Nvidia has serious yield problems with the GT200.

[alexio]

It seems that the tables have turned this time around. Nvidia does not produce enough GT200s to meet demand; yields are terrible. Not all second tier AIC (add in card) companies can actually get their hands on the GTX 260 and GTX 280 cards, forcing them to switch to the ATI brand or skip this round and waith for the GT200 successor (die shrink and/or simplification?) that should appear within this quarter (Q3).

With 1.4b transistors on 65nm, the GT200 looks to me like a rushed chip in an effort to keep up with ATI.

Source: Me

[fellix_bg]

With below 100 chips gross-yield per wafer that was expected, IMHO.
Probably, no more than one-third of those are getting qualified for GTX280 SKUs.

[Helmore]

Well you can only fit around 90-100 of those dies on a wafer....
Has anyone got any idea what a single wafer costs for the likes of NVIDIA? $5000? $10000?

[Swatrecon_]

nice work Nvidia.

[naokaji]

makes sense that yields are low, just makes me wonder why nvidia didnt push harder towards 55nm.

[kryptobs2000]

Overconfidence?

[alexio]

makes sense that yields are low, just makes me wonder why nvidia didnt push harder towards 55nm.

I think they knew that they couldn't do 55nm in time and thus decided to loose some money on these cards to not look stupid.

Overconfidence?

Yeah indeed. I bet TSMC only took this job to push their own technology. Nvidia just wanted to look cool but they failed.

TSMC is doing an awesome job nomatter what

[[XC] gomeler]

Hrm. Dare I say "owned"? Hubris has come back around to bite you in the arse. Go ATI Go! Don't stop now while they have their pants about their ankles, keep up the assault.

[masxerofkartis]

makes sense that yields are low, just makes me wonder why nvidia didnt push harder towards 55nm.

Well it looks to me that nv is kinda stupid atm (i love the company). If they had a 55nm card with gddr5 and the same structure ati would need to make a quad-core gpu to match nv. Afterall v has already shown us it can make ati go lower with the creation of the g80 cards and g92 cards except 9800gtx ofcourse.

Well theres 2 things i can say for nv

1. They are quite stupid no to use latest tchnology

2.Theyll either end up making cpu's or stop producing mobos with their anti intel attitude (Sorry for Offtopic)

[fellix_bg]

makes sense that yields are low, just makes me wonder why nvidia didnt push harder towards 55nm.

Nvidia had very bad taste from applying new architecture over new manufacturing process at the same time. Since long time, they prefer to milk the old process to the edge, until the new one is being tested with some of their previous chips.

[[XC] Lead Head]

Well you can only fit around 90-100 of those dies on a wafer....
Has anyone got any idea what a single wafer costs for the likes of NVIDIA? $5000? $10000?

Probably much cheaper then that. I remember reading that most CPUs only take a few dollars each to make, including the actual package it sits on, and the heat spreader.

[natty]

What makes you think the successor will be out in Q3? Or is that just a way to put down the company?

[GoldiClocks]

Source: Me

Is "Me" an abbreviation of some well-known, credible newssource that I'm just not familiar with?
(me wants links and stuff..)

[Helmore]

Nvidia had very bad taste from applying new architecture over new manufacturing process at the same time. Since long time, they prefer to milk the old process to the edge, until the new one is being tested with some of their previous chips.

Kind of weird though, as their G92 had some serious yield problems in the beginning and I think it's nowhere near the perfection they got out of the previous 90nm. process. But they still wanted to do their GT200 right now....

[STaRGaZeR]

He "heard" something, that's the source

You should trust him

[ownage]

Well you can only fit around 90-100 of those dies on a wafer....
Has anyone got any idea what a single wafer costs for the likes of NVIDIA? $5000? $10000?

Wafer costs $5000 and can fit 94 GT200 dies. So that is $53.2 per Die.
40% failure rate so that would be 37 dies. 37 dies costs almost $2000.
In other words, GT200 is one big failure for nVidia.

[alexio]

It's time to sling some more mud now

Let's talk about the 9800GX2. Why did Nvidia release this card? According to Nvidia their board partners demanded this card; according to varies board partners that I have spoken with Nvidia was just trying to get rid of its overstock of G92 GPUs. So they regulated the release of single G92 cards and gave the 9800GX2 a 'sharp' MSRP. Nobody but Nvidia made a real buck on these cards. Hey, what is Gainward doing?

I'll keep this thread updated for your enjoyment

*edit*

A 40% failure rate? That is way too optimistic. I believe that for Nvidia a fully working GT200 costs $100 to make, or even more.

[Hornet331]

how is this speculation news?

[GoldiClocks]

Even if the reason behind the 9800GX2 introduction would have been just to get rid of the g92 cores, what would be wrong with that? That's just smart business as far as I can see it.

[alexio]

how is this speculation news?

I can't state my source.

Even if the reason behind the 9800GX2 introduction would have been just to get rid of the g92 cores, what would be wrong with that? That's just smart business as far as I can see it.

Is it really, if it scares away your partners?

[Clint]

Wafer costs $5000 and can fit 94 GT200 dies. So that is $53.2 per Die.
40% failure rate so that would be 37 dies. 37 dies costs almost $2000.
In other words, GT200 is one big failure for nVidia.

??

That is a very strange way of calculating die cost.

I get it to 5000/(0.6*94) = $88.65 per die

[kryptobs2000]

Even if the reason behind the 9800GX2 introduction would have been just to get rid of the g92 cores, what would be wrong with that? That's just smart business as far as I can see it.

Is it really, if it scares away your partners?

How has it scared away Nvidia's partners? I saw Gainward is now moving over to the red camp, but it's not as if they left green, they're just putting their feet in both doors. Besides, I think that says alot more about the 4000 series than any failure from the g92. g92 was and still is a great chip.

[Hornet331]

afaik no yield rate ever was publicated by any big semi conductor company (at least not when the product was still selling).

So forgive me my skeptic. There where a lot of BS rumors about intel, how utter horrible there 45nm yield were, same goes for 65nm when they where first, same for amd etc.

The "horrible yield" card is played far to offen in the recent days, but we'll see when NV brings it 55nm shrink of the G200.

[Epsilon84]

With G200 being so overpriced I'm surprised there is any 'demand' at all. :p

[Tim]

Always funny how if AMD/ATI starts doing well again the AMD/ATI fanboys come out of the closet en mass and everything turns into a nVidia bashing fest.



I wouldn't at all mind having a ATI card for my next purchase, but I just think it's absolutely hilarious how this always happens.

And no don't start with the it's nVidia's fault, you and me would have done everything they did as well, ie releasing all those G80 variants, just milking the cash cow, that's why they still excist, they know how to play the game and are an excellent company.