NVIDIA Kepler speculation thread

Why are we even discussing this non-sense? , we are getting derailed off the important technical bits here for useless -so called- issues that have no impact whatsoever on the product the user receives .

For all of their alleged continuous problems , NVIDIA seems to be doing an admirable job of staying profitable and sustaining a strong business portfolio and excellent innovative competitiveness , On the other hand , AMD allegedly and miraculously (always) trouble free , is stumbling and losing money on multiple fronts while having less market penetration where it counts .

So unless you guys have answers for these dilemmas , I suggest we get back to technical discussion , and leave the mumbo jumbo stuff to Mr.Charlie and his goons , together they could use another healthy dose of useless rumors to brag about .

 

Really? Is nVidia is the only design firm that has encountered problems at the foundry? Maybe they should borrow AMDs crystal ball

Is that a serious question?

Step 1: Make promises
Step 2: Don't meet them

 

Or perhaps their engineers.

 

As for TSMC, their 28nm wafer production in Q1/2012 exceeded plans. And as for nVidia...

Yields were better than expected, manufacturing capacity was better than expected and despite that, they are complaining.

 

Qualcomm has publicly complained about 28nm capacity at TSMC. It says that it can't meet the demand for new Snapdragons. May be Nvidia has some other issues, but it is wrong to say that it is the only company having problems.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/hardware/2012/04/19/qualcomm-28nm-capacity/1

And for whatever it is worth, I feel that despite bad pricing the availability HD 79XX cards has improved only now, five months after they were introduced.

 

That had changed by CC in Feb:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/370...2-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=qanda

Be interesting to see the comments on Friday.

 

I'm not missing any point. If TSMC's yields are ramping slower than expected it will certainly affect availability, but you can't attribute hard to find HD5xxx's to that alone. Most yield issues were ironed out by then.

When the economy was bad TSMC stalled their build out of 40nm, some articles said they temporarily laid off workers. Part of the reason for stalling the build out of 40nm capacity was customers like AMD didn't project accurate demand. By the time the demand was obvious it took a while for TSMC to meet demand.

 

But:

 

Yes it will be interesting to hear if there is any improvement in yields.

---------

More quote(s):

 

It means their yields are fine. It means they forecast their demand correctly and TSMC was able to meet their demands. BTW, Qualcomm's yields are fine too.

 

It means nothing. You are drawing all sorts of far reaching conclusions based on the absence of noise. I have a couple hundred clients. The amount of noise one of them makes typically has nothing to do with the severity of the problem.

Show me high demand for AMDs products and correspondingly high output from TSMC. Anything else is spurious nonsense.

 

Bright Side of News: "AMD Counter-Attacks GeForce GTX 670, Questions NVIDIA's Kepler Availability."

 

TSMC has how many high volume 28 nm clients? AMD, NV, Qualcomm.....????? When the number of clients can be counted on finger tips, then the noise one makes or does not makes matters. A lot.

Based upon public information, only nv is having yield problems at TSMC. Everybody else's 28 nm yields are fine. Show me other 28 nm clients complaning about yields. Otherwise this is spurious non sense.

 

NV's situation is particularly interesting. GK104 is a midrange chip and as being such the planned demand should have been somehow higher with respect to current demand. Obviously now the chip covers entirely different segment which is characterised with (much) lower demand. So despite this and the lower market requirements they suddenly are still unable to supply enough of them. Disastrous yield maybe.


If I remember correctly, there was a moment (maybe late last year) when NV cancelled some wafer orders.

 

Overshooting their expectation and miscalculated their production capacity plan is very different than "only nv is having yield problems at TSMC".

And don't forget that no other client bear the pain of making 600 mm2 parts.

 

The way I see it , AMD feels threatened by NVIDIA's latest offers , so they play the availability card , They poke Charlie to write some of his "glamorous" pieces , and they have Mr.Dave here in the forums raising the same questions and doing pretty much the same thing , albeit with much more elegance .

That is really the only thing that explains to me why we are even discussing this absolutely useless and trivial issue .

 

Apparently this is the first review of the 670, so enjoy ;D.

http://www.ozeros.com/2012/05/review-nvidia-geforce-gtx-670/

Its in Spanish but number are numbers and talking about they, its funny the way the 580 is almost at the 7970 performance(specially on RD5 where in Kitguru´s 2 months old review the 580 is below the 7850 and I don't think the OC it has could scale that much 0.0 ) and the 670 is head to head to the 680.

 

Some posters in this thread don't seem to understand the basic difference between "yield" and "capacity".

AMD and Qualcomm appear to be experiencing good yield but low capacity. Nvidia are saying they are seeing poor yield and low capacity. The question is why the difference.

 

TR's review of the 690 is up. Nvidia made some progress with the frametime metering fix for microstutter. It's looking better for the 690 compared to all other AMD/NV multi-gpu setups, however, still not as consistent as single-gpu. Still a marked improvement. GJ Nv!

 

Arbitrary correlation that says nothing. AMD could be quiet for any number of reasons - including that they overestimated demand. How do you know the real reason without numbers to back it up?

What public information?