Editing Bumpgate

[[File:Underfilled Die.png|alt=The image shows a diagram of a computer processor. On the bottom, there is a green rectangle labeled "substrate". On top of the substrate, there is a black rectangle labeled "chip", which refers to the die. Between the die and the substrate, there are small silver bumps equally spaced apart, encased within a white "filling". The bumps are the solder bumps connecting the die to the substrate, and the white filling is the underfill- meant to strengthen the solder bumps.|thumb|A diagram of a computer processor. When the underfill becomes too soft at any point in the processor's normal operating temperatures, the solder bumps under the die ("chip") can crack, disconnecting the die from the substrate. This leads to the processor failing, and in turn, leads to a critical system failure for the device it's in.]]
'''Bumpgate''', also known as '''Nvidiagate''', was a scandal where [[Nvidia]] and ATI Graphics Processing Units (GPUs) were prone to high failure rates due to a design flaw that led to cracked solder bumps under the die.<ref name=":0" /> Despite the "Nvidiagate" name, this defect not only affected many Nvidia GPUs made from approximately 2006 to 2010, but it also affected ATI GPUs from 2006 to 2008. Among retro console enthusiasts, the defect is best known to have been the likely culprit behind the high failure rate of Nvidia GPUs in [[Sony]]'s early PlayStation 3 models<ref name=":4">{{Cite web |last=RIP Felix |first= |date=23 Dec 2022 |title=A PS3 Story: The Yellow Light of Death |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za7WTNwAX0c |url-status=live |access-date=2 Jun 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref> and ATI GPUs in [[Microsoft]]'s early Xbox 360 models.<ref name=":3" /> Individuals interested in other retro computers may know of the defect from certain models of Dell and [[HP Inc.|HP-Compaq]] laptops manufactured as early as 2005 and as late as 2010, as well as certain [[Apple]] Macbook Pros made from May 2007 to September 2008.<ref name=":16">{{Cite web |title=Affected Models |url=http://www.nvidiasettlement.com/affectedmodels.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101001080616/http://www.nvidiasettlement.com/affectedmodels.html |archive-date=1 Oct 2010 |access-date=7 Jun 2025 |website=The NVIDIA GPU Litigation}}</ref>

==Background==

===Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) Faults===
From approximately 2005-2010, GPU manufacturers Nvidia and ATI developed some GPUs that had a serious design flaw. This flaw led to failures in many of their GPUs during that time period, and Nvidia even saw a class action lawsuit from it. In order to understand what truly happened during this controversy, though, it's important to understand what exactly led to the faults.

These manufacturers had engineered GPUs that electrically connected the silicon chip (die) to the substrate (the "green square part") using high-lead solder bumps. High-lead solder bumps were chosen in order to fit the power delivery specifications that these GPUs needed; high-lead bumps can deliver more current.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Williams |first=Rob |date=29 Sep 2008 |title=NVIDIA at a Disadvantage Due to their Choice of Solder? |url=https://techgage.com/news/nvidia_at_a_disadvantage_due_to_their_choice_of_solder/ |url-status=live |access-date=1 Jun 2025 |website=Techgage}}</ref> To give these solder bumps more strength (especially when operating at high temperatures), it's standard to use an epoxy with silica filler known as underfill. Underfill needs to fit certain specifications, depending on how hot the processor it's used on is expected to get. If it's too hard, the underfill will crack the die. If it's too soft, the bumps will crack because the underfill isn't supportive enough. It also needs to still fit within the right specifications at both high and low temperatures.

In 2006, IBM and Amkor published a study that explained that use of a low T<sub>g</sub> underfill was not acceptable with high-lead solder bumps, and high T<sub>g</sub> would be necessary to avoid defects.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ray |first=S. |last2=Kiyono |first2=S. |last3=Waite |first3=K. |last4=Nicholls |first4=L. |date=2006 |title=Qualification of low-K 90nm Technology Die with Pb-free Bumps on a Build-up Laminate Package (PBGA) with Pb-free Assembly Processes |journal=56th Electronic Components and Technology Conference |pages=139-144 |via=IEEE}}</ref> Therefore, because Nvidia and ATI chose to use high-lead solder bumps, they needed a high T<sub>g</sub> underfill. However, this study was not out at the time that GPUs from 2005 were made, and the companies ended up using low T<sub>g</sub> underfill in these processors. 

This low T<sub>g</sub> underfill would become too soft at high, but normal operating temperatures for these GPUs. When the processor went through normal thermal changes, the solder bumps would soften under heat and harden as they cooled.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Demerjian |first=Charlie |date=1 Sep 2008 |title=Why Nvidia's chips are defective |url=http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1004378/why-nvidia-chips-defective |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090520152257/http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1004378/why-nvidia-chips-defective |archive-date=20 May 2009 |access-date=1 Jun 2025 |website=The Inquirer}}</ref> This would happen over and over again until they cracked under the thermal stress. When enough solder bumps cracked, it would cause a failure in the unit, hence the term "Bumpgate".

==Companies involved and responses==
Bumpgate was a worldwide, almost industry-wide issue that impacted multiple GPUs from Nvidia and ATI. Therefore, it's unclear what company was the most responsible for the incident. Building a GPU is a specialized process that requires it to go through multiple partner companies before ultimately ending up with the company that sells the unit or the system it's contained in (i.e., Microsoft, Sony, Nvidia, etc.). However, it is still important to note the response of each of the companies that were the public faces involved in this incident.

