Class v6 D4: section 8a, the market-structure axis (private supply, hardware sales, multiple suppliers, concentration) for the board, the hybrid and the die at the adversary lane's placed energies (a sold or multi-sourced die is worse than a private one; the board coexists under every structure in growing and flat paths); the sensitivity workbook (171 threshold rows with their assumptions in columns, never served as boundaries)
Co-Authored-By: Claude Fable 5.1 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
igneum-labs
parent
ec31f65db2
commit
d0e2018fc8
2 changed files with 263 additions and 0 deletions
|
|
@ -255,6 +255,77 @@ flat or shrinking path by year 3 to 5. The pass line's "small network": the boar
|
|||
1.00 (the growing path's year 4), so it does not need one; the die's failure is worst in a small network, and a large
|
||||
one only delays it.
|
||||
|
||||
## 8a. Amendment, 17:1x UK: the market-structure axis, at the adversary lane's placed energies
|
||||
|
||||
The complete 2.0 plan (docs/plans/igneum-2.0.md at b943c047, the addendum) adds MARKET STRUCTURE as a scenario axis:
|
||||
private supply (the operator self-mining a fixed fleet), public hardware sales (one manufacturer selling units at
|
||||
twice their hardware term, buyers entering at cost up to a year's production), multiple suppliers (three derivative
|
||||
designs at a 1.2x markup and three times the production), and concentration (the largest single supplier's share of
|
||||
the chain's hash). The three chips are scored at the adversary lane's PLACED whole-machine energies (the design's
|
||||
10.0r: the board 1.6x node-for-node and 1.9x a node ahead, the stored-half hybrid 2.4x and 2.9x, the die 2.4x and
|
||||
3.3x, per joule against the 5090 at its lock; per-dollar unchanged), which replace the chip-model energies of
|
||||
sections 2 and 12 for this axis. Budget USD 10 M (a fleet, or a year's production); entry at year 2; the bought
|
||||
fleet is sunk and stays while revenue covers its power; the per-class GPU supply curve of section 9. Script
|
||||
`scratchpad/market.py` on build-4, 17:07 UK; all modelled.
|
||||
|
||||
First, the chips re-scored at the placed energies (sunk, 3 years, at 0.06):
|
||||
|
||||
| Chip, placed energy | Cost per accepted MH/s-hour, node-for-node / a node ahead | (a) against the best Blackwell owner at 0.12 (line 1.5x) | (b) hardware over the 5080 entrant's (line 0.25) | (e) joules at the knee (line 3x): vs the 5090 lock / the 5070 Ti knee | Label |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| GDDR7 board, 1.6x / 1.9x | 363 / 343 micro-USD | 0.72x / 0.76x: PASSES | 0.52: PASSES | 1.6x / 1.2x; 1.9x / 1.4x: PASSES | modelled on the adversary lane's rows |
|
||||
| Stored-half hybrid, 2.4x / 2.9x | 186 / 172 | 1.41x / 1.52x: ON THE LINE | 0.23: FAILS by a hair | 2.4x / 1.75x; 2.9x / 2.1x: PASSES | the same |
|
||||
| N2 SRAM die, 2.4x / 3.3x | 115 / 92 | 2.29x / 2.84x: FAILS | 0.07: FAILS | 2.4x / 1.75x; 3.3x / 2.4x: PASSES today, on the line a node ahead | the same |
|
||||
|
||||
At the placed energies the die passes (e) where the chip-model energy failed it, and still fails (a), (b), (c) and
|
||||
(f): its ticket, not its joules, is what fails it, which is the floor file's reading from the other side.
