Dont forget ATi and nVidia do not have their own Fabs (well, AMD who own ATi do, but their best process is 90nm and they are already working at 100% capacity).
Actually AMD has had 65nm production capacity for a while, and they are now selling;
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=35677
It's not about to be making VPUs yet. And, yeah they aren't dropping their volumes on 90nm as quickly as was expected (shortages) so it's unlikely they'll be doing much of their own fab work other than mid-low range sometime next year.
Interesting, I knew AMD had engineering samples etc, but didnt know their 65nm process was ready for mass production yet, thanks
As such nVidia and ATi are dependant on TSMC and sinilar having fabs ready at that gate size. 65nm just isnt there in volume yet.
True but really they've been on 65nm for about a year, and have been making memory for more than that, volume just depends on what you're measuring, but the R600 refresh will be produced in volume next year, and the G80 refresh (or refresh's refresh) soon after.
Well, either TSMC are charging nVidia less for 90nm than they would have for 65nm, or they didnt offer nVidia that as an option as either the process wasnt mature enough for a 680million transistor GPU or they didnt have the 65nm capacity nVidia wanted.
If the process was mature enough, they had the capacity, and TSMC were willing to run 65mn for a similar or lower cost to nVidia, I find it hard to believe that we wouldnt have a 65nm G80
The main advantages of a smaller process are faster clocks and lower costs due to more functional dies/wafer. We can only assume that the cost to nVidia was higher for 65nm or the performance was lower (unlikely)
Unless TSMCs 65nm process is subject to a higher failure rate than their 90nm process maybe? Either that or TSMC want to milk cash from their newer 65nm process and put much higher profit margins for themselves on it.