====Microsoft's Response - The "Red Ring of Death"====
[[File:GPU early.jpg|alt=An image of a 90 nanometer graphics processing unit from a Microsoft Xbox 360. The die is in the center of the green square, and the eDRAM is located to the left of it. The die has dark greenish low Tg underfill under it, indicating that it is defective.|thumb|200x200px|A ''defective'' 90nm "Xenos" GPU from an '''early''' Xbox 360 (Xenon revision). Note the large die in the center of the chip, and the dark greenish underfill. The color of the underfill is one way to tell if the chip has the low T<sub>g</sub> underfill.]]<blockquote>''"The breakthrough came when we understood that the connections that were being broken were not located on the motherboard, but they were actually located inside the components."''

- Leo Del Castillo, member of Xbox's hardware engineering group; ''Power On: The Story of Xbox (2021)''<ref name=":3">{{Cite web |last=Xbox |date=13 Dec 2021 |title=Power On: The Story of Xbox {{!}} Chapter 5: The Red Ring of Death |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z2d6IMBS8oY |url-status=live |archive-url=https://archive.org/details/power-on-the-story-of-xbox/The+Story+of+the+Xbox+-+Chapter+5/Power+On+-+The+Story+of+Xbox+-+Chapter+5+-+The+Red+Ring+of+Death.mp4 |archive-date=13 Dec 2021 |access-date=4 Jun 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref></blockquote>In November 2005, Microsoft released the Xbox 360, a video game console equipped with an ATI Xenos GPU. According to leaked internal Microsoft documents from the time, 1.2 million units were shipped out to consumers by November 30th, 2005. 3% of customers had some form of technical issue with their systems. Out of that 3%, 19% reported three flashing red rings, and 24% reported the console freezing.<ref name=":2">{{Cite web |last=RIP Felix |date=15 Jan 2024 |title=A 360 Story - The RED Ring of Death & the 7th Generation Console War |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qKtS_uxdcU |url-status=live |access-date=2 Jun 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref> This is notable because this indicates that shortly after launch, 43% of consumers had consoles showing symptoms of the now-infamous "Red Ring of Death", a term used universally among consumers the describe the early Xbox 360's common hardware fault confirmed to be caused by Bumpgate.<ref name=":3" /> <!-- I could not find the leaked documents, and I'm not totally sure if citing a leak is okay anyway (even if the info is old), so I chose to just cite Felix's video. -V -->

"Three flashing red rings" on the Xbox 360 simply means "core digital error"- or, a general hardware failure. This error can be triggered by a variety of issues, including GPU failure. A Bumpgate-related malfunction would require multiple power cycles to cause a failure in the solder bumps, but it is not uncommon for consoles to see that during testing before being shipped. It is possible that Bumpgate-affected Xbox 360s with GPU failures were part or even all 43% of those defective consoles, but there is no way to be certain. At initial launch, 200,000 non-functional Xbox 360s were in what Microsoft termed "the bonepile"- systems that they planned to repair and ship out later. Approximately 56% of systems worked on the first attempt after manufacture, and that figure improved to 71% after component reworks. At the peak of the "Red Ring of Death" crisis, some consumers discovered that reflowing the motherboard- a process similar to what Microsoft may have done to improve their yield of working Xbox 360s- they could restore functionality to their console, but this was typically for a limited period that was inconsistent between systems.<ref name=":2" />
[[File:GPU late.jpg|alt=An image of a 65 nanometer graphics processing unit from a Microsoft Xbox 360. The die is in the center of the green square, and the eDRAM is located to the left of it. The die has a light, whitish underfill- indicating that it is not one of the defective units.|thumb|204x204px|A ''non-defective'' 65nm "Xenos" GPU from a later revision of Xbox 360 (Jasper V2 on "Kronos 1" package). Note the smaller die and the light, whitish underfill.]]
At the height of the Bumpgate-related defect, approximately 600,000 to 1,000,000 Xbox 360s had the "Red Ring of Death". For several months, Microsoft charged consumers to repair affected consoles. However, in 2007, Microsoft extended the warranty for Xbox 360 consoles displaying an E74 error (an on-screen error also associated with "Red Ring of Death") from one year to three years from the date of purchase. This extension allowed most impacted consumers to get their consoles refurbished at no additional cost. In addition, Microsoft refunded any consumers who had previously paid for repairs related to this issue.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Moore |first=Peter |date=2007 |title=Open Letter From Peter Moore |url=http://xbox.com/en-ca/support/petermooreletter.htm |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071023004948/http://xbox.com/en-ca/support/petermooreletter.htm |archive-date=23 Oct 2007 |access-date=4 Jun 2025 |website=Xbox}}</ref> By mid-2008, the cause was confirmed to be an issue "within the components"- the low T<sub>g</sub> underfill. After this point, ATI and Microsoft completely fixed this issue in Xbox 360s.

Microsoft appears to have taken this approach to protect the Xbox brand. The Xbox 360 was only the company's second home console, and the original Xbox hadn't performed as well as anticipated. Microsoft confirmed this in Chapter 5 of their 2021 documentary, ''Power On: The Story of Xbox''.<ref name=":3" />

====Sony's Response - The "Yellow Light of Death"====
<blockquote>''"We entirely refute the suggestion that PS3 consoles have an inherent defect or other design issue which is akin to any warranty issue experienced by another console manufacturer. [...] We think it is highly unfair to suggest that from an installed base of 2.5 million that the numbers you mention somehow are evidence of a 'manufacturing defect'..."''

