Quanta Sues AMD Claiming Defective GPUs

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Apparently Quanta Computers has filed a lawsuit against AMD claiming breach of warranty, negligent misrepresentation, civil fraud and interference with a contract. AMD disputes the allegations and says they are "without merit."

Quanta Computer Inc. (2382), the world’s largest contract maker of notebook computers, sued Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) for breach of contract, alleging the chipmaker sold defective products. AMD and its ATI Technologies Inc. unit sold chips that didn’t meet heat tolerances and were unfit for particular purposes, Taoyuan, Taiwan-based Quanta claimed yesterday in a federal court filing in San Jose, California.
Click to expand...
 
Strange...I have not heard a lot of issues with regards to AMD mobile GPUs.
 
quanta produces more than just notebooks.. sure, that's their main product - but they do a lot more than that.

"Besides continuous high growth, high quality and high value creation in notebook computers, Quanta has extended its businesses into enterprise network systems, home entertainment, mobile communication, automotive electronics and digital home markets."
 
darn no edit, it appears this is related to their notebook production and with NEC... who knows, we'll see. they are probably trying to ride the nvidia train - which actually got me a few new (albeit crappy) laptops.
 
Quanta has itself acknowledged to AMD that it used the identical chip in large volumes in a different computer platform that it manufactured for NEC without such issues.
Click to expand...

So, Quanta probably cut corners in manufacturing to gain a few extra bucks up front, then got bit in the ass for it and now are looking for someone to blame. Should be interesting to see what kind of dirty laundry gets aired.
 
I've seen notebooks having a gpu heating up to 90+C. (which is what they're claiming)

maybe there is something there afterall..
 
DF-1 said:
I've seen notebooks having a gpu heating up to 90+C. (which is what they're claiming)

maybe there is something there afterall..
Click to expand...

In other news, man sues Quanta because 90C chip on his lap caused severe burns and made him infertile.
 
Kind of had to tilt my head at this news posting. I wasn't aware of any widespread cases of AMD powered laptops exploding or catching on fire. Seems kind of strange that Quanta would sue AMD over a business practice that is associated with Nvidia mobile GPU's.

The court case might be interesting because I want to see Quanta actually try to prove the claims they've made.
 
Zerias said:
Kind of had to tilt my head at this news posting. I wasn't aware of any widespread cases of AMD powered laptops exploding or catching on fire. Seems kind of strange that Quanta would sue AMD over a business practice that is associated with Nvidia mobile GPU's.

The court case might be interesting because I want to see Quanta actually try to prove the claims they've made.
Click to expand...

They aren't claiming AMD's chips produce more heat than nVidias or anything, they are claiming that they lied about their specs. It isn't how much they produce, it is how much they say they produce, and how hot they say they can get.

So what they are claiming is something like they go looking for a notebook GPU. It cannot give off more than, say, 20 watts of heat and needs to be able to handle 100 degree operating temperatures continuously. This is because it is being crammed in a small space. So AMD has a part that the specs say that is the case. Quanta buys the GPU, and the things fail because of overheating. Turns out they generate up to 22 watts and can only really operate at 100 degrees for a little bit, long term needs to be less.

So what they'll have to show is that AMD had a part who's thermal specs did not match performance. That's what manufacturers care about. They care that when you tell them something needs A, B and C and can work with X, Y, and Z that those are all true. If you fudge your specs that is the problem.

A manufacturer could well be fine with a mobile GPU that gives off 100 watts of heat or something ridiculous, so long as they know it and design their product accordingly. They also could be pissed about something that gives off only a watt of heat when the spec sheet said it gives off half a watt because they designed only for half a watt.
 
Sycraft said:
They aren't claiming AMD's chips produce more heat than nVidias or anything, they are claiming that they lied about their specs. It isn't how much they produce, it is how much they say they produce, and how hot they say they can get.