|
||||
|
||||
The five-year run with the axis (chip share of the hash / the supplier's margin / the largest single supplier's
|
||||
share / GPU classes above water, at years 2, 3 and 5):
|
||||
|
||||
| Chip | Structure | Growing x2 from 0.10 | Flat 0.10 | Shrinking x0.5 from 0.30 |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Board | private supply | 9 / 59 / 9 / 14; 7 / 52 / 7 / 15; 5 / 63 / 5 / 16 | 14 / 49 / 14 / 12; 16 / 23 / 16 / 11; 24 / 12 / 24 / 6 | 10 / 55 / 10 / 13; 22 / 15 / 22 / 8; 91 / -57 / 91 / 2 |
|
||||
| Board | hardware sales | 4 / 60 / 4 / 14; 5 / 52 / 5 / 15; 8 / 63 / 8 / 16 | 3 / 49 / 3 / 12; 3 / 23 / 3 / 11; 6 / 12 / 6 / 6 | 3 / 55 / 3 / 13; 8 / 20 / 8 / 11; 39 / -23 / 39 / 4 |
|
||||
| Board | multiple suppliers | 24 / 56 / 8 / 13; 31 / 45 / 10 / 14; 42 / 57 / 14 / 15 | 25 / 46 / 8 / 12; 37 / 18 / 12 / 11; 66 / 2 / 22 / 6 | 25 / 52 / 8 / 12; 45 / 7 / 15 / 6; 100 / -236 / 33 / 0 |
|
||||
| Hybrid | private supply | 19 / 78 / 19 / 13; 16 / 75 / 16 / 15; 10 / 81 / 10 / 16 | 29 / 72 / 29 / 11; 39 / 57 / 39 / 11; 64 / 51 / 64 / 6 | 23 / 76 / 23 / 13; 42 / 52 / 42 / 6; 100 / -65 / 100 / 0 |
|
||||
| Hybrid | hardware sales | 19 / 78 / 19 / 13; 30 / 72 / 30 / 14; 35 / 79 / 35 / 15 | 29 / 72 / 29 / 11; 49 / 54 / 49 / 8; 89 / 38 / 89 / 4 | 23 / 76 / 23 / 13; 50 / 52 / 50 / 6; 100 / -121 / 100 / 0 |
|
||||
| Hybrid | multiple suppliers | 49 / 74 / 16 / 12; 70 / 64 / 23 / 12; 78 / 70 / 26 / 13 | 69 / 64 / 23 / 6; 95 / 31 / 32 / 3; 100 / -42 / 33 / 0 | 57 / 70 / 19 / 11; 97 / 22 / 32 / 2; 100 / -158 / 33 / 0 |
|
||||
| Die | private supply | 50 / 84 / 50 / 12; 43 / 81 / 43 / 13; 30 / 89 / 30 / 15 | 70 / 78 / 70 / 6; 89 / 64 / 89 / 6; 100 / 48 / 100 / 0 | 58 / 82 / 58 / 11; 96 / 55 / 96 / 3; 100 / -177 / 100 / 0 |
|
||||
| Die | hardware sales | 50 / 84 / 50 / 12; 71 / 77 / 71 / 12; 79 / 84 / 79 / 12 | 70 / 78 / 70 / 6; 99 / 50 / 99 / 2; 100 / -2 / 100 / 0 | 58 / 82 / 58 / 11; 100 / 42 / 100 / 1; 100 / -57 / 100 / 0 |
|
||||
| Die | multiple suppliers | 95 / 75 / 32 / 6; 99 / 52 / 33 / 2; 100 / 61 / 33 / 2 | 100 / 52 / 33 / 0; 100 / 5 / 33 / 0; 100 / -57 / 33 / 0 | 98 / 67 / 33 / 3; 100 / -29 / 33 / 0; 100 / -57 / 33 / 0 |
|
||||
|
||||
Reading, per structure:
|
||||
|
||||
1. **Private supply** is the first cut's row: the board coexists (5 to 24 percent of the chain at a 12 to 63 percent
|
||||
margin, 6 to 16 classes above water) except in a shrinking chain's last year; the hybrid coexists in a growing
|
||||
chain (10 to 19 percent) and takes a flat or shrinking one (64 to 100 percent by year 5); the die takes the chain
|
||||
on every flat or shrinking path by year 3 to 5 and holds 30 to 50 percent of a growing one.
|
||||
2. **Public hardware sales** LOWER the board's and raise the hybrid's and the die's share: a manufacturer's markup
|
||||
doubles the buyer's hardware term, which is most of the board's cost (its share falls to 3 to 8 percent, with 4 to
|
||||
16 classes above water) and a small part of the die's (its cumulative production takes 79 to 100 percent of the
|
||||
chain by year 3 to 5 on every path). Selling the die is worse for coexistence than mining it privately, because a
|
||||
sold fleet keeps growing while the price covers its power and a private one is fixed.
|
||||
3. **Multiple suppliers** raise every chip's share (three times the production at a lower markup) and lower the
|
||||
largest supplier's share to a third of it: the board's three suppliers hold 24 to 66 percent of the chain between
|
||||
them at 8 to 22 percent each with 6 to 15 classes above water in the growing and flat paths (coexistence with a
|
||||
less concentrated supply), and take a shrinking chain outright; the hybrid's and the die's three suppliers take the
|
||||
chain on every path but the growing one (49 to 100 percent), with the largest at a third.
