• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Fermi/GF100/GF104 clarification...more delays?

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,343
1,199
126
OK folks, let's stop derailing this thread and keep it On-Topic. Members with personal issues need to take it to PM and stop polluting this thread.

TIA

Fern
Super Moderator


According to this:
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20091228PD207.html
Fermi has been delayed to March. Now is that the HPC market version delayed? It also mentions GF104 is into Q2 2010. Is the GF104 the Geforce line and the GF100 the Tesla line? So regular consumers can't buy cards based on Fermi until at least Q2 2010?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Spike

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2001
6,770
1
81
Dang, I really want a 5870 (or possible a Fermi depending on price/performance) but don't want to pay the high prices for it. C'mon nVidia, launch those cards and give me cheap options!
 

ronnn

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
3,918
0
71
I thought March was always the date. Maybe they have decided on a hard launch.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,343
1,199
126
I thought March was always the date. Maybe they have decided on a hard launch.
I thought March was the Geforce launch date with Tesla launching earlier...now it seems Tesla is launching in March with Geforce in "Q2 2010" (?)...which is who knows when for nV's odd quarter schedule.
 

nitromullet

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2004
9,031
36
91
I thought March was the Geforce launch date with Tesla launching earlier...now it seems Tesla is launching in March with Geforce in "Q2 2010" (?)...which is who knows when for nV's odd quarter schedule.
This is the only official word I'm aware of:

http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1258360868914.html

The Tesla C2050 and C2070 products will retail for $2,499 and $3,999 and the Tesla S2050 and S2070 will retail for $12,995 and $18,995. Products will be available in Q2 2010. For more information about the new Tesla 20-series products, visit the Tesla product pages.

Editors’ note: As previously announced, the first Fermi-based consumer (GeForce®) products are expected to be available first quarter 2010.
March is still Q1, but I imagine they were shooting more for CES (Jan 7-10) for GeForce at the time of that press release than the end of Q1. Although, that is just speculation on my part.

edit: I have no idea when/where the previous announcement regarding GeForce referenced in that quote took place.
 
Last edited:

Cookie Monster

Diamond Member
May 7, 2005
5,161
32
86
According to this:
http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20091228PD207.html
Fermi has been delayed to March. Now is that the HPC market version delayed? It also mentions GF104 is into Q2 2010. Is the GF104 the Geforce line and the GF100 the Tesla line? So regular consumers can't buy cards based on Fermi until at least Q2 2010?
It could mean two things. Telsa does indeed launch first during March followed by the Geforce lineup during Q2.
OR
Geforce will launch sometime during march with a hefty pricetag of $599+ (or more? targeting the ultra high end) because of its performance compared to the competition. This makes the GF104 a cut down version of GF100 that is replacing the GT200b products ($199~499 segment) all together during Q2.

When is CES anyway?
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Ya . I was going to bring up the thread from this summer. Were I called this way befor Charlie did . Sorry Charlie. I can wait its not a biggy.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Ya . I was going to bring up the thread from this summer. Were I called this way befor Charlie did . Sorry Charlie. I can wait its not a biggy.
Even a blind hen can find corn in time.

Neither of Charlie's (or your guesswork) was based on fact(s)?
Why can I say this?
Because no one knew how A2 or A3 (or even if there where to be an A3 version) silicon would behave before they where out.

It's common logic...and dosn't support you "high I.Q" claims...quite the contrary.

Charlie's "excuse" is that he is a paid shill of AMD...what is yours?

But I would love, since you claim to be intelligent and have near photographic memory, for you to extrapolate on your claims.
You know the "scientific" way.
You present the facts and not just guesswork.

Can you do that...or are you just another Charlie-parrot, with one thumb up your *bleep* and the other held high in the air, trying to act like it's fact, when I suspect it's little more than "FUD fiction"?
 
Last edited:

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
998
126
Even a blind hen can find corn in time.

Neither of Charlie's (or your guesswork) was based on fact(s)?
Why can I say this?
Because no one knew how A2 or A3 (or even if there where to be an A3 version) silicon would behave before they where out.

It's common logic...and dosn't support you "high I.Q" claims...quite the contrary.

Charlie's "excuse" is that he is a paid shill of AMD...what is yours?

But I would love, since you claim to be intelligent and have near photographic memory, for you to extrapolate on your claims.
You know the "scientific" way.
You present the facts and not just guesswork.

Can you do that...or are you just another Charlie-parrot, with one thumb up your *bleep* and the other held high in the air, trying to act like it's fact, when I suspect it's little more than "FUD fiction"?
Charlie's logic was always that Fermi is too large and complex to get right on the first try on the pretty new 40nm process, and he gave decent reasoning counting the weeks it takes for respins to happen. I think Charlie did get it right and for all the right reasons (at least in this case).

