http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/ Engadget Comments for Faulty GPUs reportedly cost NVIDIA another $119 million http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:01PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/
Very happy with my Sapphire HD4870 1GB Vapor-X. The awesome thing about them is they are pretty quiet. Even when I jack it up to 100% fan its half as loud as my x1800XT was. However, I do hear bad things about Sapphire's support/RMA's. ]]>Aug 7th 2009 3:03PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 6:00PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/set me back 150 bucks. couldn't be happier]]>Aug 7th 2009 9:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 10:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:04PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:14PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:25PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/]]>Aug 7th 2009 3:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/
also @John, the Phenom II's are actually pretty slow, my C2Q 9550 still destroys them in performance, i really hope AMD can survive... it was a good move for them buying ATi.]]>Aug 7th 2009 4:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 7:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:06PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:20PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:22PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 3:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/]]>Aug 7th 2009 5:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:16PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/
http://www.nvidia.com/object/io_1249591520243.html

]]>Aug 7th 2009 2:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/
While he could be a bit rabid at times (particularly where MS was concerned), everything he wrote about nVidia seemed rigorously researched. ]]>Aug 7th 2009 2:47PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:NVDA]]>Aug 7th 2009 2:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:24PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/
The reality of things is that it affects the Geforce 8000 series on the laptop only. Nothing else. One may encounter problems on their GPU no mather what model/company it is.. it doesn't mean anything, as manufacture errors could occur. Moreover, People that have a working product don't tend to go on forum and express how awesomely working the product they got work, and how it still continue to work, but rather when it fails.]]>Aug 7th 2009 5:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:33PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:39PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/
was it a 8m series? There are known defects in the 8 series]]>Aug 7th 2009 2:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 4:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:42PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/
I would've just taken a refund, but I've already had it for a year, and I've heard good things about the Studio series.]]>Aug 7th 2009 2:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/
The 7900GTX Go first failed 2 months out of warranty (14 months after purchase). Sent it off to a computer repair shop and they managed to get it running again with more thermal gel all over the GPU.

5 months later - the memory in the GPU started regularly failing.

Since then, it's been a 50/50 chance of whether loading up a game will BSOD the lappy as the memory has a cry. Not happy for a top of the line gaming lappy. My sister's PC with an 8600GT has also had its fair share of GPU problems as well.

2 weeks ago my new desktop gaming PC arrived (custom built, not from Dell) and this time I chose 2 x Sapphire ATi 4890s in Crossfire. Couldn't be happier - flawless performance in any game I throw at it, zero driver issues and stays nice and cool. And damn they were cheap compared to the equivalent Nvidia cards (2 x ATi 4890s = $640 AUD, 2 x Nvidia GTX 275s = $800).

Got to say I'll probably be continuing to use ATi in the future from now on.

Only thing that could tempt me back to Nvidia would be PhysX, but I'm hoping it will all even out with ATi and Havok's recent showings and the simple fact that PhysX will be an integral part of games until both cards support it. AFter all, what game developer really wants to make a game almost half their potential customers can't play?]]>Aug 7th 2009 8:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 3:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 3:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 2:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 3:17PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/
If you don't do ANY rel testing then you're asking for it. But even when you throw a ton of money at it it still manages to bite you in the butt on a regular basis.]]>Aug 7th 2009 3:18PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 3:28PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/
ATI has been hitting some home runs on the GPU side.]]>Aug 7th 2009 3:51PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 3:32PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 3:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 3:57PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 3:41PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Aug 7th 2009 3:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/
If it's just a few FPS, it might just be you or driver or some software on the back, or your HDD is getting fragmented, where perhaps a deep defrag might help.]]>Aug 7th 2009 5:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/Nvidia is cool too, but I'm all about some ATI.
Never had a problem. ]]>Aug 7th 2009 3:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/
Yeah, other than the fact that almost all of their current lines are just products one or two generations old, with a new name.]]>Aug 7th 2009 4:10PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/http://www.engadget.com/2009/08/07/faulty-gpus-reportedly-cost-nvidia-another-$119-million/
It's just ridiculous the amount of hoops you have to jump through to get a computer manufacturer who refuses to acknowledge the mass faulty gpu incident to do anything about it.]]>Aug 7th 2009 4:37PM