Brassmonke
New member
Last quarter we all read that there was a design flaw in Blackwell and most folks, a number of contributors here included, assumed it was with packaging. However, on the call Jenson clarified that there was a change to the mask and no functional changes necessary.
Vivek Arya -- Analyst
Thanks for taking my question. Jensen, you mentioned in the prepared comments that there's a change in the Blackwell GPU mask. I'm curious, are there any other incremental changes in back-end packaging or anything else? And I think related, you suggested that you could ship several billion dollars of Blackwell in Q4 despite the change in the design. Is it because all these issues will be solved by then? Just help us size what is the overall impact of any changes in Blackwell timing, what that means to your kind of revenue profile and how are customers reacting to it.
Jensen Huang -- President and Chief Executive Officer
Yeah. Thanks, Vivek. The change to the mask is complete. There were no functional changes necessary.
And so, we're sampling functional samples of Blackwell, Grace Blackwell, and a variety of system configurations as we speak. There are something like 100 different types of Blackwell-based systems that are built that were shown at Computex, and we're enabling our ecosystem to start sampling those. The functionality of Blackwell is as it is, and we expect to start production in Q4.
On Wednesday, Reuters reported the following from Jensen at an event in Denmark:
"We had a design flaw in Blackwell," Huang said. "It was functional, but the design flaw caused the yield to be low. It was 100% Nvidia's fault."
Was this a reference to the mask issue or something else? I saw the article in passing and had originally dismissed it but it irked me given how the quote was phrased (in present tense). Certainly what was fixed can now also be fixed but I wouldn't mind a sharper mind telling me I'm crazy.
Vivek Arya -- Analyst
Thanks for taking my question. Jensen, you mentioned in the prepared comments that there's a change in the Blackwell GPU mask. I'm curious, are there any other incremental changes in back-end packaging or anything else? And I think related, you suggested that you could ship several billion dollars of Blackwell in Q4 despite the change in the design. Is it because all these issues will be solved by then? Just help us size what is the overall impact of any changes in Blackwell timing, what that means to your kind of revenue profile and how are customers reacting to it.
Jensen Huang -- President and Chief Executive Officer
Yeah. Thanks, Vivek. The change to the mask is complete. There were no functional changes necessary.
And so, we're sampling functional samples of Blackwell, Grace Blackwell, and a variety of system configurations as we speak. There are something like 100 different types of Blackwell-based systems that are built that were shown at Computex, and we're enabling our ecosystem to start sampling those. The functionality of Blackwell is as it is, and we expect to start production in Q4.
On Wednesday, Reuters reported the following from Jensen at an event in Denmark:
"We had a design flaw in Blackwell," Huang said. "It was functional, but the design flaw caused the yield to be low. It was 100% Nvidia's fault."
Was this a reference to the mask issue or something else? I saw the article in passing and had originally dismissed it but it irked me given how the quote was phrased (in present tense). Certainly what was fixed can now also be fixed but I wouldn't mind a sharper mind telling me I'm crazy.