Since the bumps sit permanently sandwiched between the chip die and their green fibreglass package, the only way to determine their composition would be to take a MacBook Pro, disassemble it, desolder the chips, saw them in half, encase them in lucite, and run them through a scanning electron microscope equipped with an X-ray microanalysis system.
[/url][/c]
Now we know that this was written by attention-seeking children. Since the composition is allegedly the issue one would only need to extract a micro-sample (to analyze by AAS, melting point &c) to see if it contained lead. The bumps are more likely made of a silver solder since lead has been prohibited since 2006 in many jurisdictions.
So, I guess my question at this point is as follows: If Apple doesn't show an inclination to switch GPU manufacturers when will it be okay to upgrade to the new unibody MBP and feel reasonably secure I'm not purchasing inherently defective hardware?
All of Nvidia's chips should be using tin eutectic solder by now.
I wonder why they used scanning electron microscope equipped with an X-ray microanalysis system. What I have access to, Mass Spec with Mass analyzer is what I would have used, cheaper then SEM with X-ray. But hey I guess if you have it and have the cash to waste have fun with it
Because your system can't image the problem, while theirs can.
Now we know that this was written by attention-seeking children. Since the composition is allegedly the issue one would only need to extract a micro-sample (to analyze by AAS, melting point &c) to see if it contained lead. The bumps are more likely made of a silver solder since lead has been prohibited since 2006 in many jurisdictions.
Their statement is off, its true, but the need to take a slice and examine it still stands. Simply looking at the composition wouldn't tell exactly what had happened.
Nvidia KNEW what the composition of the materials were from the beginning. They CHANGED the solder from tin to lead base to lower costs. They also knew the bumps were tin.
The materials were not the issue for them to check. What was happening to them, was.
Their statement is off, its true, but the need to take a slice and examine it still stands. Simply looking at the composition wouldn't tell exactly what had happened.
Nvidia KNEW what the composition of the materials were from the beginning. They CHANGED the solder from tin to lead base to lower costs. They also knew the bumps were tin.
The materials were not the issue for them to check. What was happening to them, was.
Seriously though, I would think Apple did their homework on the 9600 before using it... "Fool me once," etc. Either way, one more reason to go with the smaller Macbook unless you absolutely need a "Pro" (which isn't really a Pro product anymore anyway).
Well the MacBookPro has a Firewire-Port, so it must be Pro equipment.
What choice would Apple have for notebook GPU if it didn't use nVidia? AMD CPU isn't competitive in notebook market. Last time nVidia said there was no problem, Apple admitted in October AFTER Nvidia announced it would pay $200 for all defects - costing Apple zero - even paying labor.
Since all MBP from May 2007 - sept 2008 ( warranty extended in OCT for ALL MODELS )
"Nvidia KNEW what the composition of the materials were from the beginning." - they better do... if it is their design. Material and Process are closely linked. The selection of materials determine the thermal process limitation of the device, the conductivity, even its performance (mechanical stress distribution, reliability under specific environment, etc).
"They CHANGED the solder from tin to lead base to lower costs". - The change form tin to lead is definitely not due to cost. The cost differential would be minimum, if not higher for the high lead solder. Are you sure?
"They also knew the bumps were tin." - Are you sure it is tin? why tin is better than lead? how could it impact performance? specifically, impact on thermal properties? why you so convinced it is the bump causing the problem? Any crack of the bump? Under what condition?
"Nvidia KNEW what the composition of the materials were from the beginning." - they better do... if it is their design. Material and Process are closely linked. The selection of materials determine the thermal process limitation of the device, the conductivity, even its performance (mechanical stress distribution, reliability under specific environment, etc).
Yes they are related. That's why people in the industry are wondering why this was done.
Quote:
"They CHANGED the solder from tin to lead base to lower costs". - The change form tin to lead is definitely not due to cost. The cost differential would be minimum, if not higher for the high lead solder. Are you sure?
Yes, I am sure. There are too many independent reports coming from suppliers as well as OEM's of Nvidia to be in doubt. At first, Nvidia claimed that the problem was from one sub of theirs, but it turned out that it was coming from all of them.
Tin is more expensive than lead. The same for solder formulations. The difference isn't that much on this scale for a manufacturer though.
But from my own experience, I know that you do look down that road of infinitesimal costs adding up over long runs. All of Nvidia's chips from GPU's to chipsets were changed. That's tens of millions of chips. That does add up.
It almost seems as thought they had several teams working on these products that weren't kept aware of the changes in this one area of the process, and so didn't look to the problems that would ensue.