|
||||
4. **Concentration** is the fourth column: a private fleet is one operator and one supplier at its whole share; a
|
||||
sold fleet is one supplier at its whole share and many operators; three suppliers cap any one at a third. The
|
||||
dependence table of section 11 reads the same fact in wafers: the chain is 17 to 128 N2 wafers from one supplier
|
||||
at any price in the window.
|
||||
|
||||
The condition this adds to section 12: (h) the supply structure. The success statement holds for the board under
|
||||
every structure in the growing and flat paths (its largest supplier never above 24 percent of the chain, its margin
|
||||
a normal return, 6 to 16 classes above water) and fails for it only in a shrinking chain's last year; it holds for the
|
||||
hybrid only under private supply in a growing chain; it fails for the die under every structure on every path except
|
||||
private supply in a growing chain, and a sold or multi-sourced die is worse than a privately mined one. Hardware
|
||||
sales and multiple suppliers, which the GPU side has by nature, are what make a chip's supply grow with the price and
|
||||
are therefore not a mitigation for the die; they are one for the board, whose cost is the hardware they mark up.
|
||||
|
||||
The figures above and every threshold in this document live in `docs/analysis/class-v6/coexistence-workbook.md` with
|
||||
their assumptions in columns; none is served as a boundary.
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Miners react with no fixed shares (D4: new)
|
||||
|
||||
The reaction rule replacing the first cut's single rule: each class participates with a fraction of its base, the
|
||||
|
|
@ -400,6 +471,8 @@ schedule's ticket argument (the floor file 3.2) applies to it at the SRAM's USD
|
|||
| The tariff advantage shown separately from the hardware advantage, the 6.25x illustration first | section 1 | in |
|
||||
| The operator simulation | section 10 and its own file | in (first run) |
|
||||
| A third chip, the adversary lane's hybrid board, on the conditions and the surface | section 12a (amendment, 17:0x UK) | in |
|
||||
| Market structure as a scenario axis (private supply, hardware sales, multiple suppliers, concentration), a row per structure for each of the three chips, at the adversary lane's placed energies | section 8a (amendment, 17:1x UK) | in |
|
||||
| The sensitivity workbook: every threshold with its assumptions in columns, never served as a boundary | `docs/analysis/class-v6/coexistence-workbook.md` (171 rows, 17:1x UK) | in |
|
||||
| The k lane's placed rows and the adversary lane's whole-machine rows | the chip rows stand until they land | owed by others |
|
||||
| Per-card agents, the hybrid mode, the measured stage times in the simulation | the simulation's section 4 | second cut |
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
190
docs/analysis/class-v6/coexistence-workbook.md
Normal file
190
docs/analysis/class-v6/coexistence-workbook.md
Normal file
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,190 @@
|
|||
# The coexistence sensitivity workbook: every threshold figure with the assumptions that produce it
|
||||
|
||||
8 October 2026, 17:1x UK, branch `class-v6-floor-sram`, floor lane 3, Igneum 2.0 D4 (the research lane's pin of 17:xx UK). Every row here is a figure produced today by the floor file (`docs/analysis/class-v6/floor/sram-and-floor.md`), the coexistence model (`docs/analysis/class-v6/coexistence-model.md`) or this lane's scripts, with the assumption that produces it in its own column, so that a reader can change one column and see the figure move. **Nothing in this table is a boundary the chain stays below; every figure is modelled unless its label says otherwise, and the model document cites this workbook instead of stating a threshold in prose.** Generated by `scratchpad/market.py` on build-4 (the rows, 17:07 UK) from the same code that produced the documents' tables; the condition lines are judgement lines, labelled as such. The founder is not named.
|
||||
|
||||
## How to read a row
|
||||
|
||||
`figure` is the quantity; `value` and `unit` its number; the next columns are the assumptions that produce it (`n/a` where the figure does not depend on that assumption); `GPU_cost_basis` says whether the GPU side is priced at MSRP or street and which card and operating point; `emission_years` says which years of the spec's constant the figure integrates; `price_assumption` carries an IGN price where one is assumed and `solved` where the price is the output; `source_section` is where the figure is used; `label` is measured, modelled, approximate or a judgement line.
|
||||
|
||||
The standing assumptions behind every surface row unless the row says otherwise: the spec's emission (0.77 / 0.80 / 0.40 / 0.40 / 0.20 / 0.20 / 0.10 / 0.10 B IGN to miners in years 1 to 8), the project starting at launch and mining for `life_y` years after `pre_production_y`, mid-year discounting, the chip's margin `1 - (0.000084 / edge + capex / (life x 8,766)) / 0.00092` with the 5090 at the lock over two years at MSRP as the GPU all-in cost (USD 0.00092 per MH/s-hour, 0.000084 of it electricity), the fleet capital and residual dropped (under 2 percent of revenue). The break-even electricity rows assume 97 percent accepted work, a 1 percent pool fee, a 5 percent wear allowance on the used price for the owner, a two-year life with the table's resale for the entrant, and the chip at USD 0.06 per kWh plus USD 0.02 of hosting with development sunk.
|
||||
|
||||
## The rows
|
||||
|
||||
| figure | value | unit | discount | life_y | share_q | project_cost_USD_M | pre_production_y | edge_per_joule | chip_capex_USD_per_MHs | GPU_cost_basis | electricity_USD_kWh | emission_years | price_assumption | source_section | label |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| lower threshold: no chip project below | 23 | USD M a year of miner revenue at launch | 0.10 | 4 (years 3 to 6) | 1.0 | 20 | 2 | 5x | n/a (margin 1 - 1/e) | n/a | n/a | y3 to y6 at the constant | p* 0.029 USD per IGN | floor 4.2 / 4.3 | modelled |
|
||||
| upper threshold: every DRAM-board project above | 340 | USD M a year of miner revenue at launch | 0.10 | 4 (years 3 to 6) | 0.3 | 75 | 2 | 3x | n/a (margin 1 - 1/e) | n/a | n/a | y3 to y6 at the constant | p* 0.441 USD per IGN | floor 4.2 / 4.3 | modelled |
|
||||
| SRAM project taking the chain | 98 | USD M a year of miner revenue at launch | 0.10 | 4 (years 3 to 6) | 1.0 | 100 | 2 | 13x | n/a (margin 1 - 1/e) | n/a | n/a | y3 to y6 at the constant | p* 0.127 USD per IGN | floor 4.2 / 4.3 | modelled |
|
||||
| SRAM project at a third | 566 | USD M a year of miner revenue at launch | 0.10 | 4 (years 3 to 6) | 0.3 | 150 | 2 | 5x | n/a (margin 1 - 1/e) | n/a | n/a | y3 to y6 at the constant | p* 0.735 USD per IGN | floor 4.2 / 4.3 | modelled |
|
||||
| development cost range, cheapest DRAM-board chip | 20 to 75 | USD M | n/a | n/a | n/a | 20 to 75 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | floor 4.3 (floor lane 5: no 28 nm GDDR7 PHY) | approximate |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.224 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 20 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.067 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 20 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.105 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 0.3 | 20 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.031 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 1.0 | 20 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.070 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 2 | 0.3 | 20 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.021 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 2 | 1.0 | 20 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.054 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 20 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.016 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 1.0 | 20 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.493 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 20 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.148 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 20 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.230 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 0.3 | 20 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.069 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 1.0 | 20 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.117 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 2 | 0.3 | 20 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.035 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 2 | 1.0 | 20 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.095 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 20 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.028 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 1.0 | 20 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.841 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 75 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.252 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 75 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.392 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 0.3 | 75 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.118 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 1.0 | 75 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.261 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 2 | 0.3 | 75 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.078 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 2 | 1.0 | 75 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.201 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 75 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.060 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 1.0 | 75 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 1.849 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 75 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.555 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 75 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.862 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 0.3 | 75 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.259 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 1.0 | 75 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.437 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 2 | 0.3 | 75 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.131 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 2 | 1.0 | 75 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.355 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 75 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.107 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 1.0 | 75 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 1.681 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 150 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.504 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 150 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.784 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 0.3 | 150 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.235 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 1.0 | 150 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.521 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 2 | 0.3 | 150 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.156 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 2 | 1.0 | 150 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.402 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 150 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.121 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 1.0 | 150 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 3.699 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 150 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 1.110 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 150 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 1.725 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 0.3 | 150 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.517 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 1.0 | 150 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.874 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 2 | 0.3 | 150 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.262 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 2 | 1.0 | 150 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.711 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 150 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.213 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 1.0 | 150 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 5.604 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 500 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 1.681 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 500 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 2.613 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 0.3 | 500 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.784 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 1.0 | 500 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 1.738 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 2 | 0.3 | 500 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.521 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 2 | 1.0 | 500 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 1.339 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 500 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.402 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 1.0 | 500 | 1 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 12.329 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 500 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 3.699 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 500 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 5.749 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 0.3 | 500 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 1.725 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 1.0 | 500 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 2.913 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 2 | 0.3 | 500 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.874 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 2 | 1.0 | 500 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 2.369 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 500 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, operator self-mining | 0.711 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 1.0 | 500 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | 5090 at the lock over 2 y, MSRP (0.00092 per MH/s-h) | 0.06 chip | T0+1 onward at the constant | solved | floor 4.4 A | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, edge axis | 0.732 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 150 | 2 | 2x | 0.5 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | floor 4.4 A2 | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, edge axis | 0.720 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 150 | 2 | 3x | 0.5 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | floor 4.4 A2 | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, edge axis | 0.703 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 150 | 2 | 13x | 0.5 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | floor 4.4 A2 | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, chip capex axis | 0.789 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 150 | 2 | 5x | 2.8 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | floor 4.4 A2 | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, chip capex axis | 0.881 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 150 | 2 | 5x | 5.0 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | floor 4.4 A2 | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, discount axis | 0.611 | USD per IGN | 0.05 | 3 | 0.3 | 150 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | this workbook | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, discount axis | 0.821 | USD per IGN | 0.15 | 3 | 0.3 | 150 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | this workbook | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, street GPU prices (capex term x2: GPU all-in 0.00176) | 0.372 | USD per IGN (approximate: p* scales with the GPU all-in cost) | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 150 | 2 | 5x | 0.5 | street (2x MSRP) | 0.06 | constant | solved | this workbook | approximate |
|
||||
| surface p*, the hybrid board | 0.797 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 0.3 | 50 | 2 | 2.7x | 2.44 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | model 12a | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, the hybrid board | 0.239 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 1.0 | 50 | 2 | 2.7x | 2.44 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | model 12a | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, the hybrid board | 0.263 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 50 | 2 | 2.7x | 2.44 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | model 12a | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, the hybrid board | 0.079 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 1.0 | 50 | 2 | 2.7x | 2.44 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | model 12a | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, the hybrid board | 1.992 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 0.3 | 125 | 2 | 2.7x | 2.44 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | model 12a | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, the hybrid board | 0.598 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 1.0 | 125 | 2 | 2.7x | 2.44 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | model 12a | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, the hybrid board | 0.658 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 125 | 2 | 2.7x | 2.44 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | model 12a | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, the hybrid board | 0.197 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 1.0 | 125 | 2 | 2.7x | 2.44 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | model 12a | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, the hybrid board | 3.586 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 0.3 | 225 | 2 | 2.7x | 2.44 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | model 12a | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, the hybrid board | 1.076 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 1 | 1.0 | 225 | 2 | 2.7x | 2.44 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | model 12a | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, the hybrid board | 1.184 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 0.3 | 225 | 2 | 2.7x | 2.44 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | model 12a | modelled |
|
||||
| surface p*, the hybrid board | 0.355 | USD per IGN | 0.10 | 3 | 1.0 | 225 | 2 | 2.7x | 2.44 | MSRP basis | 0.06 | constant | solved | model 12a | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5090 vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | 26.9 / 9.7 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 2.9x joules | 5.59 | measured; used price 2200 USD, new 2600, resale 0.55 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5090 vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | 8.7 / -8.6 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 2.9x joules | 5.59 | measured; used price 2200 USD, new 2600, resale 0.55 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5090 vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | 1.5 / -15.7 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 5.1x joules | 0.78 | measured; used price 2200 USD, new 2600, resale 0.55 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5090 vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | -1.0 / -18.3 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 5.1x joules | 0.78 | measured; used price 2200 USD, new 2600, resale 0.55 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5080 vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | 31.5 / 13.6 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 2.6x joules | 5.59 | measured; used price 900 USD, new 1100, resale 0.5 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5080 vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | 10.8 / -7.1 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 2.6x joules | 5.59 | measured; used price 900 USD, new 1100, resale 0.5 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5080 vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | 2.7 / -15.2 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 4.5x joules | 0.78 | measured; used price 900 USD, new 1100, resale 0.5 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5080 vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | -0.1 / -18.0 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 4.5x joules | 0.78 | measured; used price 900 USD, new 1100, resale 0.5 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5070 Ti vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | 39.5 / 24.9 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 2.2x joules | 5.59 | modelled knee; used price 650 USD, new 800, resale 0.5 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5070 Ti vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | 14.5 / -0.1 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 2.2x joules | 5.59 | modelled knee; used price 650 USD, new 800, resale 0.5 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5070 Ti vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | 4.7 / -9.9 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 3.7x joules | 0.78 | modelled knee; used price 650 USD, new 800, resale 0.5 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5070 Ti vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | 1.2 / -13.4 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 3.7x joules | 0.78 | modelled knee; used price 650 USD, new 800, resale 0.5 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5070 vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | 37.6 / 18.9 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 2.2x joules | 5.59 | modelled knee; used price 450 USD, new 560, resale 0.5 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5070 vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | 13.3 / -5.4 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 2.2x joules | 5.59 | modelled knee; used price 450 USD, new 560, resale 0.5 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5070 vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | 3.8 / -14.9 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 3.8x joules | 0.78 | modelled knee; used price 450 USD, new 560, resale 0.5 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5070 vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | 0.4 / -18.3 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 3.8x joules | 0.78 | modelled knee; used price 450 USD, new 560, resale 0.5 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5060 Ti 16G vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | 25.9 / -1.0 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 3.0x joules | 5.59 | modelled knee; used price 360 USD, new 450, resale 0.45 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5060 Ti 16G vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | 7.9 / -19.0 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 3.0x joules | 5.59 | modelled knee; used price 360 USD, new 450, resale 0.45 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5060 Ti 16G vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | 0.9 / -26.0 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 5.1x joules | 0.78 | modelled knee; used price 360 USD, new 450, resale 0.45 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5060 Ti 16G vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | -1.7 / -28.6 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 5.1x joules | 0.78 | modelled knee; used price 360 USD, new 450, resale 0.45 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5060 vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | 28.8 / 6.7 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 2.8x joules | 5.59 | modelled knee; used price 250 USD, new 310, resale 0.45 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5060 vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | 9.5 / -12.5 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 2.8x joules | 5.59 | modelled knee; used price 250 USD, new 310, resale 0.45 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5060 vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | 2.0 / -20.1 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 4.8x joules | 0.78 | modelled knee; used price 250 USD, new 310, resale 0.45 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 5060 vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | -0.7 / -22.8 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 4.8x joules | 0.78 | modelled knee; used price 250 USD, new 310, resale 0.45 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 4090 vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | 16.5 / -5.6 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 4.5x joules | 5.59 | modelled knee; used price 1300 USD, new 1700, resale 0.45 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 4090 vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | 4.7 / -17.4 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 4.5x joules | 5.59 | modelled knee; used price 1300 USD, new 1700, resale 0.45 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 4090 vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | 0.0 / -22.1 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 7.8x joules | 0.78 | modelled knee; used price 1300 USD, new 1700, resale 0.45 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 4090 vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | -1.6 / -23.8 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 7.8x joules | 0.78 | modelled knee; used price 1300 USD, new 1700, resale 0.45 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 4080 vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | 18.0 / -1.2 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 4.4x joules | 5.59 | modelled knee; used price 700 USD, new 1000, resale 0.4 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 4080 vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | 5.9 / -13.3 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 4.4x joules | 5.59 | modelled knee; used price 700 USD, new 1000, resale 0.4 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 4080 vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | 1.1 / -18.0 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 7.6x joules | 0.78 | modelled knee; used price 700 USD, new 1000, resale 0.4 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 4080 vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | -0.6 / -19.7 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 7.6x joules | 0.78 | modelled knee; used price 700 USD, new 1000, resale 0.4 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 4070 vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | 18.1 / 3.2 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 4.5x joules | 5.59 | measured; used price 400 USD, new 550, resale 0.4 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 4070 vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | 6.2 / -8.7 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 4.5x joules | 5.59 | measured; used price 400 USD, new 550, resale 0.4 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 4070 vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | 1.5 / -13.3 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 7.8x joules | 0.78 | measured; used price 400 USD, new 550, resale 0.4 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 4070 vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | -0.1 / -15.0 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 7.8x joules | 0.78 | measured; used price 400 USD, new 550, resale 0.4 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 4060 Ti 16G vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | 16.4 / -4.3 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 4.8x joules | 5.59 | modelled knee; used price 290 USD, new 420, resale 0.35 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 4060 Ti 16G vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | 5.3 / -15.5 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 4.8x joules | 5.59 | modelled knee; used price 290 USD, new 420, resale 0.35 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 4060 Ti 16G vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | 0.9 / -19.9 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 8.3x joules | 0.78 | modelled knee; used price 290 USD, new 420, resale 0.35 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 4060 Ti 16G vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | -0.7 / -21.4 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 8.3x joules | 0.78 | modelled knee; used price 290 USD, new 420, resale 0.35 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 3090 (used) vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | 13.8 / -5.1 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 5.7x joules | 5.59 | modelled cap; used price 650 USD, new 900, resale 0.3 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 3090 (used) vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | 4.4 / -14.5 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 5.7x joules | 5.59 | modelled cap; used price 650 USD, new 900, resale 0.3 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 3090 (used) vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | 0.7 / -18.2 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 9.8x joules | 0.78 | modelled cap; used price 650 USD, new 900, resale 0.3 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 3090 (used) vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | -0.6 / -19.5 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 9.8x joules | 0.78 | modelled cap; used price 650 USD, new 900, resale 0.3 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 3080 (used) vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | 16.0 / 5.9 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 5.3x joules | 5.59 | modelled cap; used price 330 USD, new 450, resale 0.25 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 3080 (used) vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | 5.9 / -4.2 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 5.3x joules | 5.59 | modelled cap; used price 330 USD, new 450, resale 0.25 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 3080 (used) vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | 2.0 / -8.2 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 9.1x joules | 0.78 | modelled cap; used price 330 USD, new 450, resale 0.25 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 3080 (used) vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | 0.5 / -9.6 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 9.1x joules | 0.78 | modelled cap; used price 330 USD, new 450, resale 0.25 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 3060 (used) vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | 11.7 / 4.4 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 7.3x joules | 5.59 | modelled cap; used price 190 USD, new 260, resale 0.25 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 3060 (used) vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | 4.3 / -3.0 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 7.3x joules | 5.59 | modelled cap; used price 190 USD, new 260, resale 0.25 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 3060 (used) vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | 1.4 / -5.9 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 12.5x joules | 0.78 | modelled cap; used price 190 USD, new 260, resale 0.25 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RTX 3060 (used) vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | 0.4 / -6.9 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 12.5x joules | 0.78 | modelled cap; used price 190 USD, new 260, resale 0.25 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RX 9070 XT vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | 7.1 / -4.5 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 10.0x joules | 5.59 | measured; used price 520 USD, new 650, resale 0.45 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RX 9070 XT vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | 1.7 / -9.9 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 10.0x joules | 5.59 | measured; used price 520 USD, new 650, resale 0.45 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RX 