So what they are claiming is something like they go looking for a notebook GPU. It cannot give off more than, say, 20 watts of heat and needs to be able to handle 100 degree operating temperatures continuously. This is because it is being crammed in a small space. So AMD has a part that the specs say that is the case. Quanta buys the GPU, and the things fail because of overheating. Turns out they generate up to 22 watts and can only really operate at 100 degrees for a little bit, long term needs to be less.

So what they'll have to show is that AMD had a part who's thermal specs did not match performance. That's what manufacturers care about. They care that when you tell them something needs A, B and C and can work with X, Y, and Z that those are all true. If you fudge your specs that is the problem.

A manufacturer could well be fine with a mobile GPU that gives off 100 watts of heat or something ridiculous, so long as they know it and design their product accordingly. They also could be pissed about something that gives off only a watt of heat when the spec sheet said it gives off half a watt because they designed only for half a watt.
Click to expand...

All fine and well, but when the said product worked in 90% of the products they built for other manu's, and was only failing on NEC's, sounds like someone decided to cut corners on NEC's laptops, either Quanta, or NEC

"AMD is aware of no other customer reports of the alleged issues with the AMD chip that Quanta used, which AMD no longer sells,” Silverman said. “In fact, Quanta has itself acknowledged to AMD that it used the identical chip in large volumes in a different computer platform that it manufactured for NEC without such issues.

Quanta also makes notebooks on contract for Hewlett-Packard Co., Dell Inc. and Acer Inc."
 
Reminds me of a problem I ran into with Compaq portables when I worked for a reseller many years ago (mid 1980's).

We were having problems due to the large number of the power supply failures in their portable unit. The company I worked at was one of the largest resellers of Compaq at that time, so Compaq sent out a manager and one of their senior engineers to have a meeting to figure out why we were having so many failures.

Being fresh out of college with my electronics degree, I had already identified 1 component that accounted for over 70% of the failures, and a 2nd component that accounted for most of the rest. Both parts had small heat sinks and ran excessively hot (in my opinion). When I pointed this out during one of the meetings, the engineer flat out stated that this was not the problem. When I push the point, he point out that these parts where only running at 90% of their ratings, so it must be something we were doing to the systems.

I laughed at that point, and told him I was no senior engineer, but I would NEVER design a power supply that ran a part at 90% of its rating and expect it to last.

I had built a number of simple power supplies for various electronic projects over the years, and I usually designed for no more than 60% just in case. I still have an old car radio that I put in a wooden box and built a power supply so I could plug it in. This was back around 1980 and made a great getto blaster, especially with the rechargeable battery pack I put in it :) 30 year later, and it still works.

I also pointed out neither of out demo units had failed (after both failing multiple times) since I made a minor modification to the replacement power supply. Specifically I added a 3” strip of aluminum to the heat sink to help cool the main part that was failing.

Several months later when setting up a new system, I noticed a change to the power supply. Compaq had enlarged the heat sinks on both the parts I had pointed out. Guess that was just a coincidence.
 
FragMagnet said:
All fine and well, but when the said product worked in 90% of the products they built for other manu's, and was only failing on NEC's, sounds like someone decided to cut corners on NEC's laptops, either Quanta, or NEC

"AMD is aware of no other customer reports of the alleged issues with the AMD chip that Quanta used, which AMD no longer sells,” Silverman said. “In fact, Quanta has itself acknowledged to AMD that it used the identical chip in large volumes in a different computer platform that it manufactured for NEC without such issues.

Quanta also makes notebooks on contract for Hewlett-Packard Co., Dell Inc. and Acer Inc."
Click to expand...

However that still doesn't mean the GPU specs weren't an issue. The NEC machines may have been designed to in such a way, maybe due to cost, aesthetics, etc.to push the GPUs closer to the limits of the specs but still within them and the GPUs simply weren't as tolerant as AMD said.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, maybe this was a problem on Quanta's end, I'm simply offering an alternate possibility.
 