This isn't the first time in manufacturing that something like this has happened, and it won't be the last.
While that price chart is now old, the relative price differential hasn't changed much. You can see that the price of tin is about eight times the price of lead. Tin based solder also includes about 5% copper, which is also somewhat expensive.
Quote:
"They also knew the bumps were tin." - Are you sure it is tin? why tin is better than lead? how could it impact performance? specifically, impact on thermal properties? why you so convinced it is the bump causing the problem? Any crack of the bump? Under what condition?
Yes, it's tin.
Everything is now moving to tin based solder. We even moved to tin base here in the US quite a few years ago for potable drinking water syatems. But that solder also contains elements that raise the melt.
Tin based solder for electronics lowers the melt. Eutetic solder has a melt temp quite close to the softening temp, and is more predictable.
Tin is better because of the lower temp, and also because tin is not harmful to the environment as lead is.
I don't know if you need a lesson on how soldering works (or if anyone else is interested), but I have to assume something, so here is a bit.
Normally, a surface is "tinned". This is an old term that comes from hand soldering metals with a fire heated "copper" used to solder sheets of metals to make almost anything. You can see that on the leads of electrical components. That protects the metal inside, and "wets" the surface. That means it becomes easier to solder. Normally, there is a coat no more than a few thousanths thick. When you solder, even with lead/tin solder, the solder melds into that thin layer.
With wires, either they are in holes, which provide strength, or are wrapped around something, which provides strength, and the solder is just for electrical purposes.
With surface mount devices, there is no such mechanical reinforcement. The solder joint provides all the mechanical strength. Normally, this is fine. Surface mount devices are designed for that in mind.
When chips are soldered to boards this way, most often, when they are more complex chips like CPU's or GPU's that can get hotter at some of those joints, bumps are used. The bumps help the soldering (usually with a wave soldering machine, hot air, or other speciality unit) process, as it provides just the right amount of solder, and enough mass for the connection to take the current, and heat. Also, unlike devices such as resistors, caps, small chips, etc, CPU's, GPU's, and other larger chips have so many connections, that many, if not most, are under the chip. There is no way to get solder there, unless it's already present on the board, and chip. Another reason why this is so critical. Soldering between the chip and the board is difficult, and delicate.
This is a pretty well understood technology.
The bumps and pads must use the same solder. With regular soldering, it's not that important, because the way it's done will meld the entire amount of solder together into one mixed mass.
But here, that works differently. There is just enough heat applied to do the melt.
If there is one type of solder, no problem. The two halves melt together at the surfaces, and become one mass of the same material.
But if the two materials are different, the situation is also different.
What happens then depends on a number of things.
As lead based solder and tin based solder have different functioning temperatures, the question of what temperature was used comes into play. Was it the lower one used for tin, or the higher one used for lead? Most surface mount joints can withstand about 2.75 seconds of heating, no more. So what was the dwell time? It's longer for lead than for tin.
At any rate, what will happen is that as the surfaces melt together, there is just a thin layer of melt mixing.
If the lower temp was used, the lead may not go into a melt state, may begin to lose crystallization, and may end up being soldered TO, rather than being soldered INTO. See the difference?
As some joints heat up during extreme periods of operation, the different expansion coefficients will then come into play.
We don't know the answer here.
I can't tell you what the coefficients are, because I don't know the particular alloys involved.
Suffice to say that they are different. What has apparently happened is that as they expanded, either the joints in question either tore from shear, or "popped" from lack of tensile strength between the two solder types.
That's why they have to examine the joints themselves.
We know enough to get a good idea of what happened, but not enough to know exactly what happened.
As to why, cost cutting, and stupidity is usually to blame for problems like this.
For the past two years, ATI has been eating Nvidia's clock. Nvidia has been having major financial problems. This was one way to cut costs. They just didn't follow through.
Do we really need to cite the Enquirer for tech stories? Is there no minimum standards @ AI?
dude get your tech chops in order i read the Inquirer all the time you can't expect to get all your tech news from one source (AppleInsider, which happens to be my favorite bookmarked home page) but they don't report on everything tech as you have noticed they mention them on this site.... the Inquirer has great tech news apple and non-apple..
Comments
Since the bumps sit permanently sandwiched between the chip die and their green fibreglass package, the only way to determine their composition would be to take a MacBook Pro, disassemble it, desolder the chips, saw them in half, encase them in lucite, and run them through a scanning electron microscope equipped with an X-ray microanalysis system.
[/url][/c]
Now we know that this was written by attention-seeking children. Since the composition is allegedly the issue one would only need to extract a micro-sample (to analyze by AAS, melting point &c) to see if it contained lead. The bumps are more likely made of a silver solder since lead has been prohibited since 2006 in many jurisdictions.
So, I guess my question at this point is as follows: If Apple doesn't show an inclination to switch GPU manufacturers when will it be okay to upgrade to the new unibody MBP and feel reasonably secure I'm not purchasing inherently defective hardware?
All of Nvidia's chips should be using tin eutectic solder by now.
I wonder why they used scanning electron microscope equipped with an X-ray microanalysis system. What I have access to, Mass Spec with Mass analyzer is what I would have used, cheaper then SEM with X-ray. But hey I guess if you have it and have the cash to waste have fun with it
Because your system can't image the problem, while theirs can.
I do have problem with it. The root cause cited is highly improbable the true cause.
Your spelling is still wrong, and so is your statement.
Now we know that this was written by attention-seeking children. Since the composition is allegedly the issue one would only need to extract a micro-sample (to analyze by AAS, melting point &c) to see if it contained lead. The bumps are more likely made of a silver solder since lead has been prohibited since 2006 in many jurisdictions.
Their statement is off, its true, but the need to take a slice and examine it still stands. Simply looking at the composition wouldn't tell exactly what had happened.
Nvidia KNEW what the composition of the materials were from the beginning. They CHANGED the solder from tin to lead base to lower costs. They also knew the bumps were tin.
The materials were not the issue for them to check. What was happening to them, was.
Their statement is off, its true, but the need to take a slice and examine it still stands. Simply looking at the composition wouldn't tell exactly what had happened.
Nvidia KNEW what the composition of the materials were from the beginning. They CHANGED the solder from tin to lead base to lower costs. They also knew the bumps were tin.
The materials were not the issue for them to check. What was happening to them, was.
?????
What kind of material is "led"?
Seriously though, I would think Apple did their homework on the 9600 before using it... "Fool me once," etc. Either way, one more reason to go with the smaller Macbook unless you absolutely need a "Pro" (which isn't really a Pro product anymore anyway).
Well the MacBookPro has a Firewire-Port, so it must be Pro equipment.
Sorry couldn't resist.
Since all MBP from May 2007 - sept 2008 ( warranty extended in OCT for ALL MODELS )
What choices are there for GPU's then? Ruh Roh...
Well the MacBookPro has a Firewire-Port, so it must be Pro equipment.
Sorry couldn't resist.
Save your ire, before long that won't have a firewire port either.
Yup, and then the suckage will be complete.
Sry, like you, I couldn't resist.
...
?????
That's not really a response. What problems, in particular, do you have with what Mel said?
...
?????
Does that mean you don't understand my post?
If so, you could have asked me to explain it further. But as it stands, I don't know what your problem with it is.
"They CHANGED the solder from tin to lead base to lower costs". - The change form tin to lead is definitely not due to cost. The cost differential would be minimum, if not higher for the high lead solder. Are you sure?
http://www.adhesivesmag.com/ASI/Home...-table1-lg.jpg
"They also knew the bumps were tin." - Are you sure it is tin? why tin is better than lead? how could it impact performance? specifically, impact on thermal properties? why you so convinced it is the bump causing the problem? Any crack of the bump? Under what condition?
thanks in advance...
"Nvidia KNEW what the composition of the materials were from the beginning." - they better do... if it is their design. Material and Process are closely linked. The selection of materials determine the thermal process limitation of the device, the conductivity, even its performance (mechanical stress distribution, reliability under specific environment, etc).
Yes they are related. That's why people in the industry are wondering why this was done.
"They CHANGED the solder from tin to lead base to lower costs". - The change form tin to lead is definitely not due to cost. The cost differential would be minimum, if not higher for the high lead solder. Are you sure?
Yes, I am sure. There are too many independent reports coming from suppliers as well as OEM's of Nvidia to be in doubt. At first, Nvidia claimed that the problem was from one sub of theirs, but it turned out that it was coming from all of them.
Tin is more expensive than lead. The same for solder formulations. The difference isn't that much on this scale for a manufacturer though.
But from my own experience, I know that you do look down that road of infinitesimal costs adding up over long runs. All of Nvidia's chips from GPU's to chipsets were changed. That's tens of millions of chips. That does add up.
It almost seems as thought they had several teams working on these products that weren't kept aware of the changes in this one area of the process, and so didn't look to the problems that would ensue.
This isn't the first time in manufacturing that something like this has happened, and it won't be the last.
http://www.adhesivesmag.com/ASI/Home...-table1-lg.jpg
While that price chart is now old, the relative price differential hasn't changed much. You can see that the price of tin is about eight times the price of lead. Tin based solder also includes about 5% copper, which is also somewhat expensive.
