Bumpgate: Difference between revisions

Vindicator4021 (talk | contribs)
Added the "See Also" section, with some links to some of the companies mentioned in the article.
Vindicator4021 (talk | contribs)
Added some more details in Nvidia's company response. Also found the original Dell blog post!
 
Line 7: Line 7:
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.
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.<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.
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.  
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.  
Line 46: Line 46:
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" />
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=BlueScreenDeath |first= |last2=Menchaca |first2=Lionel |date=23 Sep 2008 |title=Dell Warranty Extension Due to Nvidia Defect |url=https://www.dell.com/community/en/conversations/locked-topics-laptops-general/dell-warranty-extension-due-to-nvidia-defect/647e9a01f4ccf8a8de2c999e |url-status=live |access-date=8 Jun 2025 |website=Dell Community}}</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><!-- Regarding the Dell Warranty citation (from the Dell Community forums): I could not find the real original source. The links to the original are dead, and not archived- so I had to make do. - V -->
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====
====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>
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>
Line 57: Line 56:
- 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.
- 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" /><ref>{{Cite web |last=Buchanan |first=Matt |date=3 Jul 2008 |title=Lots of Nvidia Laptop Graphics Cards Are Overheating, Dying |url=https://gizmodo.com/lots-of-nvidia-laptop-graphics-cards-are-overheating-d-5021713 |url-status=live |access-date=7 Jun 2025 |website=Gizmodo}}</ref> 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.  
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 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 confirmed 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>


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.
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, by 2010, consumers' trust in Nvidia had eroded to the point that a class action lawsuit was filed because of the defect.
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)==
==Nvidia Class-Action Lawsuit (2010)==
Line 124: Line 125:
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.
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: ==
==See Also:==


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


==References==
==References==