Do you mean these parts of the image:
I took a closer look. I'd assumed these parts would be missing because it's a qualification sample. Or, deliberately obscured.
Er no, not just those areas. Those were clearly edited, which matches what you posted earlier about how anyone can believe a particular chip MUST belong to a particular card. But it's not necessarily the case. Or in this case, the image may not even be the real thing.
In this particular case of concern was various aspects, I'll go through them:
1. The (R) after nVIDIA is wonky. It's not straight like how everything else is. Or how other photos of Nvidia chips are (the (R) is straight). I can't imagine Nvidia would print/etch something that's like the Team Rocket R with a slant to it but he rest of the NVIDIA is normal.
2. The erased parts of the top of the die of the chip, it's clearly been edited, which basically means it's impossible to validate that it even IS the chip in question. Anyone could have put anything on it. (Basically similar to your point in your post I replied to). The sharpness of the text could be attributed to the camera, but it seems odd that the main text is so crisp, yet the (R) is so wrong.
3. What set me off most however, was the lighting and shadows. Especially the the amount of light on the fibres we see dotted around the chip. If we look at the shadows, the primary light source is coming down from the "top" of the image (not necessarily overhead, but in that direction the source of the light is). And if we look at the green part of the chip near the bottom left of the die, we can clearly see some shadows there cast by the die itself at the bottom of it. However, if we also look closely, the bottom left part of the die on the silvery grey part, the fibres there are clearly lit up like it is in direct lighting, with no sign of any shadows; yet the shadows below the die on the green part are clearly being cast by a lighting source from above (the top of the image). Which if there was another light source that eliminated the shadow on the silvery grey bit of the bottom left of the die, it would have also elimianted the shadows on the bottom left part near the die on the green parts. Also if we look to the top of the image, where there is another set of shadows, the fibres there are clearly darker (in shadow). Yet the ones in the silvery grey bit in the bottom left portion of the die are clearly not overcast in the slightest.
That is why the image is weird to my eyes. It doesn't make sense given the lighting and shadows. Suggesting it's been heavily modified. So it would be better to assume it may not even be what it claims to be at this time, since we can't even verify that from all the editing.