"They also knew the bumps were tin." - Are you sure it is tin? why tin is better than lead? how could it impact performance? specifically, impact on thermal properties? why you so convinced it is the bump causing the problem? Any crack of the bump? Under what condition?
Yes, it's tin.
Everything is now moving to tin based solder. We even moved to tin base here in the US quite a few years ago for potable drinking water syatems. But that solder also contains elements that raise the melt.
Tin based solder for electronics lowers the melt. Eutetic solder has a melt temp quite close to the softening temp, and is more predictable.
Tin is better because of the lower temp, and also because tin is not harmful to the environment as lead is.
I don't know if you need a lesson on how soldering works (or if anyone else is interested), but I have to assume something, so here is a bit.
Normally, a surface is "tinned". This is an old term that comes from hand soldering metals with a fire heated "copper" used to solder sheets of metals to make almost anything. You can see that on the leads of electrical components. That protects the metal inside, and "wets" the surface. That means it becomes easier to solder. Normally, there is a coat no more than a few thousanths thick. When you solder, even with lead/tin solder, the solder melds into that thin layer.
With wires, either they are in holes, which provide strength, or are wrapped around something, which provides strength, and the solder is just for electrical purposes.
With surface mount devices, there is no such mechanical reinforcement. The solder joint provides all the mechanical strength. Normally, this is fine. Surface mount devices are designed for that in mind.
When chips are soldered to boards this way, most often, when they are more complex chips like CPU's or GPU's that can get hotter at some of those joints, bumps are used. The bumps help the soldering (usually with a wave soldering machine, hot air, or other speciality unit) process, as it provides just the right amount of solder, and enough mass for the connection to take the current, and heat. Also, unlike devices such as resistors, caps, small chips, etc, CPU's, GPU's, and other larger chips have so many connections, that many, if not most, are under the chip. There is no way to get solder there, unless it's already present on the board, and chip. Another reason why this is so critical. Soldering between the chip and the board is difficult, and delicate.
This is a pretty well understood technology.
The bumps and pads must use the same solder. With regular soldering, it's not that important, because the way it's done will meld the entire amount of solder together into one mixed mass.
But here, that works differently. There is just enough heat applied to do the melt.
If there is one type of solder, no problem. The two halves melt together at the surfaces, and become one mass of the same material.
But if the two materials are different, the situation is also different.
What happens then depends on a number of things.
As lead based solder and tin based solder have different functioning temperatures, the question of what temperature was used comes into play. Was it the lower one used for tin, or the higher one used for lead? Most surface mount joints can withstand about 2.75 seconds of heating, no more. So what was the dwell time? It's longer for lead than for tin.
At any rate, what will happen is that as the surfaces melt together, there is just a thin layer of melt mixing.
If the lower temp was used, the lead may not go into a melt state, may begin to lose crystallization, and may end up being soldered TO, rather than being soldered INTO. See the difference?
As some joints heat up during extreme periods of operation, the different expansion coefficients will then come into play.
We don't know the answer here.
I can't tell you what the coefficients are, because I don't know the particular alloys involved.
Suffice to say that they are different. What has apparently happened is that as they expanded, either the joints in question either tore from shear, or "popped" from lack of tensile strength between the two solder types.
That's why they have to examine the joints themselves.
We know enough to get a good idea of what happened, but not enough to know exactly what happened.
As to why, cost cutting, and stupidity is usually to blame for problems like this.
For the past two years, ATI has been eating Nvidia's clock. Nvidia has been having major financial problems. This was one way to cut costs. They just didn't follow through.
The bumps are more likely made of a silver solder since lead has been prohibited since 2006 in many jurisdictions.
That was already addressed on the previous page of this discussion.
Silver is a poison, and very damaging.
I'd like to point out that silver is also prohibited in many jurisdictions.
Silver is a poison, and very damaging.
OMG. Werewolves were right all along!
...
Thanks for that detailed explanation melgross.
Yep, Mel knocked that one outta the park.
Too bad nVidia is moron-ing it up so bad over something that seems not too hard to do right.
...
Do we really need to cite the Enquirer for tech stories? Is there no minimum standards @ AI?
dude get your tech chops in order i read the Inquirer all the time you can't expect to get all your tech news from one source (AppleInsider, which happens to be my favorite bookmarked home page) but they don't report on everything tech as you have noticed they mention them on this site.... the Inquirer has great tech news apple and non-apple..
check it out for yourself.... see ya