Nvidia GT300 core: Speculation

Status
Not open for further replies.
trinibwoy said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...



Wow, automatic translation from Japanese to English is really terrible :|
 
SirPauly said:
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!:)
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing that either, but we don't know yet how he had it translated...do we? :oops: (I'm having trouble keeping track. :LOL: )
 
Chalnoth said:
This is just what they said in the article. See:

If they're process errors, then they're hardly nVidia's fault. They would be nVidia's problem, of course, but not their fault.
Click to expand...
Sure, I'm sure some of them are but I would think the majority of them is due to the size and complexity of G300.

Didn't someone let drop a supposed ~60% yields for RV870?
So it isn't neccesarily all TSMC's fault either...
Also, the original numbers from RV740 was around 20-25%.
 
Alexko said:
Well, AMD doesn't seem to have that problem...
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know. Could be that they're using a different process. Or it could be that AMD and nVidia are having about the same yields and these reports are completely bogus. Or it could be that for some reason this new process has some subtle differences from previous ones that had a strong negative impact on nVidia's designs but not ATI's.
 
Chalnoth said:
If they're process errors, then they're hardly nVidia's fault. They would be nVidia's problem, of course, but not their fault.
Click to expand...
Ah, thanks...I did miss that. Would that help nVidia in any way? Does that mean it was like a once-in-a-long-while freak accident and that the next batch will be fine? (Again, I just don't know.)
 
LordEC911 said:
Sure, I'm sure some of them are but I would think the majority of them is due to the size and complexity of G300.

Didn't someone let drop a supposed ~60% yields for RV870?
So it isn't neccesarily all TSMC's fault either...
Also, the original numbers from RV740 was around 20-25%.
Click to expand...
If the error rate in the process is the same, then 60% yields for ATI's chip wouldn't correspond to 2% yields for nVidia's.
 
A guide to those who can't read thread titles:

This thread is about nVidia's upcoming part.

Use this one for ATI's upcoming part.
Use this one for how nVidia will counter ATI's launch.
Use this one for nVidia is over.
Use this one for AMD is over.
 
digitalwanderer said:
Ah, thanks...I did miss that. Would that help nVidia in any way? Does that mean it was like a once-in-a-long-while freak accident and that the next batch will be fine? (Again, I just don't know.)
Click to expand...
No idea. I suppose it would depend upon the nature of the problem, if there is one. And I don't know what sorts of problems would be easy to solve and what sorts would be hard.
 
digitalwanderer said:
I'm not arguing that either, but we don't know yet how he had it translated...do we? :oops:
Click to expand...

digi, it's right there in the article. He posted a link to the original blog and to the translation he used. And then he used that translation as the basis for his entire article!

Charlie said:
The translation, as we read it, says there were nine good samples that came back from TSMC from the first hot lot.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what nuance you guys are talking about :LOL: Instead of reading it as samples back in September (9th month) he got it as 9 good samples. Now the best part of it is that if he in fact used a wrong translation then all the other followup stuff about digging further has to be complete BS.
 
LordEC911 said:
That's what I did.
I went back to find what you had said he would say and you were spot on.
Click to expand...

My 1.67% was actually a complete wild guess, I just backtracked his previous posts regarding GT300 yields and cooked up a number according to what his estimate numbers would be. Pretty funny though. :yes:

(now.. I .. might've been drunk.. or am now, everything's pretty dizzy so I might totally deny this in the morning)
 
Chalnoth said:
Well, I don't know. Could be that they're using a different process. Or it could be that AMD and nVidia are having about the same yields and these reports are completely bogus. Or it could be that for some reason this new process has some subtle differences from previous ones that had a strong negative impact on nVidia's designs but not ATI's.
Click to expand...

And couldn't it be that Nvidia's design is poorly tuned for the process? It's a real question, not a rhetorical one, I don't know much about that kind of stuff.
 
Alexko said:
And couldn't it be that Nvidia's design is poorly tuned for the process? It's a real question, not a rhetorical one, I don't know much about that kind of stuff.
Click to expand...

If anyone from nVidia had some sort of scrotum, they'd come on-line and admit to this.

Granted, they could not have know when starting design on gt200 and beyond, but the problem is apparently inherent.
 
neliz said:
My 1.67% was actually a complete wild guess, I just backtracked his previous posts regarding GT300 yields and cooked up a number according to what his estimate numbers would be. Pretty funny though. :yes:
Click to expand...

Grats, I think you just became one of Charlie's sources.

Be sure to wear a hard hat, it might get dangerous with all the digging.
 
neliz said:
Salvaging? That's honestly all I see them doing and that is what the latest parts suggest.
Click to expand...

There's nothing to salvage if they have < 10% yields. They would make far more money selling GT200 than they would GT300. It wouldn't be any different to what ATI did with RV670. Give up the high-end and do what you can to survive until things turn around.
 
trinibwoy said:
There's nothing to salvage if they have < 10% yields. They would make far more money selling GT200 than they would GT300. It wouldn't be any different to what ATI did with RV670. Give up the high-end and do what you can to survive until things turn around.
Click to expand...

a key difference being that it wasn't yields that doomed the RC670s predecessor, in fact given that the R600 laid the basis for the HD series (2/3/4/5..), its fair to say that it wasn't as much as a flop in comparison.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
After Effects Rendering PC PrePurchase
Replies
3
Views
2K
Davros
D
Back
Top