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/11/02/nvidia-finally-gets-fermi-a2-taped-out/

That article is from 11/2, and there he is claiming March. He has decent reasoning it would appear, and hardly looks like he threw a dart at a calendar.
 
Last edited:

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Charlie's logic was always that Fermi is too large and complex to get right on the first try on the pretty new 40nm process, and he gave decent reasoning counting the weeks it takes for respins to happen. I think Charlie did get it right and for all the right reasons (at least in this case).

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/11/02/nvidia-finally-gets-fermi-a2-taped-out/

That article is from 11/2, and there he is claiming March. He has decent reasoning it would appear, and hardly looks like he threw a dart at a calendar.
You are saying that he had a "magic crystal-ball" that allowed him to predict the outcome of 2 repsins? :rolleyes:

Just like he "predicted" there would be no GTX295
Or like he predicted that the GT200 was to big, to complicated and yields where down the drains?
Sound familar?

Charlie has a limited repetoriare, this is nothing new, he has been anti-nvidia ever since they cut out him due to NDA's refusal from him.

Use your logic, go back and read all his GT200 garbage, all you have to do is to replace "GT200" with "Fermi"...reused garbage.

Charlie is a one trick-pony, paid by NVIDIA's competitor AMD...only fanboys take him seriously.
 

NIGELG

Senior member
Nov 4, 2009
840
16
81
You are saying that he had a "magic crystal-ball" that allowed him to predict the outcome of 2 repsins? :rolleyes:

Just like he "predicted" there would be no GTX295
Or like he predicted that the GT200 was to big, to complicated and yields where down the drains?
Sound familar?

Charlie has a limited repetoriare, this is nothing new, he has been anti-nvidia ever since they cut out him due to NDA's refusal from him.

Use your logic, go back and read all his GT200 garbage, all you have to do is to replace "GT200" with "Fermi"...reused garbage.

Charlie is a one trick-pony, paid by NVIDIA's competitor AMD...only fanboys take him seriously.
Maybe you're right up to your last sentence.......do you have proof that he is a paid by AMD??
 

SlowSpyder

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
17,305
998
126
You are saying that he had a "magic crystal-ball" that allowed him to predict the outcome of 2 repsins? :rolleyes:

Just like he "predicted" there would be no GTX295
Or like he predicted that the GT200 was to big, to complicated and yields where down the drains?
Sound familar?

Charlie has a limited repetoriare, this is nothing new, he has been anti-nvidia ever since they cut out him due to NDA's refusal from him.

Use your logic, go back and read all his GT200 garbage, all you have to do is to replace "GT200" with "Fermi"...reused garbage.

Charlie is a one trick-pony, paid by NVIDIA's competitor AMD...only fanboys take him seriously.
I thought Charlie said that the 65nm chips were not able to be used as a dual GPU card. If he was talking about the 55nm parts than obviously he was wrong.

Do we know what the yeilds were on the GT200? I don't even recall that story, but I'll take your word for it for the sake of arguement as it sounds like something he'd write about. Let's go with that, do you have the yield numbers? Do you know how many wafers they bought to offset whatever yields might have been? If not then I don't think you're doing anything different than what you claim Charlie has been doing.

Charlie has been absolutely correct in regards to Fermi's timing so far (assuming Nvidia doesn't launch parts between now and ~March), hate him or not. He's shown why he thinks what he thinks and looks to be dead on. So far you're looking to be the one who's taking a stab in the dark about how Charlie got his Fermi information... I'd be willing to guess that Charlie has a contact at TSMC. I don't know. But he's been pretty accurate for a long time about Fermi's timing and respins, it would seem too accurate to just be guessing about it.
 
Last edited:

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Maybe you're right up to your last sentence.......do you have proof that he is a paid by AMD??
This:
http://www.hardocp.com/news/2009/10/07/nvidia_abandons_market6363636363/
From Ken Brown, NVDIA

Hi Kyle,

Thanks for asking.

There is no truth to this. Charlie has become a sponsored site of his sole advertiser. It's no coincidence his website looks like an AMD ad.

Please let your readers know, and let us know if you have any more questions.

Thanks.
It makes his ramblings make "sense", dosn't it?
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Even a blind hen can find corn in time.

Neither of Charlie's (or your guesswork) was based on fact(s)?
Why can I say this?
Because no one knew how A2 or A3 (or even if there where to be an A3 version) silicon would behave before they where out.

It's common logic...and dosn't support you "high I.Q" claims...quite the contrary.

Charlie's "excuse" is that he is a paid shill of AMD...what is yours?

But I would love, since you claim to be intelligent and have near photographic memory, for you to extrapolate on your claims.
You know the "scientific" way.
You present the facts and not just guesswork.

