 760.There are a couple of differences from the Radeon HD 7950, however: Compared to the R9 280, the older card's boost clock speed is lower, at 925 MHz, but the 7950 also consumes less power at 225W.As we've seen with the recently-launched R7 250X, AMD has been rebranding some older cards to fit within its new R5-R7-R9 naming scheme.Although benchmarks from the new card aren't available, earlier tests of the Radeon 7950 by Eurogamer show the card managing at least 30 frames per second in 1080p on most newer games with graphics cranked up to very high or ultra settings.In Bioshock Infinite and Tomb Raider, the card cleared 60 frames per second on ultra settings.At a suggested price of $279, the R9 280 is just $20 cheaper than the R9 280X that launched last October.The 280X has a higher boost clock speed at 1000 MHz, higher memory clock at 6 GHz, 128 texture units and 2048 stream processors.The problem for AMD is that it's been having trouble stocking R9-series graphics cards at anywhere close to suggested pricing, likely because of interest in the cards for cryptocurrency mining.
AMD cards have proven better than Nvidia for mining currencies such as Litecoin, which has led to inflated prices and supply shortages.As AnandTech notes, AMD acknowledged the supply problems in a press statement: “Following the exceptional demand for the entire R9 Series, we believe the introduction of the R9 280 will help ensure that every gamer who plans to purchase an R9 Series graphics card has an opportunity to do so,” the company said.We'll see if AMD can make good on its word.The first R9 280 cards are due to launch this week in limited capacity, followed by wider availability next week.To comment on this article and other PCWorld content, visit our Facebook page or our Twitter feed.Guy Corem, former CEO of Spondoolies Tech, posted recently on the savings of ASICBoost.In this article, I hope to show exactly what his numbers say, what can possibly be in dispute and why his estimate of $2M savings is so divergent from Gregory Maxwell’s $100M payoff.Spondoolies Tech was a Bitcoin ASIC manufacturer until 2016 and they brought several miners to market.
Unfortunately, like every other Bitcoin ASIC manufacturer, they weren’t able to compete against BitMain and went out of business.They also had a patent that’s very similar to overt ASICBoost, so Guy is in a very good position to know what the actual costs are.Guy posted an equation on his post to calculate the savings of ASICBoost to Bitmain.I will, for the sake of clarity, simplify this equation:Savings = Bitmain’s Hash Rate * Mining Equipment Efficiency * Cost of Electricity * ASICBoost SavingsBitmain’s Hash Rate refers to how many hashes per second all their directly controlled miners calculate.Guy’s estimate here is 500 PH/s or about 13.2% of the network.This is can be done with about 40,000 Antminer S9’s (each of which get roughly 12.5 TH/s and cost about $1200).Mining Equipment Efficiency refers to how much power is used to calculate 1 GH.Guy’s number here is 0.1 J/GH, which is in the specification of the Antminer S9.Cost of Electricity refers to how much power costs.
Guy’s estimate here is $0.03/kWH.ASICBoost Savings refers to how much efficiency you can get using ASICBoost.Guy states this to be 15%.If you plug in the numbers, you get 15% of $13M, or $2M in savings per year.Greg stated in his post to the bitcoin-devs mailing list:A lot is included in between the parentheses (not uncommon for Greg), so let’s unpack it.His first assumption is that mining is at a profit equilibrium.That means that electricity cost equals Bitcoins generated.There are around 12.5 (plus fees) BTC generated every 10 minutes or 657,000 BTC per year or $723M/yr at the time of his post.His equation, then is something like:Savings = Unnamed Miner’s portion of the overall hash rate * Total Cost of mining per year * ASICBoost savingsUnnamed Miner’s portion of the overall hash rate is 50% in Greg’s assumption.ASICBoost savings is 30% in Greg’s assumption.(or 20% and may be a typographical error, more on that below)Total Cost of mining per year is, as stated, $723M/yr.Plug these in and you get $108M/yr, which he seems to have charitably rounded down to $100M/yr.The method of calculating these numbers is pretty different, but they boil down to these three disputes.Let’s look at each claim.This gets a little bit technical, but the essence of ASICBoost is that instead of doing roughly 4 equal functions, you can precompute 1 and do 3 each time instead.
For that reason, the theoretical limit to the savings is actually 25% as Adam Back says here (from Bitcoin Core Slack channel #tech-chat):The engineering reality is that with all the cost for finding collisions in covert ASICBoost, the actual savings is at most 20% and 15% is actually a good estimate.That said, this is the smallest disputed amount, and actually doesn’t materially change Greg’s claim very much ($80M instead of $100M when you account for block fees, etc).Also, Greg mentioned 20% earlier in his email and may just have made a typographical error in the sentence I quoted.AntPool’s Hashing power currently is about 17%.This includes people that own and run miners in another geography and mine at that pool.Nobody (other than Bitmain) knows the actual proportion of miners that AntPool directly controls, but it’s likely to be something lower than 17%.13.2% (500 PH/s) sounds like a reasonable figure as given by Guy.That said, there are other pools that Bitmain may control and 50% is a purely theoretical number from Greg’s estimate.
I will point out here that Stratum (the protocol for communication between pools and mining equipment) does not support overt or covert ASICBoost.In order for 50% to be using covert or overt ASICBoost, the equipment would need to be using a protocol other than Stratum to communicate with the mining pool.This would be easy to notice and thus far, no evidence that such communication between equipment and pool has taken place (on mainnet for overt ASICBoost, on mainnet or testnet for covert ASICBoost) exists.This is the biggest cause of the divergent estimates and is interestingly, the easiest to determine.Guy’s estimate comes from the Antminer S9 specifications and the current network difficulty.These are all published and well known and anyone can go to a Bitcoin Mining Profitability calculator and see that he’s correct.That said, what Greg was talking about is the theoretical limit, which is the equilibrium point at which new mining equipment is unprofitable to be introduced onto the network.
Generally, the network converges to that point, but when you have Bitcoin price appreciation as we’ve had the last 6 months, the network will generally be way below this equilibrium point until manufacturing has a chance to catch up.Using Guy’s numbers we can get a rough estimate for how profitable Bitmain’s mining venture is.They have 13.2% of the network and there will be about 735,000 in Bitcoins made through mining this year.Thus, Bitmain will get around 100,000 BTC.At today’s prices, that’s ~ $120M.Their costs are electricity (which is $13M from above) and the costs of the miners themselves, assuming they last a year ($1200 for S9 * 40,000 units ~ $50M).They make $60M before accounting for the costs of a data center, which we can roughly estimate at $10M, including cooling, personnel, racks, routers, etc.$120M in revenue and $70M in costs mean $50M in profit.If this seems high to you, remember that this equipment was largely made and designed when Bitcoin prices were much lower.
At $700/BTC, Bitmain breaks even.At $130/BTC, Bitmain can only pay the electricity costs (this is the theoretical equilibrium point from Greg Maxwell’s estimate).(Edit: see this post for an update)The main takeaway is that Guy and Greg are both right (except possibly for the ASICBoost savings part for Greg) and they’re really talking about two different things.Guy is talking about the current state of the network and Bitmain’s current savings to use ASICBoost.Essentially, he’s saying it’s not worth it for Bitmain now to use ASICBoost since it only saves $2M in a business that’s making a lot more.Greg is talking about the theoretical future state of the network and a miner’s potential savings should the network reach a theoretical equilibrium point.Essentially, he’s saying that the it may be worth it for a mining company to benefit greatly in using ASICBoost in the future.In other words, much like a lot of the dialogue in Bitcoin, two people can sound like they’re disagreeing, but are actually both telling the truth.