No, they're actually based off of GF104, GF106 and GF108. If you read the articles, you'll see 3 distinct chips pictured: A big rectangular one (GF104), a medium sized, square one (GF106), and a small square one (GF108). These chips are all soon to be launched on the desktop as well.

It always strikes me as amusing that religious people who ostensibly don't agree with Darwin end up with lots of kids, while the stereotypical secular humanist strongly believes in evolution but refuses to propagate his or her genes. It's an interesting disconnect between ideology and reality, on both sides.

Sorry, I should have been more clear in my post. I don't understand why Bray didn't discuss HTML5 when criticizing Apple for its walled-garden app store & control over apps on the iPhone, since web apps completely circumvent all the restrictions that Bray ranted on and on about. When he does bring up HTML5, it's only to acknowledge that he doesn't know much about it, and he never manages to connect the dots.

From the article: "The big thing about the Web isn’t the technology, it’s that it’s the first-ever platform without a vendor" . Somehow he misses that the Web is a big platform on the iPhone, and then goes on to whine about native applications not being as open and free as the web! It's like he totally missed the point of his own tirade: if you don't like vendor controlled platforms, use the Web, it's the first-ever platform without a vendor!

For someone who supposedly thinks deep thoughts about these subjects, he's frighteningly short-sighted.

It's funny - Google is the biggest proponent of using the web to deploy applications of any company that I'm aware of. And Apple doesn't manage, censor, or exert a scintilla of control over web applications. In fact, they support them by ensuring the iPhone remains one of the best deployment targets for HTML applications, keeping their browser up-to-date. Accordingly, I would expect Tim Bray to hold the opinion that developing native apps is a relic of the 20th century, destined to die out soon from natural selection, and persuade people to write web apps rather than rant about Apple's outdated and relictual "walled-garden" app store.

I think Tim Bray's rant on the iPhone is rather ill-considered & rather short-sighted.

I wonder if this analysis took into account CFL's poor power factor. Cheap CFLs usually have a power factor of around 0.5, which causes substantial electrical losses compared to Incandescent bulbs, which are purely resistive (and therefore have a power factor of 1.0). LEDs, on the other hand, have a pretty good power factor. http://www.theengineer.co.uk/opinion/led-is-the-answer/299821.article

http://www.nvidia.com/object/tesla_c1060.html How about a little research before posting these stories???