Anonymous 12 hours ago. "The interesting bit here, though, is primarily that Samsung sees this as a worthy venture." I guess it is interesting, but it is also based upon some speculation. It really depends on what process these are manufactured on. If it is a sub-20nm process with very high tooling costs, then sure. But if it is on a process that is already well developed and cheap to set up, they're taking money for silicon, that it is crypto is no big deal. Arguably if the client paid upfront, even on a more expensive process they'd go, sure, whatever you want. Quote Reply avatar Maurice Fortin 1 day ago. TSMC was/is hardly the first one to make/design/foundry work specifically for "mining" hardware...many many many other companies have done exactly this for quite awhile now..Avalon miner to name one (December 2013) Butterfly labs was another (during 2014 WAY later than should have been, they were mining on purchased hardware before they even bothered to ship any) than of course there were many more companies who did FPGA prior to this. So the wording of article is absolutely not accurate IMO "nothing unusual about producing ASICs, but mining-specific ones have been the domain of TSMC until now, primarily with client Bitmain" Bitmain was primarily a pool operator, others were/are dedicated ASIC producer/designer/makers..first ASIC for bitcoin purposes was way back in 2012, whereas bitmain first in hand was late 2013 going into 2014 and was hardly the "best of the best" even though they claim otherwise. UC, TSMC, Global Foundries, IBM and custom in house designed by various companies, so, TSMC was/is hardly the domain of ASIC for mining specific purposes in no way shape or form, did they produce many of them, sure did, but "domain of" nah, cause that would mean they were the ones producing them ONLY (domain - noun an area of territory owned or controlled by a ruler or government) Anyways...would be nice in one aspect if more were making ASIC for mining crypto of any sort (granted some are considered worthless to make ASIC for because the cost to do so would not be worth it) leave the GPU for "normal" tasks, least so us gamers are not having to buy day of release and "hope" they are as good as we would like them (few problems) because the price gouging and lack of stock currently sucks big time...a ~$250 CAD GPU costing up and over $480-$700+ is insane, and it usually is not the model one had wanted either and only if you are fortunate to even find one. a simple example, an RX 550/560 should be at most ~$110-$130 CAD yet they are generally ~120-180, RX 570/580 should be $230-$280 Max not no $340-$580 (or more) Vega which started off at ~$520 routinely selling for $1100-$1600..price gouging because of the limited stock..i.e greed.

Samsung recently officially confirmed that they are producing ASICs (Application-Specific Integrated Circuits) intended for cryptocurrency mining, being sold to unnamed clients for ASIC mining machines. These machines are different from GPU miners, and do not meaningfully affect desktop GPU supply. As the name implies, ASICs are chips designed for a single purpose. There’s nothing unusual about producing ASICs, but mining-specific ones have been the domain of TSMC until now, primarily with client Bitmain. Samsung won’t be doing the mining themselves, just supplying the hardware: TechPowerUp suggests the order was placed by “Chinese clients” which were mentioned in a recent earnings report. Our understanding is that the varieties of cryptocurrency which ASICs can effectively mine are ones that are now beyond the capabilities of home mining operations, like Bitcoin, so they’re used by massive currency farms. SHA-256 algorithms are best mined with ASIC miners. Increased mining ASIC production could help push cryptocurrency mining in general away from PC hardware and help prices return to normal, even if it doesn’t directly affect GPU-mined currencies. Fluctuation in difficulty for home operations will help with time, as will market divergence from Proof of Work validation. The interesting bit here, though, is primarily that Samsung sees this as a worthy venture. - Patrick Lathan