IT Creations specialist ex-datacenter accelerator catalogue (quote-only reseller)

NEGATIVE, DELIBERATELY NOT STRUCTURAL: no lead time in weeks is printed for these SKUs. It is not that no vendor in the chain publishes one - CDW does, and it is recorded on cdw-enterprise as 'published' - but this channel routes to 'request a quote' or shows a stock count instead, so the number exists elsewhere in the market and is not surfaced here. Checked 2026-10-04 per source spl-negative-no-oem-publishes-lead-time.

EAR 3A001 or EAR99 (below the 3A090.a TPP / performance-density thresholds) + EAR 744.23 (Entity List) + EAR 744.6 (Unverified / MEU lists)

MECHANISM: the part falls BELOW the ECCN 3A090.a/.b TPP and performance-density thresholds, so the advanced-computing licence regime, its case-by-case China/Macau carve-out and its D:5 screening do NOT attach. What remains is the general EAR plus destination-country import rules and screening of the consignee and its ultimate parent against the Entity, Unverified and MEU lists. NO LICENCE REQUIRED for the sale itself; the screening is a party-listing check, not a performance-threshold check. The binding ECCN determination for any specific part is the exporter's own classification, not this record.

Recorded as a channel that demonstrably carries a broad accelerator SKU set but publishes no prices - deliberately NOT priced, and a useful contrast with the marketplace records. Catalogue structure observed 2026-10-03: 'NVIDIA Workstation GPUs (35)', 'NVIDIA Datacenter GPUs (30)', 'TITAN (2)', 'GeForce (22)', cross-indexed by architecture - Hopper (2), Ampere (22), Ada Lovelace (16), Blackwell (10), Volta (4), Turing (9), Pascal (9), Kepler (7), Maxwell (5), Fermi (2), Tesla (3). Individual product pages exist for RTX PRO 6000 Blackwell Max-Q Workstation Edition, RTX PRO 6000 / 5000 / 4500 / 4000 Blackwell, RTX 6000 / 5000 / 4500 / 4000 / 4000 SFF / 2000 Ada, and RTX A6000. This is a specialist ex-datacenter reseller doing contact-sales, which is the correct channel when you need volume, firmware provenance and a paper trail - and the wrong channel if you need a number today. No price was published in the extracted HTML, so none is recorded. EXPORT CONTROL (2026-10-04, mechanism-level; source spl-eccn-3a090-ccl): consumer gaming cards of this generation generally do NOT meet the 3A090.a TPP/performance-density parameters and fall under ECCN 3A001 or are designated EAR99, i.e. the advanced-computing licence regime with its case-by-case and D:5 screening does not attach to them. This is exactly what makes export status a PER-PART property rather than a per-vendor one: a GeForce RTX 5090 and a datacenter/professional part from the same vendor and the same process generation can carry entirely different control status. Recorded as false for that reason, NOT because the part is unregulated - it remains subject to the EAR generally, to destination-country import rules, and to screening of the consignee and its ultimate parent against the Entity, Unverified and MEU lists (15 CFR part 744). The binding ECCN determination for any specific SKU is the exporter's own classification, which no public vendor page states. LEAD TIME: null and it is an EXPLICIT NEGATIVE, checked 2026-10-04. This is a quote-only channel - no price and no lead time is published on any page, and AGENTS.md forbids inventing an unsourced number, so the field stays null with the reason recorded. The negative is itself a procurement fact: a channel that will not state a lead time is a channel where the lead time is set by whatever allocation you happen to have, and it is exactly the kind of number to ask for in writing before signing. Probe log and per-vendor detail in source spl-negative-no-oem-publishes-lead-time; the one figure published anywhere in this chain is AWS's 8-week MAXIMUM Capacity Block booking horizon, which is a commitment ceiling rather than a delivery time.