Oh and that article has a lot of holes too. Hot lots aren't strickly used for yield, not to mention according to that article if they did get a return of such low chips and they were doing a yield analysis, they wouldn't even have done it. BTW do you know the equation's used when doing hot lots for yield analysis? (you do realize even if nV got X number of chips from the hot lots, as you stated they would have to calculate risk by using using a formula) And yes I do have yield numbers for Fermi from about the time you wrote that article its more like 15% for fully funtional chips and it goes up to around double that with salvage parts. Keep pulling up your old articles to make yourself look good, just doesn't work its easy to cut them down like swiss cheese because the factual information you have is castrated by your fanatical ramblings which make no sense.
Do I know the equations? No. Do I do that for a living? No. Do I have at least 3 people who do in my address book that don't mind if I call and ask questions? Yes.
The bump gate article, I did give you credit for that in the past, but I don't believe you wrote that yourself. You would have needed alot of help and alot is an understatement.
I started out in college in chemical engineering, then went to chemistry, then biology, and ended up in genetics before I dropped out (ADHD makes it hard to study when you are bored with a topic). I realized that I was making more in computers then than I would ever in biology, so why bother? That said, I took a fair number of matsci courses, tons of csci, and a lot of related science courses. There isn't much difference between a reading a gas/liquid chromatograph and xray materials analysis.
Did I do the actual sampling and reading? No, I don't have the equipment. Are there any of 20 teardown houses within an hour of your HQ that do? Sure. Are some of them bored? Sure. Do the math, pun intended.
I wrote it 100% myself, researched it over 2 months or so, and had to up my cell time from 1500 to unlimited after burning through it 3 months straight on the topic. I did have help for things I don't have the lab for. I do have a lot of friends in the valley though, and they have all the toys I need.
The license agreement between Intel and nV which was done 5 years ago, Intel wanted to renegotiate the deal with nV, nV didn't want to, and thats when Intel filed for breach. TO REFRESH YOUR MEMORY if you didn't know that would happen before Feb of 2008 which would have been impossible to know outside of said people, or are you just omniscient, possibly you knew it was going to happen 7 months before it actually happened. The negotiations didn't go sour till oh end of 2008 early 2009. Negotiations were know publicly not the course of action by either company till Feb of 2009.
I am pretty sure (but I didn't go dig up my notes), that NV was bitching about chipsets and licensing during the 2007 fall IDF, which would have been a year before I wrote. If I am a year off on this, sorry, but there were public hints long long before it was an open war, you just had to have your ear to the ground. I did.
They were shouting to the press about how they were licensed, and how teh aswum their stuff would be. They were breaking NDAs left and right telling every analyst who would listen, and the occasional tame journalist, what Intel chips were coming, and what busses they used.
They were mentioning Bloomfield and Lynnfield by name, and saying CSI and DMI before the NDAs went up, long before. This was done, I think it was Evendon FWIW, to try and sway analysts to pump up the stock. The analysts promptly went to Intel and asked them the questions, and Intel responded.
I can guarantee you that Intel was NOT pleased about the leaks. If anything, the problem became acute, and the negotiations soured because of Nvidia's moronic insistence to try and publicly up the stakes. Intel doesn't take well to being threatened, nor do they take well to people attempting to hurt their image for monetary gain. Think "whoop-ass".
NV shot themselves in the foot, and pissed Intel off. Intel had every right to be annoyed at NV's childish behavior. Then again, you can't accuse Nvidia of being overly bright, trying to be a bully from a position of weakness isn't the smartest thing in the world.
Nvidia has one tool for relationships, be they internal, external, public or private, a hammer. If they don't like you, they hit you and tell you to step into line or you will be hit again. This didn't work with Intel, and the bright 'strategerists' NV likely sunk the company over this. FWIW, it is more or less the same thing they tried with me, do what we say, or we will go after you. I didn't. Intel didn't. Nvidia doesn't have another tool to use.
-Charlie
