havli wrote:Sorry... this claim is nonsense. All ROHS hardware is much more prone to failure. So we are talking stuff manufactured in 2006 and later. Nvidia / AMD or any other manufacturer doesn't really matter. If your 2900 XT is working and 8800 not, then you are just lucky. Here are few examples of my collection that are/were defective:
I didn't say RoHS solder isn't the cause of a lot of failure. What I am saying is that cards that do fail because of RoHS solder can be re-balled. nVidia chips that fail don't usually fail only because of RoHS solder, there is usually also something wrong with the chip.
Radeon 9550 - not working in 3D, no change after reflow
Radeon 9600 XT - no image, reflow not tried yet
Radeon 9800 Pro - artifacts, reflow didn't help
First of all, these cards did not use RoHS solder. Secondly, they most likely used electrolytic capacitors, which must be removed prior to an oven reflow. Not that a reflow would have helped here, because the problems were most likely the capacitors in the first place. These Radeon cards used Nichicon HC series capacitors which only have a 1000 hour rating at 105C. In hot systems, these capacitors would fail over time.
GeForce FX 5800 Ultra - sometimes artifacting, sometimes working fine
GeForce PCX 5900 - sometimes artifacting, sometimes working fine
Probably defective RAM. These cards are not RoHS AFAIK.
And as for your X19xx cards, I can't for the life of me explain why a reflow helped. I'm pretty sure they are not RoHS.
I should also once again mention that reflowing is a temporary solution, and each subsequent reflow gives an increasingly diminished return, as the solder becomes even more brittle, especially considering that most people do not bother to properly inject liquid flux underneath the BGA before reflowing.
Scali wrote:I'm not defending nVidia at all. As I say, bumpgate is real, I lost two cards to it.
The sensationalist piece by SA however... that's a bit much.
Please point out exactly what is so sensationalist about SA's many exposés on the faulty nVidia hardware of that era.
They don't? How do we know that those pictures are even from an nVidia chip? Or that they're even real? And even if they're real, how do we know the chip was not sabotaged on purpose in order to take that picture?
I've not seen anyone other than SA bring forth all these claims, nor verify them.
SA has posted memorandum from nVidia themselves admitting at least to the problem of the underfill:
Nvidia changes desktop G86 for no reason
The PCN is dated May 22, 2008 on the bottom of pages 2-5, July 25 on the bottom of Page 1, and Page 6 is undated. The first big problem is that it is entitled “G86 Desktop Products” with a subtitle “Change Namics 8439-1 Underfill material to Hitachi 3730″. Above that there is “Product/Process Change Notice”, the usual NDA only disclaimer.
Remember how Nvidia swore up and down that desktop parts were flat out not affected? Remember how we said that all G84 and G86s were because they were the same ASIC? I guess they decided to change this underfill material to better color coordinate with the substrate hues, given the cost of testing, qualification and other work that needs to be done, you certainly wouldn’t want to change it for no good reason. The old one worked just fine, right? Not defective either, they said so. Then again, they said the problem was contained to HP as well.
Keep in mind that eventhough they did eventually address the issue of the underfill, the underlying problem of the bump placement and alloy combination of the bumps and pads were still never addressed until Fermi.
One big reason for it is that nobody knew about it until the cards started failing, which was years later. Note that the 8800 is from 2006, and the first talk of 'bumpgate' arose around september 2008.
As I say, the chips tended to work fine for 2-3 years before they break down. Which is why we didn't fully see the problem until 2008.
I beg to differ. Eventhough nVidia claimed that their defective chipsets were only limited to HP (which is not true), HP received many RMAs within the first year of purchase, and they saw fit to extend their typical one year warranties on laptops only to save face, and not just because the failures were so widespread.
Incorrect.
There are various types of unleaded solder. Aside from that, there are other factors involved that influence how vulnerable the solder joints are to thermal stress.
By your logic I could also take my 8800GTX as an example instead of your 2900XT. Also older, and also lead-free.
Incorrect.
From Rollback the Lead-Free Initiative:
Myth #7. The solution is SAC solder.
"Without the softening effect of lead, the SAC alloys are more brittle and more likely to crack under pressure. They don't wet well, requiring more active fluxes. They don't have a sharp eutectic, staying plastic over a larger range, allowing intermetallics to form and leading to voids. Their higher melting temperatures stress laminates and components, limiting choices and narrowing process windows. There are unpredictable long-term degradation mechanisms such as: 1) the Kirkendall Effect, in which copper migrates into tin, leaving voids, 2) tin whisker formation, and 3) tin pest, in which the tin turns into powder. "
-ALL- unleaded solders are greatly inferior to leaded solder, regardless of the alloy used. To state that some are universally better than others is erroneous. Some might be better than others for certain applications, depending on what you're trying to achieve, but then other simpler unleaded alloys might be superior to other unleaded alloys even if they cost less.
