Looks like Nvidia holding back suitable drivers for the AIBs to test their configuration also contributed to this problem. Makes me wonder if the the original reference spec was based on a certain quality level for the GPU, which later Nvidia could not meet and was sent to the AIBs anyways. Like most failures, it is like a hangman game where many pieces have to come together to cause the failure.
Top it off with Jensens rather misleading marketing of 1.8x efficiency improvement, performance gains and maybe even the MSRP being completely ridiculous for AIBs to make cards at that price adds to the overall dismay. Getting hype and not following through usually ends up hurting the company.
- AIBs given reference specs that in the end would poorly support the quality of the GPU's given
- Nvidia held back applicable software (drivers) hampering AIBs from proper testing and verification
- Nvidia allowed flawed designs to be made and sold, not overlooking or working with the AIBs effectively allowing faulty cards to be purchased
- The BOM and the MSRP makes AIBs more likely to go with the minimum spec that Nvidia provided competing against a superior constructed and cost FE model of Nvidia's
- The low supply of Ampere GPUs will make it hard for the AIBs to rapidly correct/replace the bad cards in the immediate future allowing for a continuation of the issue for users, responses and bad publicity for the AIBs with the worst problems
- As in Gigabyte and Zotac are more likely considered to be the cheap or low quality cards (which frankly seems to have been the case previously) even if they correct the problem
- Instead of replacing bad cards, firmware reducing performance may be implemented to allowed use with a performance loss
It's an all of the above problem for sure.....mostly planning and execution.