Why nVidia chips are defective

[kalniel]

Very interesting set of articles at the Inq delving into some of the packaging problems of G8* and 9* parts. Usual Inq disclaimer should apply, though it seems like Charlie's actually got some good information this time.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

[dangel]

Charlie is so anti-nvidia he sleeps on ATI branded pillows. Good read but you have to sift the facts from the opinion as per usual

[chooah]

Apparently if nVidia assumed financial responsibility for all fauly parts (and replaced all) it would bankrupt them?? That seems quite extreme.

[kalniel]

Apparently if nVidia assumed financial responsibility for all fauly parts (and replaced all) it would bankrupt them?? That seems quite extreme.

That's the result of Charlie doing some back of fag packet calculations, so I wouldn't take that too seriously.

[awm]

Read that, it's interesting to hear the scientific explanation on nVidia's problems.

[DanceswithUnix]

It is interesting, but quite frothing.

Charlie has admitted he isn't clued on finance things, yet seems to delight in the idea of Nvidia going down the tubes. Let's face it, they won't. The world simply doesn't work like that. This is a one-off cost, not a recurring cost, and they have good enough cash flow to either bail themselves out or borrow money.

They made a mistake, some cards will be returned, some will get replaced with a shrug as the owner can't find the receipt or just can't be fussed to return it. Some cards will only ever do spreadsheets, and therefore will never see thermal stress or failure. So whilst Charlie seems to be assuming a 100% return rate, it is never going to happen.

I do wonder what Nvidia have done to him to make him so biassed.

[Jay]

maybe they killed his dog?

[kalniel]

It is interesting, but quite frothing.

Charlie has admitted he isn't clued on finance things, yet seems to delight in the idea of Nvidia going down the tubes. Let's face it, they won't. The world simply doesn't work like that. This is a one-off cost, not a recurring cost, and they have good enough cash flow to either bail themselves out or borrow money.

They made a mistake, some cards will be returned, some will get replaced with a shrug as the owner can't find the receipt or just can't be fussed to return it. Some cards will only ever do spreadsheets, and therefore will never see thermal stress or failure. So whilst Charlie seems to be assuming a 100% return rate, it is never going to happen.

I do wonder what Nvidia have done to him to make him so biassed.

If you pay attention to the financial stuff then you're not reading the article correctly Ignore that, and the usual Charlie stuff, and just pay attention to the engineering explainations provided by the chip guy Charlie talked to. If in doubt, do a diff subtration using any of Charlies multitude of other writings about nVidia