Moderate-scale operators in Korea often debate ASIC rows versus GPU frames when expanding. Both can exceed 0.05 PH/s per rack position; the operational trade-offs differ.
ASIC rows
Strengths: Higher hash per square metre when intake is controlled; simpler per-unit power cabling at scale.
Weaknesses: Algorithm lock-in; louder exhaust concentration; spare parts tied to specific board revisions.
Korean context: Landlords and municipal inspectors respond to noise and heat at property lines. ASIC rows concentrate both—documentation of boundary noise readings helps lease renewals.
GPU frames
Strengths: Flexibility to pivot algorithms; granular maintenance per card.
Weaknesses: More human hours per terahash; aisle discipline critical; cable clutter increases fire inspection scrutiny.
Korean context: Summer humidity plus dense cabling raises condensation risk if cold aisle discipline breaks down.
Decision heuristic we use in briefs
If your lease caps kilowatts and noise, ASIC rows often win when intake can be engineered. If your team already maintains GPU fleets and power headroom is flexible, aggregated GPU bays may beat mid-tier ASICs on operational familiarity—even if watts per terahash is higher.
Neither replaces measurement
Supplier slides for either path should pass a Pre-Purchase Specification Check before transfer.