Jump to content

Bumpgate

From Consumer Rights Wiki
Revision as of 23:46, 1 June 2025 by Vindicator4021 (talk | contribs) (Changed some headers a bit to work better for the context of this article.)

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. 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 2005 to 2008. Among retro console enthusiasts, the defect is best known to have likely been the culprit behind the high failure rate of Nvidia GPUs in Sony's early PlayStation 3 models and ATI GPUs in Microsoft's early Xbox 360 models.

Background

Nvidia GPU Fault

In 2006, GPU manufacturer Nvidia developed some GPUs that had a serious design flaw. The company had engineered GPUs that electrically connected the silicon chip (die) to the substrate using high lead solder bumps. It's standard to use an epoxy-like substance called underfill to give these solder bumps a bit more strength, especially when the processor gets warm.

At the time, it was more common for GPU manufacturers to use eutectic solder bumps, but high-lead solder bumps were more suitable for the power delivery that these new GPUs needed.[1] However, because the high-lead solder balls had a lower melting point than eutectic solder balls, Nvidia's engineers had to use an underfill that was just the right hardness.

However, at the time, there was no underfill that fit the exact specifications that Nvidia's GPUs needed. The underfill that Nvidia used on these defective GPUs was too soft. This meant that when the processor went through thermal changes, the solder balls would soften under heat and harden as they cooled.[2] This would happen over and over again until they cracked under the thermal stress. When enough solder balls cracked, it would cause a failure in the unit.

[Incident]

Change this section's title to be descriptive of the incident.

Impartial and complete description of the events, including actions taken by the company, and the timeline of the incident coming to the public's attention.


Add your text below this box. Once this section is complete, delete this box by clicking on it and pressing backspace.

Company responses

If applicable, add the proposed solution to the issues by the companies.


Add your text below this box. Once this section is complete, delete this box by clicking on it and pressing backspace.


Lawsuit(s)

If applicable, add any information regarding litigation around the incident here.

Claims

Main claims of the suit.

Rebuttal

The response of the company or counterclaims.

Outcome

The outcome of the suit, if any.


Add your text below this box. Once this section is complete, delete this box by clicking on it and pressing backspace.


Consumer response

Summary and key issues of prevailing sentiment from the consumers and commentators that can be documented via articles, emails to support, reviews and forum posts.


Add your text below this box. Once this section is complete, delete this box by clicking on it and pressing backspace.


References

  1. Williams, Rob (29 Sep 2008). "NVIDIA at a Disadvantage Due to their Choice of Solder?". Techgage. Retrieved 1 Jun 2025.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  2. Demerjian, Charlie (1 Sep 2008). "Why Nvidia's chips are defective". The Inquirer. Archived from the original on 20 May 2009. Retrieved 1 Jun 2025.


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.


Add your text below this box. Once this section is complete, delete this box by clicking on it and pressing backspace.