- Ray Maguire, managing director and senior vice president of Sony Computer Entertainment Europe in 2009; in a letter responding to a BBC Watchdog segment covering the "Yellow Light of Death".<ref name=":12">{{Cite web |last=BBC |date=18 Sep 2009 |title=Sony rebuts BBC PlayStation claim |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8263063.stm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250219154020/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8263063.stm |archive-date=19 Feb 2025 |access-date=4 Jun 2025 |website=BBC NEWS}}</ref><ref name=":13">{{Cite web |last=Martin |first=Matt |date=17 Sep 2009 |title=Sony tackles BBC over 'PS3 failure' report |url=https://www.gamesindustry.biz/sony-tackles-bbc-over-ps3-failure-report |url-status=live |access-date=10 Jun 2025 |website=Gamesindustry.biz}}</ref></blockquote>In November 2006, Sony released the PlayStation 3. Similar to the Xbox 360, the early models of PlayStation 3 had what consumers believe to be a Bumpgate-related defect with its Nvidia-based Reality Synthesizer (RSX) GPU. Many consumers who had purchased early "phat" models with a 90nm GPU experienced critical system failures. PlayStation 3 systems that were exhibiting the issue may freeze suddenly during gameplay and shut off. However, all users affected would find that when attempting to turn their PlayStation 3 back on, the LED power indicator would momentarily turn green, then the system would beep three times while very briefly flashing to a yellow light, then it would continuously blink red without booting the system. This failure was coined by consumers as the "Yellow Light of Death".

A 2009 segment by BBC Watchdog covered the "Yellow Light of Death".<ref name=":1">{{Cite web |last=HelpForPS3 (Reuploader) |last2=BBC |date=17 Dec 2009 |title=Sony PS3 Yellow Light of Death - BBC |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_ef8bDQktI |url-status=live |access-date=3 Jun 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref> The presenters stated that when viewers contacted Sony about their console malfunctioning, the company simply stated that the issue could have resulted from a variety of possible failures, and pinpointing the cause would require disassembly of the affected system to analyze error codes. This is true; the LED indicators only indicate a general hardware failure, and a proper diagnosis can only be made after checking the PS3's System Controller (Syscon) and checking for error codes.

During the BBC Watchdog segment, one of the interviewees explained that consumers whose systems were outside of the one year warranty period would have to pay £128 (~$173) for a repair, and Sony would only provide customers with a standard three-month post-repair warranty. If the system failed again after that point, they would have to pay out of pocket for another repair. By August 2008, Sony had begun manufacturing consoles with the 65nm RSX<ref name=":6">{{Cite web |last=Miller |first=R. |date=26 Jun 2008 |title=PS3 graphics chip going 65nm this Fall |url=https://www.engadget.com/2008-06-26-ps3-graphics-chip-going-65nm-this-fall.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210924101930/https://www.engadget.com/2008-06-26-ps3-graphics-chip-going-65nm-this-fall.html |archive-date=24 Sep 2021 |access-date=3 Jun 2025 |website=Engadget}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=NVIDIA Playstation 3 GPU 65nm Specs |url=https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/playstation-3-gpu-65nm.c1682 |url-status=live |access-date=3 Jun 2025 |website=TechPowerUp GPU Database}}</ref>, which enthusiasts confirmed does not have the theoretically Bumpgate-related fault.<ref name=":2" /><ref name=":14">{{Cite web |last=RIP Felix |date=9 Jun 2025 |title=A PS3 Story 2: Defending BumpGate Theory |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpjtRjGPLhI |url-status=live |access-date=10 Jun 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref> In addition, Sony has successfully repaired consoles by transplanting non-defective GPUs (the 65nm or 40nm RSX) into systems that were originally manufactured with a defective 90nm RSX.<ref name=":17">{{Cite web |last=Icferrum |date=2 Feb 2020 |title=Frankenstein PHAT PS3: CECHA with 40nm RSX |url=https://www.psx-place.com/threads/frankenstein-phat-ps3-cecha-with-40nm-rsx.28069/ |url-status=live |access-date=14 Jun 2025 |website=PSX-Place}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Mystic |date=9 Apr 2025 |title=Sony's PS3 Upgrade They Never Told You About: Official 40nm RSX Frankenstein Console From Sony |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2abnrOADoCc |url-status=live |access-date=14 Jun 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref> However, consoles repaired prior to Sony implementing this repair policy were highly likely to fail again. In addition, the console would also be reset during the repair, resulting in the loss of any data that was not backed up prior to the failure (i.e., game saves).<ref name=":1" /> 

Sony never issued a recall or extended warranty for affected systems; all repair costs were paid by consumers, unless the system failed during the standard one-year warranty period. However, the PS3's fan table accommodated better for the temperature changes that led to failures than the Xbox 360 did, so it took longer for the defect to manifest. Depending on how frequently the console was used, some consumers would not encounter the defect until a few years into owning their console. 

When the 65nm RSX was released in Fall 2008,<ref name=":6" /> the defect that seems to have caused the "Yellow Light of Death" was resolved for the late "phat" PS3 models. PS3 "slim" models and newer revisions were completely unaffected. The timing of this led some consumers<ref name=":4" /> to suspect that Sony had known about the defect and quietly fixed it. This was at the same time that Microsoft was addressing the problems with the Xbox 360, as well as while Nvidia was being confronted for their Bumpgate defect in some of their GPUs (particularly, the G84 and G86).

