Oak Ridge National Labs and Nvidia Supercomputer killed is "FAKE"

Status
Not open for further replies.

ronnn

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
3,918
0
71
Most of us thought this one sounded wrong. But he does have the accurate half, which of course is why he gets hits. Think bumpgate.
 

waffleironhead

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
6,674
212
116
So let me get this straight. First you posted this in the other thread, then decided a few hours later that it warranted its own thread? Why not wait for the op of the original one to update the title? Was the news really that pressing?
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,209
50
91
So let me get this straight. First you posted this in the other thread, then decided a few hours later that it warranted its own thread? Why not wait for the op of the original one to update the title? Was the news really that pressing?
I thought it was. But if you don't, feel free to disagree. I'll ask a mod to lock this one up.
Just my little way of reducing the hits Charlies site gets.
 

waffleironhead

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
6,674
212
116
I thought it was. But if you don't, feel free to disagree. I'll ask a mod to lock this one up.
Just my little way of reducing the hits Charlies site gets.
Well, most people who enter the other thread as newcomers are not going to want to just read the rebuttal. So charlie is going to get extra hits from both threads now. ;)

I just pictured you hopping up and down in your chair. "Oh my people need to know charlie was wrong and it just cant wait." :)
 

Wreckage

Banned
Jul 1, 2005
5,529
0
0
Charlie is usually wrong. His supporters don't care, they just like that he thinks like them.
 

ronnn

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
3,918
0
71
But he wasn't wrong about bad bumps and he was right about no fermi in 2009. These scoops have certainly made nvidia hate him.
 

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,426
379
126
Lock this thread before it gets taken over into a Charlie vs world thingy. We already have this conversation elsewhere.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
57
81
Lewis Rothschild: They don't have a choice! Bob Rumson is the only one doing the talking! People want leadership, Mr. President, and in the absence of genuine leadership, they'll listen to anyone who steps up to the microphone. They want leadership. They're so thirsty for it they'll crawl through the desert toward a mirage, and when they discover there's no water, they'll drink the sand.

President Andrew Shepherd: Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight. People don't drink the sand because they're thirsty. They drink the sand because they don't know the difference.
The American President, great movie. I love this conversation, it highlights why the business Charlie is in is a business that exists in the first place.

People are thirsty, they want knowledge, they want to feel like they have an understanding of what the hell is going on.

And in the absence of Nvidia filling the information void with legitimate info regarding fermi status updates and milestone accomplishments the people are willing to drink up whatever crap info they have access to.

And that absence of leadership, the absence of legitimate information is what breeds the existence of rumor sites like semi-accurate and BSN.

If Nvidia really wanted to eliminate these false accusations of deals gone bad and designs gone bad they'd be a little more pro-active about directly enlightening the community with status updates and so on. Intel does it with Anandtech, they get hands-on previews of CPU's 6 months before they are released.

The community drinks the sand, regardless whether or not they know the difference, because there is no other option.
 

nitromullet

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2004
9,031
36
91
But he wasn't wrong about bad bumps and he was right about no fermi in 2009. These scoops have certainly made nvidia hate him.
Regarding 'bumpgate', NVIDIA actually published this press release themselves on July 2, 2008: http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1215037160521.html in conjunction with their SEC filing http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119312508145974/d8k.htm

All Charlie did was report on a NV press release. http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1036184/nvidia-opens-whoop-ass-itself

...not exactly what I call a "scoop" that caught NV with their pants down.
 

thilanliyan

Lifer
Jun 21, 2005
11,444
1,346
126
^I totally agree with IDC. We all want info on Fermi (especially gaming numbers for a lot of us) but there have been zero leaks/etc about it by nV themselves...so the best we have are rumour sites. And if nV feels they can't reveal that information then there's not a whole lot else to do for someone who does want some possible info.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
57
81
Regarding 'bumpgate', NVIDIA actually published this press release themselves on July 2, 2008: http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1215037160521.html in conjunction with their SEC filing http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119312508145974/d8k.htm

All Charlie did was report on a NV press release. http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1036184/nvidia-opens-whoop-ass-itself

...not exactly what I call a "scoop" that caught NV with their pants down.
Charlie did some investigative reporting on the bump issue and wrote a three-part technical discussion on his findings:

Part 1: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1004378/why-nvidia-chips-defective

Part 2: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1013947/nvidia-should-defective-chips

Part 3: http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1036374/nv-should

The Nvidia defective chips use a type of bump called high lead, and are now transitioning to a type called eutectic, see here and here. Eutectic materials have two important properties, they have a low melting point, and all components crystallize at the same temperature. This means they are easier to work with, and form a good solid bond. Eutectic bumps may have lead in them, or they may not, some are gold/tin, other are lead based, it depends on what characteristics you want, and how much you want to pay. It is a property, not a formula.

Most if not all substrates use eutectic pads to attach the bumps to as well. If you use a eutectic pad with a eutectic bump, you get a much better connection than you do if you use a high-lead bump with a eutectic pad. This is reflected in much higher yields, lower assembly costs, and a physically stronger connection as well. At this time, we have no good explanation as to why Nvidia chose to go the high-lead bump on eutectic pad route.

High-lead bumps have a much higher current capacity than eutectic bumps. When power is run through eutectic bumps, you also get an effect called electromigration. This means that some of the materials are essentially pushed around by the current, and you get voids in the bump. These voids lessen the capacity of the bump, and eventually they burn out.
The man has had his moments of brilliance.
 

nitromullet

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2004
9,031
36
91
Charlie did some investigative reporting on the bump issue and wrote a three-part technical discussion on his findings
I know... You don't think I ran into this digging up the previous links? The point is that Charlie didn't break any story. He published a good explanation of the issue, but publishing information after the fact isn't exactly breaking news.

His claims about desktop failures haven't materialized either... http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/07/nvidia-denies-rumors-of-mass-gpu-failures.ars

So, I'm a little confused about what he was "right" about.
 

Zap

Elite Member
Oct 13, 1999
22,377
2
81
But he wasn't wrong about bad bumps and he was right about no fermi in 2009. These scoops have certainly made nvidia hate him.
Nvidia hated that he broke NDA so they stopped feeding him, which made him hate Nvidia.

I've read through most of the bumpgate stuff (yes, even written by Charlie) and...

I don't think the bumps were faulty or bad.

Bear with me for a moment... I think they weren't faulty, yet they did fail under the stress of repeated temperature cycles, usually very high temperatures in notebooks that perhaps aren't as extreme in desktop systems. Thus, I don't think they were faulty, but instead...

I think it was a bad design or manufacturing decision.

The information Charlie got from unnamed "experts" would seem to support that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY