Friday, September 11th 2020
NVIDIA GeForce RTX Ampere Chips Feature Three Binning Tiers, Mostly Good Dies are Present
Chip binning is a process of sorting out the manufactured silicon by quality. That means that each chip that comes from the silicon wafer is tested and sorted by different features. For example, a chip is tested for how much voltage it takes for operation, how cool it runs, and of course how it overclocks. By putting their chips through various testing, manufacturers often create binning tiers, where they can differentiate good and bad chips, so they know where to send, and if they should send the chips. The biggest and most complex approach for sending chips is for graphics cards. As there are different AIBs, manufacturers like NVIDIA and AMD need to send them chips of various qualities to incorporate in their products. It is a rather time-consuming and complex process to find out the bin type and the tier of chips, however today we are getting some information from Igor's Lab.
According to their sources, it is said that NVIDIA's latest GeForce RTX Ampere lineup features three binning tiers. There is "Bin 0" which represents an okay chip that can perform as intended, "Bin 1" chips which are good processors, and "Bin 2" processors which represent the best quality chips with the highest performance characteristics. These "Bin 2" dies run cooler compared to the rest and achieve higher overclocking speed. In reality, the binning represents coordination between the chip designer (NVIDIA in this case) and the manufacturer (Samsung with its 8N 8 nm process). It is said that from the complete pilot run of Ampere chips, Samsung ends up with 30% of the "Bin 0" dies, 60% of "Bin 1" dies, and only 10% of "Bin 2" dies. The production period was quite short and these numbers are good for Samsung, as they probably didn't have much time to work on it, so we can expect these numbers to improve.
Source:
Igor's Lab
According to their sources, it is said that NVIDIA's latest GeForce RTX Ampere lineup features three binning tiers. There is "Bin 0" which represents an okay chip that can perform as intended, "Bin 1" chips which are good processors, and "Bin 2" processors which represent the best quality chips with the highest performance characteristics. These "Bin 2" dies run cooler compared to the rest and achieve higher overclocking speed. In reality, the binning represents coordination between the chip designer (NVIDIA in this case) and the manufacturer (Samsung with its 8N 8 nm process). It is said that from the complete pilot run of Ampere chips, Samsung ends up with 30% of the "Bin 0" dies, 60% of "Bin 1" dies, and only 10% of "Bin 2" dies. The production period was quite short and these numbers are good for Samsung, as they probably didn't have much time to work on it, so we can expect these numbers to improve.
66 Comments on NVIDIA GeForce RTX Ampere Chips Feature Three Binning Tiers, Mostly Good Dies are Present
As such, it's impossible to evaluate how good are the yields at Samsung, because we don't know how many chips they throw away.
However, the one thing that we could infer is that most of the cards will make good overclockers/undervolters (which admitedly was already known/laked a long time ago) if the AIB or individuals are willing to cope with the high TDP's.Why is that, it seems 70% of the chips are more than OK? Those who are OK can still run as is written on the box, so this is a great deal for Nvidia.
Soooooooo small run ,new node, big chip's 4 bins ,3 !good! 1 bad.
Sounding like a great paper launch this one.
Bin 1 = way overpriced 1700~1800$
Bin 2 = exaggeratedly overpriced ~2000$
the "like" list. ;)
Arent you glad we can have these illuminating conversations on this ever expanding highway of information and ideas? Stuff like this... we're redefining mankind as we speak. Discussions for the ages.
That is the only thing of consequence in the OP, and it isn't good for ANYONE - as opposed to the 10% statement affecting just those that want the "rare" top-tier cards. It would seem to indicate that Supply and Demand is gonna suck for consumers for longer than usual. :( I have no problem waiting though, as I am fortunate enough to be sitting pretty with a very nice gaming computer[(liquid-cooled 3900X/2080 Super (both of which have nicely undervolted and overclocked), fast NVMe drive, etc] and a bunch of other tech stuff that I got for free. :D I'm actually planning on selling everything but the computer: Vertigear gaming chair, Lexmark cx331 color laser multifunction machine, and Dell: Latitude 7400, Thunderbolt dock, and last but certainly not least a 34" Curved Ultrasharp monitor (which I successfully tested at an overclocked 75Hz). With the proceeds from that stuff I hope to be able to purchase a very nice monitor (I would love a Samsung G9 if they get the flickering fixed and start producing it again) and an RTX3080 . . . or something better should AMD impress with their release.
- The article states Ampere chips, referring primarily to GA104 and GA102 (for now). It is unlikely they are talking about GA100 because that has already been out for a while and is not in this segment.
- Tiers are already explained in the article, yes T0 is the ones that, at minimum, meet the specifications. Considering how silicon lottery plays, there will be some chips (actually a majority of these) that will exceed the binning spec for T0, but not enough to make it to T1, so yes, it is very likely you will have some overclocking leeway with T0, but don't expect something crazy from those. With the numbers given, you have a 3:6:1 ratio of T0:T1:T2. Which indirectly means, NVIDIA actually could have raised the specifications of the 30 series, because they have way more T1 chips than T0 chips, but they are playing it safe to get an extra 43% yield (30/70). What is likely to happen is, you will see more than half the cards (70% based on these numbers) will be able to overclock past NVIDIA's spec, and since there are a lot of T1 chips, it is likely those will be at MSRP +-10%. I expect a majority of T0 chips to be on the graphics cards that will be sold below MSRP levels. T2 GA104 chips may be reserved for the future GA104 graphics cards that enable more cores, because they are a top bin. In total, 60% will be T1, 30% will be T0, and 10% T2. When compared to T2, there are 3x as many T0 and 6x as many T1 chips. When compared to T0, there are 2x as many T1 and 0.33x as many T2 chips. When compared to T1, there are 0.5x as many T0, and 0.17x as many T2 chips. Make of that what you will.
- Why would NVIDIA (or even Intel or AMD) want to tell you their binning results? They make the specifications for those chips, they don't want warranty claims, which if they do make public about their binning results, then people will start claiming warranty because it "doesn't meet the binned specifications". That is primarily why most companies do not tell you the binned specs, rather the specs of what the minimum in a set can handle. For AIBs, they put their own specs of what expect a majority of graphics cards in a set can handle. There is still some bad apples, and those can be RMA'd. A company like Silicon Lottery is the kind of company that will tell you the more exact binned specs, though they only do CPUs.
I would expect something more like this:- T0 = 1300-1400$
- T1 = 1500-1800$
- T2 = 1900$+
Remember, NVIDIA's FE cards are likely to have T1 chips, as they have a lot of them. Sooooo, it is also likely that the bare minimum spec chips will be put in graphics cards priced under MSRP, by about 10%, in addition to a weaker but cheaper cooling solution (such as blower).It provides a rare insight into the binning process at the factory level, which is actually quite informative of expected overclocking performance.People, can we turn down the brand war just a bit? Please?
Bin 1: 149FPS
Bin 2: 155FPS
KingBin: 156.6FPS
Don't parrot marketing. Investigate. What you can do with mods and water is irrelevant. This is about what these cards are sold as. Since Kepler, I haven't seen a SINGLE FE / NVTTM card bench better than a non-FE. In fact, all FE's have throttled until Turing, and Turing's FE's had a markup and were the first open air versions and also carried higher TDPs than the equivalents from AIBs.
Even so, an MSI Trio still scores better than a Turing FE. Consistently.
Enjoy finding those sources for me. And note, a reviewer saying the same as you doesn't count. Numbers or its all nonsense.
Note that 1-2 FPS gaps don't count, because you've got that additional TDP. This does not prove you have a better bin, might even be contrary ;)Thank you. And there is no reason to start caring now. The overall performance spread is so low, this is marketing more than anything else. Create a 'need' where there isn't one, and look at us... (well, not me).
I don't post these things just because I don't like Samsung, it is to spite you wonderful gentlemen with incendiary comments. Because it is not about Samsung's process, but irrational teamster preferences.
I better take my opinion, elsewhere... nobody can see without their colored goggles here.
- OK, Good, Best is absolutely pointless division unless we know what each means and we do not. We do not have a single clue. Are they 2% apart? 10%? Are they binned for speed or efficiency? Are they binned for functional units? Something else? The rest is fairly baseless conjecture.
- Binned specifications have no relevance on product specifications and if they did reveal binned specs publicly they would be in full right to point at product specs and say - it achieves that. End of story.
I have no idea what you mean by talk about manufacturing process here.
Edit:
OK, I am note sure what or how exactly but you read my manufacturing process comment somehow completely wrong.
Samsung 8N or 8nm or even 10nm are very much unknown quantities when we are talking about big dies and desktop hardware. 8nm and 10nm have been used primarily by mobile SoCs. This means both low power and smaller dies (probably in the range of maybe 150mm²). There are no data points we know about nowhere near the 300W and 400/600mm² targets that are Ampere dies.
You guys are giving me the nosebleeds.
I don't mind fans and giggles from time to time, but maybe we should leave facts do the speaking.
PS: I wasn't speaking for yourself, I was acting ironic as usual. You guys should know astroturfing is my fine honed art.
If we continue, I'll have to resort to Mortal Kombat jokes;
- "You are still trying to win?"
Let's not go there pal, I've never missed my common troll courtesy.
I just can't see the watts on Samsung 7nm being worse than Turing, which is about what it'd need to matter I think.
'Is my RTX a worse one' omg must buy top end version. That is the sentiment that is being falsely created here.
You'd also have to wonder when that point arrives where 'later in the lifecycle' it suddenly won't matter. Lottery is lottery. End of story. And all those stories about 'omg this stepping and this period' are very old, well known, and we've arrived at a point in foundry refinement that these things are nowhere near what they used to be. If the total performance gap is 2-3% you're already being very generous. I'm a big promotor of such perspective when these claims are made in news. Today the vast majority of this hype is just that, lots of hobbyists riding the train together.
But the most telling of it all, is that so far.... no sources were provided.
I rest my case and this article identifies as clickbait.