Notably, the RSX is a customized version of Nvidia's 256MB GeForce 7800 GTX.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Shimpi |first=Anand |last2=Wilson |first2=Derek |date=24 Jun 2005 |title=Microsoft's Xbox 360, Sony's PS3 - A Hardware Discussion |url=https://www.anandtech.com/show/1719/9 |url-status=live |access-date=16 Jun 2025 |website=AnandTech}}</ref> The GeForce 7 series does have some defective units with low-T<sub>g</sub> underfill, but it is unclear if the 7800 GTX is among them. There are no known sources of consumer complaints about the 7800 GTX, and none of the notebook laptops covered by the Nvidia class action lawsuit settlement<ref name=":16" /> seem to have that GPU or a mobile version of it. However, this does not necessarily indicate that there was no defect with the 90nm RSX, that Sony wasn't aware that it was defective, or that the 90nm RSX wasn't at all affected by Bumpgate. Console repair and modding enthusiasts have performed extensive research<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":18">{{Cite web |last=Derf |last2=Nadaman |last3=et al. |date=14 Jun 2025 |title=PlayStation 3 - Buying Guide |url=https://consolemods.org/wiki/PS3:Buying_Guide#PlayStation_3_%22Fat/Phat%22_(2006-2009) |url-status=live |access-date=14 Jun 2025 |website=ConsoleMods Wiki}}</ref> and testing<ref name=":14" /> strongly supports the hypothesis that the "Yellow Light of Death" was caused by Bumpgate, and the only way to permanently repair an affected system is to replace the 90nm RSX with a working non-defective unit.

As of 2025, Sony has never made an official statement confirming that the "Yellow Light of Death" was a widespread issue in early PlayStation 3 consoles, nor have they definitively explained that it was linked to Bumpgate.
====Dell's and HP (HP-Compaq)'s Responses - BIOS Updates and Free Repairs====
There were a variety of Dell and HP-Compaq notebook laptops that were affected by the Bumpgate defect, as evidenced by the Nvidia class action lawsuit.<ref name=":16" /> Upon being informed of the defect by Nvidia in 2008, both companies distributed BIOS updates for affected systems with Nvidia GPUs that according to The Inquirer, "[ran] the fan all the time".<ref name=":5" /> The purpose of this was to attempt to prevent the problem from occurring so that consumers wouldn't have to get their systems repaired. However, both companies also provided free repairs for systems already exhibiting symptoms of a failing GPU, such as no video output to the monitor or the computer failing to boot. It's implied in an SEC report that Nvidia filed in 2008 that the companies were compensated for providing this service.<ref name=":10" />

Both Dell and HP-Compaq also offered varying limited warranties after impacted devices were repaired. HP-Compaq offered a limited warranty for 24 months (two years) after the start of customers' original limited warranty or 90 days (approximately three months) after the affected notebook was repaired- whichever was later.<ref name=":7">{{Cite web |last=HP |date=2008 |title=HP Pavilion dv2000/dv6000/dv9000 and Compaq Presario v3000/v6000 Series Notebook PCs -  HP Limited Warranty Service Enhancement |url=http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?lc=en&cc=us&dlc=en&docname=c01087277 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080710172852/http://h10025.www1.hp.com/ewfrf/wc/document?lc=en&cc=us&dlc=en&docname=c01087277 |archive-date=10 Jul 2008 |access-date=8 Jun 2025 |website=HP Customer Care}}</ref> Dell extended limited warranties for systems with these issues for 12 months (one year) from the original purchase date, with a maximum of up to 60 months (five years). In addition, they even offered this to customers whose original warranties already expired- making the new warranty valid from the date the original warranty expired.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Menchaca |first=Lionel |date=18 Aug 2008 |title=NVIDIA GPU Update: Dell to Offer Limited Warranty Enhancement to All Affected Customers Worldwide |url=http://en.community.dell.com/blogs/direct2dell/archive/2008/08/18/nvidia-gpu-update-dell-to-offer-warranty-enhancement-to-all-affected-customers-worldwide.aspx |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081219131311/http://en.community.dell.com/blogs/direct2dell/archive/2008/08/18/nvidia-gpu-update-dell-to-offer-warranty-enhancement-to-all-affected-customers-worldwide.aspx |archive-date=19 Dec 2008 |access-date=23 Jun 2025 |website=Direct2Dell}}</ref><ref name=":8">{{Cite web |last=Meyer |first=David |date=19 Aug 2008 |title=Dell extends warranties after GPU fault |url=https://www.zdnet.com/article/dell-extends-warranties-after-gpu-fault/ |url-status=live |access-date=8 Jun 2025 |website=ZDNet}}</ref>
====Apple's Response - Macbook Pro, May 2007 - September 2008====
In May 2007, Apple released a version of the aluminum Macbook Pro that used the Nvidia GeForce 8600M GT GPU, and manufactured the computers with this GPU until September 2008. They stopped manufacturing them with this GPU because they discovered it was one of the models affected by Bumpgate. Unlike the issues with the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 where the system wouldn't even boot, consumers ran into distorted video or no video output on their devices. Nvidia had assured Apple that the graphics processors were not defective, so Apple initially ignored reports expressing that possibility.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web |last=Foresman |first=Chris |date=10 Oct 2008 |title=Apple: NVIDIA chips to blame for MacBook Pro video problems |url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/10/apple-nvidia-chips-to-blame-for-macbook-pro-video-problems/ |url-status=live |access-date=8 Jun 2025 |website=Ars Technica}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Buchanan |first=Matt |date=10 Oct 2008 |title=Apple Confirms Failing Nvidia Graphics Cards in MacBook Pros, Offers Free Repairs and Refunds |url=https://gizmodo.com/apple-confirms-failing-nvidia-graphics-cards-in-macbook-5061605 |url-status=live |access-date=7 Jun 2025 |website=Gizmodo}}</ref> However, after doing their own investigation, Apple had found that the processors actually were defective. Because of this, Apple offered extended repair coverage adding up to four years from the date of original purchase, and refunded customers who already paid to repair systems affected by this defect.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Apple Support |date=18 Nov 2014 |title=MacBook Pro: Distorted video or no video issues |url=http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203254 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141202230527/http://support.apple.com/en-us/HT203254 |archive-date=2 Dec 2014 |access-date=7 Jun 2025 |website=Apple}}</ref>

