Discuss.Can it be that bad? Sure, it can always be zero.
Let's just assume ALL of Charlie's numbers and sources are 100% correct...its four wafers.
Getting low yields on four wafers is not exactly uncommon. And it especially comes as no surprise for a hot lot as typically hot lots have nearly all the inline inspection metrology steps skipped in order to reduce the cycle-time all the more.
Those inline inspections are present in the flow for standard priority wip for a reason, related to both yield (reworks and cleanups) as well as cost reduction (eliminate known dead wip earlier in the flow).
I really pity anyone who is wasting their time attempting to extrapolate the future health of an entire product lineup based on tentative results from four hot-lotted wafers. That's not a put down to anyone who is actually doing just that, including Charlie, its an honest empathetic response I have for them because they really are wasting their time chasing after something with error bars so wide they can't see the ends of the whiskers from where they stand at the moment.
Now if we were talking about results averaged from say 6-8 lots and a minimum of 100-200 wafers ran thru the fab at standard priority (i.e. with all the standard yield enhancement options at play) then I'd be more inclined to start divining something from the remnants of the tea leaves here.
But just four wafers? Much ado about nothing at the moment, even IF all of the claimed details themselves are true.
This would have been far more interesting had the yields on those four wafers came back as 60% or 80%, again not that such yield numbers could be used to say anything about the average or the stdev of the yield distribution but it would speak to process capability and where there is proven capability there is an established pathway to moving the mean of the distribution to that yield territory.
But getting zero, or near-zero, yield is the so-called trivial result, it says almost nothing about process yield to get four wafers at zero yield. All it takes is one poorly performing machine during one process step and you get four wafers with yield killing particles spewed on them.
It was a high risk wafer deal, this doesn't reflect the main production wafers but instead is a bunch of rough output to rush samples out before christmas.Discuss.
Nope, these hotlots aren't chips that will end up on end users hands, the lucky reviewers might get one, then again they might not. a hotlot has all the typical WIP processing removed so there's no EC/QC in the production line, 7 chips from 4 wafers might sound bad but considering the lack of QC its not that bad actually. These hotlots allows them to adjust the manufacturing machinery prior to ramping up full production. Which has the QC/EC in place to make sure that all the bag parts are weeded out before reaching the end process..... its the parts that reach the end process that are generally counted as good or bad yield.Having these low yields now is just a bad indication for their general production, as it would suggest that mass production is too risky still, meaning we won't see the card soon. Still I wish nVidia all the luck, right now I see two scenarios, given their history:
G300 is bigger then GT200b but smaller then GT200 its not that big at all. The last time nvidia was this quiet, we got the 8800 series. The last time nvidia was loose when it came to details, we got the FX series.1. They're staying silent as they have hardly anything to show: Their monstrous GPU strategy is biting them in the rear and they can't give a real indication of neither its power nor its release date.
2. They're going the ATi approach, putting up smokescreens and trying to catch them off guard with a card that even the 5870X2 can't compete with. Staying low now might make ATi feel comfortable.
I'm gearing more towards the 1st scenario though. nVidia loves to boast, especially to take the wind out of ATi's sails. Right now the only info we have is that it will be a huge and powerful chip that "should" beat ATi's series. That's all.
The boards? yes. The Processing units? NO. That's nVidia's fault, if they weren't so arrogant and if I didn't lose 230 bucks because of it, maybe I wouldn't have disliked them as much. It's going to be a very long while if I ever consider buying a nVidia. Maybe long enough till they're out of business. Which shouldn't be that long anyway.lol, Sagi, your just an nvidia hater, pure and simple.
I've got founded reasons for not liking ATI (Driver and design politics) just like others have for not liking nvidia.
regardless. ATI's hotlots were low yields too.
PS.
both nvidia's and ati's quality are dependant on the brand selling them. except where ATI's reference design is flawed.... atleast nvidia has never used driver profiling to inhibit performance on their cards >.>
...what did you lose 230 bucks on?
a preoverclocked board which didn't adhere to nvidia's design.?
What nvidia board partners do with the cards is on them, nvidia just makes chips that the vendors tend to screw up on and not implement chip timing properly.
When will you stop crying for nVidia? Yes, it's their job to replace it. But it isn't their FAULT. They are NOT THE COMPANY TO BE BLAMED.Oh, you mean those cards. (the ones i don't care about because they are 128bit value cards)
Fact: Nvidia didn't sell you a card. XFX, Leadtek, Asus, PowerColour, etc did. It is up to them to replace the card.
Prove that a recall was issued by nVidia or you're just fudding.Actually ITS NOT.
its XFX's job to replace it, its Dells job to replace it, its Asus's job to replace it.
the vendor failed to proceed with a product recall, and nvidia would've have to complied with replacement chips had they have.
nvidia didn't fail anyone here. the media has failed at placing the blame to the proper agents though.
Quoting myself to indicate your failure to read.Actually ITS NOT.
its XFX's job to replace it, its Dells job to replace it, its Asus's job to replace it.
the vendor failed to proceed with a product recall, and nvidia would've have to complied with replacement chips had they have.
nvidia didn't fail anyone here. the media has failed at placing the blame to the proper agents though.