DeathPrincess said:
Just to get it out the way:

Someones going to get bulldozed! (or already did!)
Click to expand...

LOL.

i-see-what-you-did-there-also-over-here.jpg
 
Steve switch the link to this http://news.cnet.com/8301-13924_3-5...er-defective-chips/?tag=content;siu-container

"The suit is centered on the ATI RS600ME, an integrated graphics solution, an AMD spokesperson told CNET."

Now here is a schematic of the effected part schematic of the affected part http://notebookschematic.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/NEC-SG1.png

Looks to me intel is starting trouble again and using quanta as a pawn. I mean isn't it funny that 1 week before CES Amd has such a negative headline regarding its chips and the culprit is an old intel chipset.:rolleyes:
 
Wierdo said:
Because someone is suing an Intel chipset that ATI made for them many years ago?
Click to expand...

sigh, no edit option here, so clarification: it's a lawsuit over a chipset ATI made long ago, even before AMD bought them, and it was for an Intel platform that multiple companies used.
 
So this is a part from 2006???? are you kidding. I have never seen any problems with these chips and I have seen my fair share of them.
 
What I find funny, is that in every Quanta-sourced HP, Compaq and Acer machine I have had the misfortune of interacting with, has issues with quick overheating and thermal breakdown of chip contacts.

My wife has a Gateway NV50A that, is built by Quanta, and it overheats after 1-1.5 hours of use. The laptop was dust/lint free, but had to be sent back to Gateway for a replacement.
 
Sycraft said:
They aren't claiming AMD's chips produce more heat than nVidias or anything, they are claiming that they lied about their specs. It isn't how much they produce, it is how much they say they produce, and how hot they say they can get.

So what they are claiming is something like they go looking for a notebook GPU. It cannot give off more than, say, 20 watts of heat and needs to be able to handle 100 degree operating temperatures continuously. This is because it is being crammed in a small space. So AMD has a part that the specs say that is the case. Quanta buys the GPU, and the things fail because of overheating. Turns out they generate up to 22 watts and can only really operate at 100 degrees for a little bit, long term needs to be less.

So what they'll have to show is that AMD had a part who's thermal specs did not match performance. That's what manufacturers care about. They care that when you tell them something needs A, B and C and can work with X, Y, and Z that those are all true. If you fudge your specs that is the problem.

A manufacturer could well be fine with a mobile GPU that gives off 100 watts of heat or something ridiculous, so long as they know it and design their product accordingly. They also could be pissed about something that gives off only a watt of heat when the spec sheet said it gives off half a watt because they designed only for half a watt.
Click to expand...

I think this is one of the best explanation of the issue. I'm not sure why people are having trouble understanding it. The GPU ran hotter than it was supposed to and caused failures.
 
heatlesssun said:
However that still doesn't mean the GPU specs weren't an issue. The NEC machines may have been designed to in such a way, maybe due to cost, aesthetics, etc.to push the GPUs closer to the limits of the specs but still within them and the GPUs simply weren't as tolerant as AMD said.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, maybe this was a problem on Quanta's end, I'm simply offering an alternate possibility.
Click to expand...

still his comment is valid, I have seen new laptops that are warm to hot at idle or when at 50% cpu load (1core maxed out) I had 5 laptops that have failed due to heat and the 40+ calls related the NVIDIA death gpu laptops (most HP/compaq) fail at cooling again (but NVIDIA did admit that its max temp was to high)

laptops should not run within 90% of there thermal limits , its like they are not bothered test the cooling solution

at least with the new i3 laptops they seem to run cool under any load (1st gen i3 laptops you can end up with lemons)

amd laptops are an joke at the moment with the poor man's 1.4 to 1ghz dual core laptops (its an netbook CPU in an normal size laptop) they run cool but that's due to low TDP (10w ish) and poor response times like an netbooks, I used one they are an wast of money but that is another topic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top