====Nvidia's Response - Inquirer Accusations and SEC Report====
[[File:Nvidia G80, G84 and G86 size comparison.jpg|alt=Three GPU dies are lined up in a row, from largest to smallest, left to right: the Nvidia G80, then the G84, then the G86. The internals of the dies are visible.|thumb|Image of the Nvidia G80, G84, and G86's dies (left-to-right). The G84 and the G86 GPUs are known to have been impacted by the Bumpgate defect.<ref name=":5">{{Cite web |last=Demerjian |first=Charlie |date=9 Jul 2008 |title=All Nvidia G84 and G86s are bad |url=http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/07/09/nvidia-g84-g86-bad |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080710121746/http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/07/09/nvidia-g84-g86-bad |archive-date=10 Jul 2008 |access-date=7 Jun 2025 |website=The Inquirer}}</ref>]]
''See also: Lawsuit(s)''<blockquote>''[As of July 2, 2008, all] newly manufactured products and all products currently shipping in volume have a different and more robust material set. [...] We intend to fully support our customers in their repair and replacement of these impacted MCP and GPU products that fail.''

- Marvin Burkett, Nvidia Chief Financial Officer, Form 8-K report to SEC.<ref name=":10">{{Cite web |last=Burkett |first=Marvin |last2=United States Securities and Exchange Commission |date=2 Jul 2008 |title=Form 8-K |url=https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000119312508145974/d8k.htm |url-status=live |access-date=8 Jun 2025 |website=SEC}}</ref></blockquote>Nvidia processors were not the only ones affected by the Bumpgate defect (i.e., the Xbox 360's ATI Xenos GPU), but they seem to have been the most heavily impacted. There were a wide variety of Nvidia graphics processors across multiple architectures that had this defect, but according to the class action lawsuit settlement,<ref name=":16" /> the earliest confirmed system with the defect appears to have been manufactured in December 2005, and the latest systems were manufactured in late February 2010.

The defects were being noticed broadly amongst consumers around July 2008, particularly when ''The Inquirer'' published reports that drew attention to the problems.<ref name=":5" /> Charlie Demerjian, a writer for ''The Inquirer'' at the time, firmly presented claims and evidence that every G84 and G86 GPU was defective- including desktop GPUs- even accusing Nvidia of attempting to cover up the problems. 

On July 2nd, 2008- a few days before Demerjian's article was published- Nvidia filed a report with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).<ref name=":10" /> The report explained that the corporation would pay a $150-200 million one-time charge to cover customer warranties, repairs, returns, replacements, and other notable expenses caused by poor packaging material in some of their media and communications processors (MCPs) and GPUs exclusively used in laptops. This report also stated that all of their newly manufactured products from that point forward would have a more suitable material set. 

On the same day, EE Times published an article where Nvidia explained more about what the cause of the problem was.<ref>{{Cite web |last=LaPedus |first=Mark |date=2 Jul 2008 |title=Nvidia takes charge for bad chips, but who is to blame? |url=http://eetimes.com/electronics-products/processors/4105543/Nvidia-takes-charge-for-bad-chips-but-who-is-to-blame- |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121117035658/http://eetimes.com/electronics-products/processors/4105543/Nvidia-takes-charge-for-bad-chips-but-who-is-to-blame- |archive-date=17 Nov 2012 |access-date=23 Jun 2025 |website=EE Times}}</ref> Nvidia had stated in an email that one of their many packaging partners, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (TSMC), was responsible. However, a subsequent email backpedaled on this response. In the next email, Nvidia stated that they "worked closely" with TSMC on the packaging and material, and hence took full responsibility. DigiTimes attempted to ask TSMC and some of Nvidia's other packaging partners about the defective chips, but TSMC declined a response, citing "client confidentiality", and the other partners did not know anything about the issue because the chips were from an older generation by that point.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Lee |first=Ingrid |last2=Shen |first2=Steve |date=4 Jul 2008 |title=Nvidia contract makers in Taiwan low-key over defective chip reports |url=http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20080704PD210.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080704211726/http://www.digitimes.com/bits_chips/a20080704PD210.html |archive-date=4 Jul 2008 |access-date=23 Jun 2025 |website=DIGITIMES}}</ref> In August 2008, Nvidia's CEO Jen-Hsun Huang explained how the company would handle the defect in an interview during Nvision 2008, claiming that Nvidia would take some responsibility for the defect and pay manufacturers to help consumers fix their devices.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Scath (Reuploader) |date=25 Aug 2008 |title=Nvision: Nvidia CEO Talks About Chip Failure |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZB6kxxgnOQ&t=275 |url-status=live |access-date=27 Jun 2025 |website=YouTube}}</ref>

Joel Hruska from Ars Technica explained that if Nvidia ''was'' trying to cover up the defect- as Demerjian claimed- with this report to the SEC, they not only attempted to avoid responsibility and accused their suppliers of causing the problem, they also committed financial fraud by intentionally lowballing their expected financial losses. This is a major accusation that could have had severe consequences for Nvidia, and could have been dangerous for the company.<ref name=":11">{{Cite web |last=Hruska |first=Joel |date=16 Jul 2008 |title=NVIDIA denies rumors of faulty chips, mass GPU failures |url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/07/nvidia-denies-rumors-of-mass-gpu-failures/ |url-status=live |access-date=8 Jun 2025 |website=Ars Technica}}</ref> However, it is difficult to verify if Nvidia was lying or simply not fully aware of the scale of Bumpgate. Nvidia's public acknowledgement of the defect in the SEC report is consistent with when Dell<ref name=":8" /> and HP<ref name=":7" /> discovered the problem. Although Sony never made a statement on the "Yellow Light of Death", this is even consistent with when they switched the PlayStation 3 to the non-defective 65nm RSX.<ref name=":6" /> The only company it does not appear consistent with is Apple, who discovered the defect in their Macbook Pro systems after their own investigation in September 2008.<ref name=":9" /> Even so, it is possible that Nvidia did not know that the GeForce 8600M GT GPUs in the 2007-2008 Macbook Pro were impacted yet when Apple asked them about it, because the situation was still developing.

