I've seen loads of ppl with 8800s (both g80 and 92) needing the "the oven trick" (which usually only works for a few months btw). And while I thought that was an issue with the card (which is still hurting reputation) - not the chip, I'm not so sure anymore.. Especially as the baking also works on some 8600M cards..But ofcourse most of these 8800 problems occur too late for the warranty and are not as expensive as a new laptop motherboard.As Charlie predicted, the thermal cycling is worse for the laptops, so the problems just occur faster..

Even if a flat out lie it would be hard to prove. You can always make projections that show that you don't anticipate being able to sell X amount of inventory. The keyword he used in his statment was *believe*. So basically they don't *believe* they can sell those items.

He also didn't state that they would not sell those items. Only that they wrote off what they believe was excess inventory that they didn't think they would be able to sell. And then further covered their arses by saying they didn't use that inventory in the guidance for the next quarter.

It's classic CYA and PR speak. If they happen to sell some of that inventory (as they have in the past) that will just be a happy coincidence that just happens to benefit the company and its shareholders. And if they don't manage to sell much or any of it, then they can claim to have correctly predicated changing market conditions.

Regards,
SB

I disagree. This comment is the reason they cannot be counting on selling this inventory in order to reach the target margins. Selling this inventory would put them above the ~45%, but they're saying it's not necessary to reach it. Obviously these predictions come with the usual caveats, but it would be very disingenuous of them and IMO unethical to be telling Wall Street they didn't consider selling this inventory if they actually are counting on it.

I agree it would be hard to prove such a lie. Nvidia was quite cagey in discussing the written off inventory though so they've cast doubt on their motives and left this open to speculation. IMO reputation is still worth something in this world so it would be unwise for Nvidia to risk tarnishing their good reputation (as I perceive it) with analysts.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67C3QP20100813
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-13/rambus-nvidia-agree-on-memory-controller-license.html

They got to an agreement.

But now the interesting part for all of us.
Exactly how many SDR using products nVidia has sold from their birth to today?
And same for DDRx using products.

So we can add up how much they have to pay retroactively

edit: nvm, rambus is only seeking money from the past 8 years, and still needs to win that case in civil court

Revenue line Q2'11 update:

................................................ GPU ..............PSB..............CPB................All Other..........Consolidated
Revenue ..........................$ 550,400......$ 215,100.......$ 45,700 ..........$.−.................. $ 811,200

Some nice growth in the Professional category (PSB), but that's to be expected with Fermi slotting in quite well there.

That GPU hit is just huge though (~1/3). Really puts into perspective how much the problems related to Fermi have impacted their core business. The delays, non-optimal size and operating conditions for a consumer space that has a performant competitor, etc. As well, that it quite likely delayed introduction of the rest of the GF1xx line, including GF104.

Q4 will definitely be better if for no other reason than GF104 is going to do well and continue to do well. Hopefully the rest of the GF1xx chips will also be competitive.

Regards,
SB

I'm not so sure about that. It's doing well now, but the relationship between GF104 and Cypress is quite similar to that between G92 (non b) and RV770: GF104 is bigger and slower.

Right now the HD 5800s are expensive, mostly because AMD is still supply-constrained, but if the GTX 460 starts to really eat into AMD's sales, they could easily drop the HD 5850 to $229 or so, which would make the GTX 460 1GB irrelevant, and the 768MB variant less than attractive.

Plus, Q4 should see Southern Islands launched.

As long as AMD doesn't suddenly develope an aversion to high margins and Nvidia doesn't release a product that poses a greater threat to 5850/5870, GF104 should continue to do well at its price point.

Right now the biggest potential threat that I can see for GF104 is whatever replacement AMD might have for the 57xx cards this fall. Is it going to approach GF104 perf? 58xx cards going down in price if a 68xx line is released isn't going to be much of a factor. Demand should quickly soak up any excess inventory of 58xx with a price reduction in that hypothetical case. And there'd be no reason to continue manufacturing 58xx if there's a 68xx replacement.

I think GF104 is going to be safe for a while. Hell, if you think about it. We all know GF104 can be clocked quite high. Enough that it can approach 5850 territory. However, if they were to have released at GF104 at those clocks it would have forced AMD to adjust prices.

Once they do that, there's a chance it might trigger yet another price war, one which would have the potential to drive down prices of both GF104 and 5850 below what GF104 currently sells at.

Now, look at Nvidia's Q3 filings. Not a particularly attractive situation to trigger a price war that could in the end result in selling GF104 at a lower price than it is currently selling at.

Right now it's a bit of a delicate balancing act at Nvidia to maximize ROI without triggering a price war which could make their situation far worse.

Regards,
SB

Interesting. The idea that NVIDIA deliberately clocked GF104 pretty low to avoid triggering a price war hadn't occurred to me, but I admit it makes sense. On the other hand, there are quite a few overclocked GTX 460s offered by NVIDIA's partners, and they often offer much better value than both the standard GTX 460 and the HD 5850.

I wonder whether that might be enough to prompt AMD to lower their prices. Plus, if the GTX 460 manages to get enough market share for supply to surpass demand on AMD's side, I think a price drop really would happen. Perhaps not a big one, maybe just $20~30, but I don't see AMD just standing idly by while they lose market share in spite of their substantial performance/cost advantage. Besides, since Southern Islands is coming, they'll want to make sure that they don't have too much Evergreen inventory when it launches.

Aye, when GTX 460 launched I was left wondering why in the world they would have clocked it so conservatively. Sure there's obviously the desire not to tramp on sales of GF100 salvage chips, but considering the rather lukewarm reception of GF100 compounded by the fact that the top end model is a salvage chip and the rest are salvage chips of salvage chips. They could have easily positioned it under GTX 470 but close to 5850. GTX 465 even at current clocks was made completely irrelevant by GTX 460 so that wasn't a consideration.

However, doing so, everyone knows that AMD would have had to respond, but even then I figured it would have made some sense from a business standpoint.

But, after looking at their Q3 filing, it just makes a lot more sense in terms of deliberately avoiding triggering any sort of price war. At least until they have a more stable and competitive lineup (rather than just one chip). Added to that a price war between GF104 and Cypress would have reduced the price of 5850 and possibly 5870, making GTX 480/470 even more unattractive to the masses. And driving their price down for those would further damage their already marginal margins.

So in the end. If AMD wasn't going to push their advantage (high margins are better than squeezing the comp when wafer allocations are non-optimal), it looks to be best for Nvidia currently to maneuver around that and carefully pick their battles. At least until they are in a better position with regards to product lineup.

Regards,
SB