Wouldn't they just release a lower number if the number was actually lower.
If it was, I'm sure they would, of course. My question, however, was what they were going to be attempting to change about the shockingly poor numbers associated with this unit. They said that firmware and various adjustments were going to be made before they release it to market, I'd just like to know what they intend to settle for in terms of reaching that point.
I can understand now why they charge so much for hosting if they are having to run a 100Mh unit at 2800w.
It just strikes me that they are relying solely on the reluctance of their customer-base to deal with 'foreign' vendors in order to justify putting out devices that are clearly well short of the mark. Knowing that GAWminer, themselves, are more than happy to do business with Chinese producers, it is a tad galling to see them attempting to market a miner that isn't going to be available until next month, at specs that are sub-standard at this time, when they know that 28nm Innosilicon units are available right now.
It doesn't sit right and I think the earlier commenter might have hit the nail on the head when he postulated as to whom GAW were aiming to sell the 'Big Gun' to.
I just did some math on power consumption and I really hope there is an error somewhere:
Gridseed small: 20W per MH/s
Gridseed blade: 17W per MH/s
Fury: 30W per MH/s
Black Widow: 25W per MH/s
Falcon: 24W per MH/s
War Machine: 24W per MH/s
Big Gun: 28W per MH/s
Even assuming 10% overestimate on power consumption and 20% underestimate on performance, these numbers are worse than Gridseed, let alone Innosilicon.
However Zeus gives different numbers for their miners (roughly 13W per MH/s), so hopefully theirs are correct.