Regardless of if Nvidia was truthful in their report or not, they denied the claims that individuals like Demerjian were making- that all of their GPUs were defective and failing en masse.<ref name=":11" /> However, Nvidia was later sued in September by investors who alleged that the company had violated federal securities laws.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Levine |first=Jonathan |date=10 Sep 2008 |title=Gibbs Law Group LLP Announces Class Action Lawsuit Filed Against NVIDIA Corp. |url=https://www.classlawgroup.com/nvidia-lawsuit-filed-press-release |url-status=live |access-date=23 Jun 2025 |website=GibbsMura}}</ref> Shareholder Lisa Miller alleged in the lawsuit that Nvidia knew about the GPU problems as early as November 2007, and concealed this fact from investors.<ref>{{Cite web |last=McGlaun |first=Shane |date=10 Sep 2008 |title=NVIDIA sued over notebook GPU failures |url=https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2008/09/nvidia-sued-over-notebook-gpu-failures/ |url-status=live |access-date=23 Jun 2025 |website=Ars Technica}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=malware |date=11 Sep 2008 |title=NVIDIA Sued Over Faulty GPUs |url=https://www.techpowerup.com/71088/nvidia-sued-over-faulty-gpus |url-status=live |access-date=23 Jun 2025 |website=TechPowerUp}}</ref> By 2010, consumers' trust in Nvidia had eroded enough that a class action lawsuit was filed because of the defect.

==Nvidia Class-Action Lawsuit (2010)==
In 2008, individuals and companies began filing lawsuits against Nvidia. A total of nine cases were filed that were found to be related, and by 2010, these became a class-action lawsuit.

===Claims===
Class members claimed that Nvidia had manufactured defective GPUs and knowingly failed to compensate them. <!-- Expand with more details on class members' claims. -V -->

===Rebuttal===
Throughout the lawsuit, Nvidia continually denied allegations of intentional wrongdoing. <!-- Expand with the response of Nvidia or counterclaims. -V --> 
===Outcome - Settlement and Class Member Appeal===
Nvidia opted for a settlement<ref>{{Cite web |date=2010 |title=Frequently Asked Questions - What can I get from the settlement? |url=http://www.nvidiasettlement.com/faq.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101001080625/http://www.nvidiasettlement.com/faq.html |archive-date=1 Sep 2010 |access-date=13 Jun 2025 |website=The NVIDIA GPU Litigation}}</ref>- though, still asserted that the settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing. Consumers who participated as settlement class members were presented with three options to be compensated, with all benefits paid for by Nvidia:

#A replacement GPU inside their affected notebook;
#A replacement HP notebook computer with one "similar in kind and value" to the one they owned;
#Reimbursement of either the whole cost of repairing the notebook due to a previous GPU failure or a portion of that amount (dependent on how many people submitted valid claims for reimbursement).

The majority of people got their notebooks repaired, but some HP laptops could not be repaired, so they had to be replaced. Many of the systems eligible for the settlement were high-end laptops, originally valued around $1,000 USD. Unfortunately, they were given a budget Compaq Presario CQ56 that was not equivalent in specifications or original value, because it costed approximately how much the three-year-old, defective laptops they replaced were valued at by the time the settlement was reached. Outraged, some of those Class Members contacted Ted Frank from the Center for Class Action Fairness, who promptly filed a complaint with the court to appeal. However, US District Chief Judge James Ware ruled in Nvidia's favor, because the Compaq Presario CQ56 "[came] with an advanced operating system, new warranty and other programs".<ref name=":15">{{Cite web |last=DeCarlo |first=Matthew |date=3 May 2011 |title=Customers get shafted in Nvidia class action suit |url=https://www.techspot.com/news/43614-customers-get-shafted-in-nvidia-class-action-suit.html |url-status=live |access-date=13 Jun 2025 |website=TechSpot}}</ref>

==Consumer response==
===Microsoft (Xbox 360) Consumer Response===
At first, consumers were angry at Microsoft. During the months that the company would not acknowledge the widespread "Red Ring of Death", many consumers felt as if they'd been tricked and made a bad investment when they purchased an Xbox 360. However, when Microsoft extended the warranty on Xbox 360s experiencing an E74 error to three years after purchase, consumer sentiment improved. In Chapter 5 of ''Power On: The Story of Xbox,''<ref name=":3" /> hardware engineers for Xbox during this era explained the problem that caused the "Red Ring of Death" in enough detail for consumers to understand, leaving many consumers who remembered dealing with this issue feeling further validated and restoring some trust in Microsoft and the Xbox brand.

In addition, the release of the information in ''Power On'' helped enthusiasts learn more about how to fix the issue in early Xbox 360s themselves, if necessary. Many consumers who had purchased an Xbox 360 from this era<ref>{{Cite web |last=Enever |first=Liam |date=1 Oct 2017 |title=Why has my got the red ring of death (sic) |url=https://www.ifixit.com/Answers/View/430460/Why+has+my+got+the+red+ring+of+death |url-status=live |access-date=4 Jun 2025 |website=iFixIt Answers Forum}}</ref> and even some independent repair technicians<ref>{{Cite web |date=8 Apr 2014 |title=Xbox 360 Red Ring of Death: Why Lead-Free Solder or Solder Failure Are the Problem |url=https://electronicfix.com.au/console-repairs/what-does-the-rrod-mean/ |url-status=live |access-date=4 Jun 2025 |website=The Electronic Fix}}</ref> had initially assumed that the issue was caused by Microsoft using lead-free solder balls- which are used to connect the Xenos GPU to the motherboard- in order to meet new-at-the-time RoHS standards in the European Union. These individuals alleged that the brittler nature of non-leaded solder made the connections weaker compared to traditional leaded solder, causing the defect. Other consumers had a similar assumption, and thought it was related to the solder balls' melting point, and that the console was getting too hot and "desoldering" the GPU from the motherboard as a result. These misconceptions largely faded into obscurity when Microsoft released the non-defective revisions of the Xbox 360 and announced their extended warranty on their defective consoles, but they were dispelled entirely once Chapter 5 of ''Power On'' was released.

Although the majority of Xbox 360 consoles affected by Bumpgate were repaired by Microsoft as part of their extended warranty program, there were some that managed to slip through the cracks, so consumers today still need to be informed. It is generally recommended by retro console enthusiasts to purchase Xbox 360 consoles manufactured after May 2008 (or marked "Q2 2008") and avoid consoles manufactured before this point, but the Tonasket (AKA "Jasper Kronos" or "Jasper V2") motherboard revision is generally considered to be the most reliable of the original "phat" model Xbox 360 consoles.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Nadaman |last2=et al. |date=8 Jun 2025 |title=Xbox 360 - Buying Guide |url=https://consolemods.org/wiki/Xbox_360:Buying_Guide |url-status=live |access-date=14 Jun 2025 |website=ConsoleMods Wiki}}</ref>

===Sony (PlayStation 3) Consumer Response===
Consumers who experienced the "Yellow Light of Death" were upset with Sony for their poor response. Some, such as PS3 modding and repair enthusiast "RIP Felix", described Sony's response as "gaslighting"<ref name=":2" />- saying that Sony had manipulated consumers into thinking that there was no widespread defect. The six-page letter from Ray Maguire to the BBC following their Watchdog segment takes a tone that supports Felix's claim<ref name=":12" /><ref name=":13" />; By 2009, Sony had stopped producing PS3s with the defective 90nm RSX- which left many consumers suspicious that Sony was trying to cover up the problem to avoid taking responsibility for it.

In 2006, when the PlayStation 3 was new, the console costed $599 USD for the 60GB model ($499 USD for the 20GB model).<ref name=":3" /> This was a major price to pay for a game console at the time; the Nintendo Wii launched at $249.99 USD in November 2006,<ref>{{Cite web |last=Sanders |first=Kathleen |last2=Casamassina |first2=Matt |date=14 Sep 2006 |title=US Wii Price, Launch Date Revealed |url=https://www.ign.com/articles/2006/09/14/us-wii-price-launch-date-revealed |url-status=live |access-date=10 Jun 2025 |website=IGN}}</ref> and the Xbox 360 launched in late November 2005 at $399 USD ($299 USD for the Core System version).<ref>{{Cite web |last=Surette |first=Tim |date=17 Aug 2005 |title=Xbox 360 pricing revealed: $299 and $399 models due at launch |url=http://www.gamespot.com/news/xbox-360-pricing-revealed-299-and-399-models-due-at-launch-6131245 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130605013951/http://www.gamespot.com/news/xbox-360-pricing-revealed-299-and-399-models-due-at-launch-6131245 |archive-date=5 Jun 2013 |access-date=10 Jun 2025 |website=GameSpot}}</ref> Because of the extremely high price compared to competitors, consumers felt that they were making a major investment in a high quality system that would be well-supported if there was a defect. Unfortunately, Sony failed to ever acknowledge the "Yellow Light of Death", other than denying how widespread it was in their only official rebuttal from Ray Maguire, and made consumers pay for an issue that was never their fault.

Some consumers who dealt with the "Yellow Light of Death" paid Sony to repair their systems, but others decided to consider it a loss. For consumers whose systems failed after the "Slim" models came out, some of them chose to re-purchase the cheaper, allegedly more reliable Slim models. At the time, it was assumed that these models were not prone to "Yellow Light of Death" (they have since been confirmed completely non-defective), but there was still some uncertainty among the community at the time. However, others gave up on Sony entirely, switching to other platforms- particularly, the Xbox 360.

====Consumers perform their own repairs====
As a result of the poor response from Sony, consumers largely took things into their own hands. When the PS3 was still supported, informed consumers were sure to warn prospective buyers that the "backwards compatible" and "phat" models of PS3 were prone to the "Yellow Light of Death", that Sony wouldn't fix it for free, and even if they were willing to send it in for repairs, the system would be reset. In the United Kingdom, there was the BBC Watchdog segment that- while misguided on the cause of the problem- did inform consumers across the UK about the issues, so they knew to avoid these early PS3s and choose a newer Slim model if they wanted a PS3.

As of 2025, nearly every PS3 enthusiast knows about the reliability issues of the early, "backwards compatible" PlayStation 3s. Despite this, though, these systems are quite popular among retro console repair and modding enthusiasts particularly for their ability to play not only original PlayStation games, but also PlayStation 2 games. The earliest two revisions, CECHAxx and CECHBxx, even have real PlayStation 2 processors built-in.<ref name=":18" /> This is especially enticing to consumers who own a PlayStation 5, which is capable of playing PlayStation 4 games, so a person could play any PlayStation game across any generation on legitimate hardware with only two consoles. The reliability issues of these early PS3s is a major downside to consumers, though, so the community has been looking for ways to permanently repair these systems for nearly two decades.

However, because Sony never acknowledged the defect, it was far less clear to consumers what exactly was causing the fault than it was for the Xbox 360. This led many retro console and repair enthusiasts to make poorly informed choices in how to attempt to repair their devices. The only guidance that consumers had for what the fault could be was from the BBC Watchdog segment stating that it was a GPU failure- however, they had incorrectly diagnosed the cause in the segment. BBC Watchdog had also employed technicians to reflow the components on afflicted PS3s' motherboards- which led enthusiasts to believe that doing the same to their console would fix it. However, this would only temporarily restore functionality to the system.

By 2018, frustrated PS3 owners were searching for a better solution- preferably, an easier fix. As a result, rumors began to spread that it was not the RSX GPU that was defective, but rather, the NEC-Tokin capacitors surrounding it.<ref name=":4" /> The reason for the misconception was because Toshiba laptops from the same era had their NEC-Tokins fail prematurely due to a design flaw specific to those laptops. In addition, a failure of the NEC-Tokins can result in similar behavior from the PS3, lending further credence to the claim. It was all but "confirmed" when enthusiasts tried replacing them with tantalum capacitors, and it worked for some. However, the reason for this is because it is possible for PS3s to have a GPU-related failure because of the NEC-Tokin capacitors. It has since been confirmed that the NEC-Tokins are not defective or poorly placed, and if they have failed in a console, it is likely due to normal aging. In fact, these capacitors are specialized for their purpose in the PS3, and should not be replaced unless they truly have failed.

In 2020, PSX-Place forum user "Icferrum" discovered a CECHAxx PS3 with a 40nm RSX inside instead of a standard 90nm RSX. There was no information about this modification online, so the only explanation was that Sony had done this officially. This set enthusiasts off to find a way to perform the same modification. A breakthrough was eventually made with the development of the "Frankenstein Mod" in 2021 (sometimes referred to as the "Orbis Mod"), which utilizes an Orbis modchip to make a 40nm RSX compatible with older PS3 models.<ref name=":17" />

As for how consumers largely discovered that the problem was related to Bumpgate, YouTube and PSX-Place user "RIP Felix" published multiple videos detailing his research and theories regarding the early PS3s' defect. Most significantly, Felix published a video where he and Xbox 360 repair and modding enthusiast Josh Davidson (Octal450 on the ConsoleMods Wiki) performed various experiments to confirm their theory that the PS3's 90nm RSX was affected by Bumpgate. They tested the solder bumps under the 90nm RSX's die to confirm the use of high-lead solder bumps, and also performed a variety of tests on the underfill, comparing it to similar defective and non-defective GPUs from the same era- such as the Xbox 360's GPUs and Nvidia's GPUs. The tests included simply shining an ultraviolet light on the underfill to see the similarities in color and luminescence, poking the underfill of each of the GPUs with a soldering iron at various temperatures to compare the reactions, and even using a UV visual spectrophotometer to visualize the difference between compositions in various underfills. The results strongly support Felix's theory that the PS3's 90nm RSX's defects were due to Bumpgate; each test showed that the 90nm RSX was remarkably similar to known defective GPUs, but distinct from non-defective ones.<ref name=":14" /> Felix and Davidson's findings effectively confirm that the only way to repair early PlayStation 3s with the "Yellow Light of Death" caused by a GPU failure is to replace the GPU with a non-defective model.

Thanks to the work of retro console modding and repair enthusiasts, consumers have an option to permanently repair these valuable systems. However, the "Frankenstein Mod" is not recommended for inexperienced modders or those who don't have access to a BGA rework station. Because of the specialized nature of this modification, most people will still recommend for consumers to find someone skilled enough to do the modification for them, buy a system that is already modified, or to simply avoid purchasing any consoles impacted by Bumpgate.

===Nvidia Consumer Response===
Many consumers were uncomfortable with purchasing Nvidia's products for several years, because they saw Nvidia as untrustworthy after their perceived response to the Bumpgate scandal. A GPU is one of the most expensive components in a computer, and it's an investment expected to last for approximately as long as the component remains technologically relevant. Therefore, consumers had some right to be cautious when hearing about defective Nvidia GPUs- especially before the defect was publicly acknowledged.

If a product does not last because of a defect, then the company should respect their customer's investment by honoring the warranty- or by recalling the product if the defect is found to be common, as with Bumpgate. Nvidia's SEC report<ref name=":10" /> shows that they appeared to have this intention, and the company informing Dell<ref name=":8" /> and HP<ref name=":7" /> of the defect also seem to demonstrate this. In addition, based on the fact that Bumpgate affected some non-Nvidia processors (such as the Xbox 360's ''ATI'' graphics processor<ref name=":3" />), Nvidia was likely not fully responsible for the underfill defect. In fact, they alleged in the SEC report that it was their packaging company that caused the problem. However, this did not quell consumers' anger at Nvidia, and a class action lawsuit was filed. Unfortunately, the results of that lawsuit and subsequent settlement left consumers still angry and frustrated at the company- especially those who received insufficient compensation, like those who ended up with a budget laptop to replace their high-end laptop.<ref name=":15" /> This only fueled consumer distrust for Nvidia. Although the defect may not have fully been Nvidia's fault, their failure to properly compensate some Class Members when they agreed to settle was unacceptable to many consumers.

==See Also:==

*[[Nvidia]]
*[[Microsoft]]
*[[Sony]]
*[[HP Inc.|HP]]
*[[Apple]]

==References==
{{reflist}}

{{Placeholder box|[[mw:Help:VisualEditor/User_guide#Editing_categories|Add a category]] with the same name as the product, service, website, software, product line or company that this article is about.

The "Incidents" category is not needed.}}