Can you do that...or are you just another Charlie-parrot, with one thumb up your *bleep* and the other held high in the air, trying to act like it's fact, when I suspect it's little more than "FUD fiction"?

Your correct and you probably won't get it until I retrieve that thread and show you the very simple logic I based it off of. That most in the industry would agree with.
 

yh125d

Diamond Member
Dec 23, 2006
6,907
0
76
Heh, NV PR head honcho says hes paid by AMD so it must be true. Classic. You're just as biased as he is




And have you been to his website? ATM only two ads, one for flyspy.com and another for some pre-built pc company. It doesn't look at all like an AMD site (except some of the article material)
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
I thought Charlie said that the 65nm chips were not able to be used as a dual GPU card. If he was talking about the 55nm parts than obviously he was wrong.

Do we know what the yeilds were on the GT200? I don't even recall that story, but I'll take your word for it for the sake of arguement as it sounds like something he'd write about. Let's go with that, do you have the yield numbers? Do you know how many wafers they bought to offset whatever yields might have been? If not then I don't think you're doing anything different than what you claim Charlie has been doing.

Charlie has been absolutely correct in regards to Fermi's timing so far (assuming Nvidia doesn't launch parts between now and ~March), hate him or not. He's shown why he thinks what he thinks and looks to be dead on. So far you're looking to be the one who's taking a stab in the dark about how Charlie got his Fermi information... I'd be willing to guess that Charlie has a contact at TSMC. I don't know. But he's been pretty accurate for a long time about Fermi's timing and respins, it would seem too accurate to just be guessing about it.
He was "absolutely correct in regards to Fermi's timing" even when NVIDIA didn't know themselfes?
Where do you get that "logic" from?

Lets look at his early ramblings:
http://semiaccurate.com/2009/07/29/miracles-happen-gt300-tapes-out/

Lots of doom and gloom...but no mention of them needing a A3 respin.
Then this:
http://semiaccurate.com/2009/11/02/nvidia-finally-gets-fermi-a2-taped-out/
The A2 respin....excalty the same doom and gloom...but no mention of a A3 respin.

Then this:
http://semiaccurate.com/2009/12/10/fermi-a3-silicon-oven/
The A3 respin.
Nobody, not even NVIDIA, knew back June that it would take a A3 respin to get a product.

And least of all Charlie

To claim otherwise is intellectual dishonesty and quite frankly not very bright.

But those "standards" a boken clock "predicts" time..and is accurate twice a day...."semiaccurate" the rest of the time.

But a lucky guess dosn't make you correct, it just makes you lucky.

Charlie (and the likes of him) are not doing anything good.
They only help to fuel flame wars.

And look at his lastest blunder:
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/12/16/oak-ridge-cans-nvidia-based-fermi-supercomputer/

Seems people are VERY fast to forget when his ramblings fails:
http://www.semiaccurate.com/2009/12/16/oak-ridge-cans-nvidia-based-fermi-supercomputer/
Oak Ridge cans Nvidia based Fermi supercomputer
*snipped out his ramblings*
Legitreviews decided to talk not just to NVIDA...but to people at Oak Rigde. something Charlie negleted to do, his just said that NVIDIA not answering his emails was "prove" that was, but NVIDIA has cut Charlie off a long time ago...so whhy would they answer him?):
http://www.legitreviews.com/news/6999/
Legit Reviews contacted several people at Oak Ridge National Laboratory this afternoon and found that a number of their employees in media relations had no idea what we were talking about. A little later we got on the phone with someone in Computing and Computational Sciences at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and they stated that the SemiAccurate article was inaccurate and had no further comment. Legit Reviews also contacted Adrew Humber over at NVIDIA who informed us that the original press release that was issued in September is still valid and that nothing has changed.
This is the "hardware prophet" that fanboys flock around...even when exposed as flat out wrong, the fanboys will ignore this and just keep regurgitating his ramblings...not doing the consumers any good.
 

Lonbjerg

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2009
4,419
0
0
Heh, NV PR head honcho says hes paid by AMD so it must be true. Classic. You're just as biased as he is




And have you been to his website? ATM only two ads, one for flyspy.com and another for some pre-built pc company. It doesn't look at all like an AMD site (except some of the article material)
I am against fud-sites, no GPU manufactors...thas is my only bias.
But did you look at his site at the time?
Or did that fact "slip" you mind?
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0
Lonbjerg I see you like talking . Lets see what your true worth is. Go retrieve the correct post I am referring to . Once you read it . You to may have the capacity to comprehend what was written so long ago. I am not aware of any company that has succeded in trying to do what nv tried to do . certainly No fabless company has.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY