Nvidia GT200 successor tapes out

jmke · 29th May 2008, 18:34

There are several problems with the GT200, most of which are near fatal. The first is the die size, 576mm^2, bigger than most Itanics. One might trust Intel to make a chip that big with decent yields, especially if it is basically an island of logic in the middle of a sea of cache. Nvidia using a foundry process doesn't have a chance of pulling this off.

Word has come out of Satan Clara that the yields are laughable. No, make that abysmal, they are 40 per cent. To add insult to injury, that 40 per cent includes both the 280 and the 260 yield salvage parts. With about 100 die candidates per wafer, that means 40 good dice per wafer. Doing the maths, a TSMC 300mm 65nm wafer runs about $5000, so that means each good die costs $125 before packaging, testing and the like. If they can get away with sub-$150 costs per GPU, we will be impressed.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...sucessor-tapes

thorgal · 29th May 2008, 19:28

LOL, some more nvidia bashing by the INQ. One starts to wonder what pissed them off so much...

If what they say is true however, nVidia is in for a rough summer...

30th May 2008, 21:03

Yeah, INQ really is looking for any sort of excuse, not even going to believe those numbers. THG already mentioned Itaniums... Itanium is still bigger by far with higher tranistor counts.

29th May 2008, 18:34	#1
jmke Madshrimp Join Date: May 2002 Location: 7090/Belgium Posts: 79,021	Nvidia GT200 successor tapes out There are several problems with the GT200, most of which are near fatal. The first is the die size, 576mm^2, bigger than most Itanics. One might trust Intel to make a chip that big with decent yields, especially if it is basically an island of logic in the middle of a sea of cache. Nvidia using a foundry process doesn't have a chance of pulling this off. Word has come out of Satan Clara that the yields are laughable. No, make that abysmal, they are 40 per cent. To add insult to injury, that 40 per cent includes both the 280 and the 260 yield salvage parts. With about 100 die candidates per wafer, that means 40 good dice per wafer. Doing the maths, a TSMC 300mm 65nm wafer runs about $5000, so that means each good die costs $125 before packaging, testing and the like. If they can get away with sub-$150 costs per GPU, we will be impressed. http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...sucessor-tapes __________________

29th May 2008, 19:28	#2
thorgal [M] Reviewer Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,887	LOL, some more nvidia bashing by the INQ. One starts to wonder what pissed them off so much... If what they say is true however, nVidia is in for a rough summer... __________________

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Intel Larrabee hit 1 TFLOPS - 2.7x speed for NVIDIA GT200	jmke	WebNews	0	2nd December 2009 10:23
Driverheaven Nvidia Mobility Modder Released V1.1.0.0	jmke	WebNews	0	6th August 2009 13:12
NVIDIA Brings SLI Technology to Intel Bloomfield CPU Platforms	jmke	WebNews	1	14th July 2008 22:13
NVIDIA GT200 55nm to challenge ATI R700	jmke	WebNews	0	11th July 2008 11:11
Stock Market shows no love for NVIDIA GT200	jmke	WebNews	0	25th June 2008 15:18
Nvidia changes GT200 NDA date to 17th June	jmke	WebNews	1	27th May 2008 08:52
NVIDIA GeForce GT200 is 65nm or 55nm	jmke	WebNews	0	13th May 2008 17:35
NVIDIA Next Gen GT200 thermal design power (TDP) is 250W	jmke	WebNews	0	4th February 2008 11:10
NVIDIA Brings the Power of SLI Technology to Intel Core 2 Duo Platforms	jmke	WebNews	0	6th June 2006 14:02
NVIDIA Is the Only GPU Manufacturer	Sidney	WebNews	0	24th August 2004 05:44

30th May 2008, 21:03	#3
Kougar Posts: n/a	Yeah, INQ really is looking for any sort of excuse, not even going to believe those numbers. THG already mentioned Itaniums... Itanium is still bigger by far with higher tranistor counts.