Nvidia GT300 core: Speculation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well yeah Nvidia obviously wasn't reaching for the stars with GT218 so a performance comp is pretty pointless. What's startling is the higher power consumption vs RV710. But what's even worse is that it's < 60 mm^2. If they can't make that in volume then what can they do?


This might not be the final revisions the date on this chip is 05/09, quite some time ago if I'm not mistake.

And they are in volume now its for back to school low end systems, so in the next month or so we will see many more systems with these in there.
 
I have absolutely no idea what you mean by that :D

Probably that it doesn't matter how much bandwidth you have but rather how you use it. NV would be pretty stupid if they wouldn't change anything in the memory controlling department in any case.
 
This might not be the final revisions the date on this chip is 05/09, quite some time ago if I'm not mistake.

A2 is the final revision, it has been for all the OEM parts that appeared as of late and it has been since the beginning of this year, unlike other GT21x parts, GT216 and 218 won't get another spin before being available to the public

And they are in volume now its for back to school low end systems, so in the next month or so we will see many more systems with these in there.

Talk to some OEM/ODMs to see exactly how much "volume" they are receiving.
Winning a design is 1, actually being able to supply for those wins is 2.
 
neliz,

They will announce another GT21x soon but it isn't the 212 afaik. Hope that's good enough ;)
 
Hope this isn't a repost. Looks bad for Nvidia if true though.

THE SAGA of Nvidia's GT300 chip is a sad one that just took a turn for the painful when we heard about first silicon yields. Nvidia's execution has gone from bad to absent with low single digit yields.

A few weeks ago, we said that Nvidia was expecting first silicon back at the end of the week, the exact date was supposed to be Friday the 4th plus or minus a bit. The first bit of external evidence we saw that it happened was on the Northwood blog (translated here) and it was a day early, so props to NV for that. That lined up exactly with what we are told, but the number of good parts was off.

The translation, as we read it, says there were nine good samples that came back from TSMC from the first hot lot. That is below what several experts told us to expect, but in the ballpark. When we dug further, we got similar numbers, but they were so abysmal that we didn't believe it. Further digging confirmed the numbers again and again.

Before we go there though, lets talk about what a good die is in this case. When you get first silicon back, it almost always has bugs and problems. First silicon is meant to find those bugs and problems, so they can be fixed in succeeding steppings.

By 'good', we mean chips that have no process induced errors, and function as the engineers hoped they would. In other words not bug free, but no more errors than there were in the design. 'Good' in this sense might never power on, just that the things that came out of the oven were what was expected, no more, no less.

Several experts in semiconductor engineering, some who have overseen similar chips, were asked a couple of loaded questions: What is good yield for first silicon? What is good yield for a complex chip on a relatively new process? The answers ranged from a high of 50% to a low of 20% with a bunch of others clustered in the 30% range. Let's just call it one-third, plus or minus some.

The first hot lot of GT300s have 104 die candidates per wafer, with four wafers in the pod Nvidia got back a week and a half ago. There is another pod of four due back any day now, and that's it for the hot lots.

How many worked out of the (4 x 104) 416 candidates? Try 7. Yes, Northwood was hopelessly optimistic - Nvidia got only 7 chips back. Let me repeat that, out of 416 tries, it got 7 'good' chips back from the fab. Oh how it must yearn for the low estimate of 20%, talk about botched execution. To save you from having to find a calculator, that is (7 / 416 = .01682), rounded up, 1.7% yield.

Nvidia couldn't even hit 2%, an order of magnitude worse than the most pessimistic estimate. Ouch. No, just sad. So sad that Nvidia doesn't deserve mocking, things have gone from funny to pathetic.

At this point, unless there's a massive gain in yields on the second hot lot, there might not be enough chips to do a proper bring up and debug. This stunningly bad yield could delay the introduction of the chip, adding to the current pain and bleak roadmap. If there aren't enough 'good' parts from the second hot lot, that might require running another set, adding weeks to the total. Q1? Maybe not.

It is going to be very interesting to see what Nvidia shows off at 'Not Nvision' in a couple of weeks. Will it give the parts to the engineers to work on, or show them off as a PR stunt? We will know soon enough. In any case, the yields as they stand are sub-2%, and the status of the GT300 is far worse than we had ever imagined.

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/09/15/nvidia-gt300-yeilds-under-2/
 
Nvidia couldn't even hit 2%, an order of magnitude worse than the most pessimistic estimate. Ouch. No, just sad. So sad that Nvidia doesn't deserve mocking, things have gone from funny to pathetic.
I'm sorry. If this is true, then we're talking about yields as a result of process-induced errors. Last time I checked, nVidia doesn't run TSMC's fabs. What a complete ass.
 
I'm sorry. If this is true, then we're talking about yields as a result of process-induced errors. Last time I checked, nVidia doesn't run TSMC's fabs. What a complete ass.
Not doubting you Chal 'cause I have no idea, just wondering how you arrived at that conclusion?
 
The translation, as we read it, says there were nine good samples that came back from TSMC from the first hot lot. That is below what several experts told us to expect, but in the ballpark. When we dug further, we got similar numbers, but they were so abysmal that we didn't believe it. Further digging confirmed the numbers again and again.

Jolle at Rage had a different translation:


http://www.rage3d.com/board/showpost.php?p=1336014451&postcount=2
 

Hahahahahaha!!! :LOL:

Bing's translation: NVIDIA is GT300 engineering sample completed in September, fastest in December of this year to start of delivery. On the other hand, the AMD Radeon HD 5800 (RV870), in the latter half of September, and shipping, scheduled in October.Radeon HD 5800 is first of all that on Radeon HD 5870 and 5850 2 model.

Google's translation: NVIDIA GT300 is an Engineering sample of nine will be completed in January of this year's fastest 12 to begin shipping in January. Meanwhile, AMD is Radeon HD 5800 (RV870) was launched in late May to September, the shipments are scheduled for July 10. First Radeon HD 5800 and Radeon HD 5870 will launch two models in 5850.

Which one seems more accurate eh? Google says RV870 launched in late May and will ship on July10, Bing says latter half of September ;)
 
You guys are using online translators to try and differentiate between subtle nuances in linguistics, that way always disaster lies. :yep2:

Do what I do, wait for the subtitles. ;)
 
You guys are using online translators to try and differentiate between subtle nuances in linguistics, that way always disaster lies. :yep2:

Do what I do, wait for the subtitles. ;)

Don't disagree but to use an online translator for data for a doom and gloom article and sensationalize it, well, considering the subtle nuances in linguistics, may spell disaster as well!:)
 
Which one seems more accurate eh? Google says RV870 launched in late May and will ship on July10, Bing says latter half of September ;)
Or the majority of detail is left out.
May is when they submitted final silicon and they shipped the first parts to AIBs in July?
May was the final spin and full production started in July?
 
Not doubting you Chal 'cause I have no idea, just wondering how you arrived at that conclusion?
This is just what they said in the article. See:
By 'good', we mean chips that have no process induced errors, and function as the engineers hoped they would. In other words not bug free, but no more errors than there were in the design. 'Good' in this sense might never power on, just that the things that came out of the oven were what was expected, no more, no less.
If they're process errors, then they're hardly nVidia's fault. They would be nVidia's problem, of course, but not their fault.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top