9070 XT vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | -0.4 / -12.0 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 17.2x joules | 0.78 | measured; used price 520 USD, new 650, resale 0.45 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, RX 9070 XT vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | -1.1 / -12.8 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 17.2x joules | 0.78 | measured; used price 520 USD, new 650, resale 0.45 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, H100 (hosted) vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | -21.0 / -360.1 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 2.5x joules | 5.59 | modelled lock; used price 18000 USD, new 25000, resale 0.5 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, H100 (hosted) vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | -42.3 / -381.4 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 2.5x joules | 5.59 | modelled lock; used price 18000 USD, new 25000, resale 0.5 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, H100 (hosted) vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | -50.6 / -389.7 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 4.3x joules | 0.78 | modelled lock; used price 18000 USD, new 25000, resale 0.5 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, H100 (hosted) vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | -53.6 / -392.6 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 4.3x joules | 0.78 | modelled lock; used price 18000 USD, new 25000, resale 0.5 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, A100 (used) vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | 5.2 / -188.9 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 3.7x joules | 5.59 | modelled; used price 6000 USD, new 10000, resale 0.35 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, A100 (used) vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | -9.5 / -203.6 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 3.7x joules | 5.59 | modelled; used price 6000 USD, new 10000, resale 0.35 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, A100 (used) vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | -15.3 / -209.4 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 6.3x joules | 0.78 | modelled; used price 6000 USD, new 10000, resale 0.35 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, A100 (used) vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | -17.3 / -211.4 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 6.3x joules | 0.78 | modelled; used price 6000 USD, new 10000, resale 0.35 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, Apple M5 Max vs GDDR7 board 1 y, owner / entrant | 3.3 / -219.2 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 1.8x joules | 5.59 | measured (reported); used price 3200 USD, new 4000, resale 0.55 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, Apple M5 Max vs GDDR7 board 3 y, owner / entrant | -27.0 / -249.5 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 1.8x joules | 5.59 | measured (reported); used price 3200 USD, new 4000, resale 0.55 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, Apple M5 Max vs SRAM die 1 y, owner / entrant | -38.9 / -261.4 | cents per kWh | n/a | 1 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 3.0x joules | 0.78 | measured (reported); used price 3200 USD, new 4000, resale 0.55 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| break-even electricity, Apple M5 Max vs SRAM die 3 y, owner / entrant | -43.2 / -265.7 | cents per kWh | n/a | 3 | n/a | sunk | n/a | 3.0x joules | 0.78 | measured (reported); used price 3200 USD, new 4000, resale 0.55 | chip at 0.06 + 0.02 hosting | n/a | n/a | model 3 | modelled |
|
||||
| condition (a) line | 1.5 | x the best GPU owner's cost at the GPU's electricity | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | owner at 0.12: 263 to 332 uUSD | 0.12 GPU / 0.06 chip | n/a | n/a | model 12 | a judgement line, not a measurement |
|
||||
| condition (b) line | 0.25 | of the GPU entrant's annualised hardware | n/a | 2 (GPU) | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | 5080 entrant hardware 459 uUSD | n/a | n/a | n/a | model 12 | a judgement line |
|
||||
| condition (c) line | 1.0 | years of miner revenue to buy a third of the chain's hash | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | per chip | GPU equilibrium hash at the per-class curve | 0.12 | year 3 | 0.03 to 1.00 | model 12 | a judgement line |
|
||||
| condition (e) line | 3.0 | x per joule at the honest knee | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | Blackwell knee 1.70 to 2.06 uJ (5070 Ti modelled, 5080 measured) | n/a | n/a | n/a | model 12 | a judgement line |
|
||||
| condition (f) line | 0.70 | gross margin, falling with the halvings | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a | model 12 | a judgement line |
|
||||
|
||||
## Rows carried from the first-cut documents that the script does not regenerate
|
||||
|
||||
| figure | value | unit | assumptions | source_section | label |
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| The record's SRAM read energy | 1.0 (0.5 to 2.0) | nJ per 64-byte read | the wire at 1.3 pJ per bit across a 24 mm die, a 64-byte atom | floor 2.1 | approximate (lane B) |
|
||||
| The die's read energy at the hash's width | 0.25 / 0.38 / 0.55 / 0.88 | nJ at W = 1 / 4 / 8 / 16 | the same wire, 0.1 nJ macro, 0.05 controller, 48 + 32 W bits per read | floor 2.2 | modelled |
|
||||
| The SRAM cost curve | about 250 | USD per GiB of store, flat to 2031 | N2 38 Mb/mm^2 (claimed), USD 500 per reticle die, +8 percent density and +10 percent wafer price per node | floor 3.1 | approximate |
|
||||
| USD 5,000 of silicon per store | 20 GiB (10 reticles) at N2, about 21 GiB in 2031 | the floor size that costs it | the cost curve above | floor 3.2 | modelled |
|
||||
| The dataset floor's honest-side cost | 4 / 8 / 10 percent per hash at 2 / 4 / 8 GiB at the 5090's knee; 3.5 percent of rate at 5.5 GiB at stock | the 5090 at the 1,300 MHz lock; a rented 5090 at stock (host capped at 328 W) | the hash lane's and the fleet lane's rows | floor 3.2 | measured |
|
||||
| The W = 8 energy cost on the card | +4.8 percent per hash at stock | the 5090 under the class v5 state term, PC 1 | one sector per load, the second sector 1.2 nJ | floor 2.2 | measured |
|
||||
| The W = 16 energy cost on the card | +25 percent (5090), +34 percent (4090) per hash at stock | the hinted one-request form, rate held | floor lane 5's rented rows | floor 2.2c | measured |
|
||||
| The k lane's programmable core | 3.5 pJ per lane-op at N3, 2.5 at N2 | synthesis-only, pre-place; x0.5 ASAP7 to N3 | 0.36 microjoules of class v4 shadow at N3; absolute k 0.31 stock, 0.56 lock | floor 2.2b | synthesised (the scaling approximate) |
|
||||
| The adversary lane's placed whole-machine energies | board 1.6x / 1.9x, hybrid 2.4x / 2.9x, die 2.4x / 3.3x | per joule vs the 5090 at the lock, node-for-node / a node ahead | the design's 10.0r | model 8a | the adversary lane's rows |
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue