NVIDIA DGX systems (direct sales and DGX-Ready partner network)
Fields
supply/nvidia-dgx-directNotes
QUOTE-ONLY - price_usd deliberately null. NVIDIA publishes no list price and no hardware price-request form: the Get DGX page routes to a 'Talk to Us' lead form plus a partner finder, so there is no number on any vendor page to record. Motion: DGX (SuperPOD, BasePOD, Spark, Station, Quantum) is sold either direct or through DGX-Ready partners. The Enterprise Marketplace 'Where to Buy' page states plainly that data center solutions are available through select NVIDIA Partner Network (NPN) partners, split into Cloud Service Providers and Partner Servers - so most buyers transact with a partner, not with NVIDIA. The partner funnel is DGX-Ready managed service providers (MSPs), DGX-Ready colocation data centers, certified storage partners, and SuperPOD-specialized integrators. CRITICAL BASIS POINT: at this channel the accelerator is not a separable retail SKU. SXM boards ship only on their matching HGX/DGX baseboard, so 'buying NVIDIA' here means buying a system with GPUs included. A DGX 8-GPU node, an HGX baseboard, and a bare SXM module differ by roughly an order of magnitude and must never be compared at face value. EXPORT CONTROLLED (true). Regime: US BIS advanced-computing export controls (the Oct 2023 interim final rule, 88 FR 73458 - source sup-buy-bis-2023-advanced-computing-controls), which put datacenter accelerators under ECCN 3A090/4A090, added the advanced-computing Foreign Direct Product (FDP) rule, and extended Regional Stability (RS) controls to Country Groups D:1, D:4 and D:5. For items destined to Macau or Country Group D:5 the rule applies a PRESUMPTION OF DENIAL; other RS destinations get a presumption of approval. Practical effect: which accelerator you can legally be sold, and which SKU counts as compliant, is set by destination and end user - not by the channel.
LEAD TIME, recorded as an EXPLICIT NEGATIVE with a bound rather than a fabricated week count. NVIDIA publishes no lead time in weeks on any page, and this record is quote-only, so lead_time_weeks stays null: any number would be invented. What CAN be said from a primary source is the shape of the horizon. NVIDIA's FY2026 Form 10-K (filed 2026-02-25, source spl-nvda-10k-fy2026-supply-commitments) reports outstanding inventory purchase and long-term supply and capacity obligations of $95.2 BILLION as of 2026-01-25, 'of which substantially all will be paid through fiscal year 2027', against $21.4 billion of consolidated inventories. A forward book of that size against roughly one year of payments implies an order horizon on the order of several quarters, so plan in quarters rather than weeks. Two further reasons the true lead time is longer than any published figure: the 10-K states NVIDIA 'may place non-cancellable inventory orders for certain product components IN ADVANCE OF OUR HISTORICAL LEAD TIMES, pay premiums, or provide deposits to secure future supply and capacity' - the vendor itself buys beyond its own lead times - and supply is concentrated in TSMC/Samsung wafers, SK Hynix/Micron/Samsung memory, CoWoS packaging and Hon Hai/Wistron/Fabrinet assembly. Corroborating but NOT a substitute: CDW, one of the few distributors that prints a lead time, shows '4-6+ Weeks' for the NVIDIA DGX B200 8x180GB server (source spl-cdw-published-lead-times-gpu-2026-10) - that is CDW's inbound window on one SKU, an open-ended range, and it contradicts the multi-quarter horizon above, which is precisely why a distributor's number must not be read as the OEM's. Re-verify each quarter against a fresh 10-Q.
EXPORT CONTROL REGIME: SCHEME RECLASSIFIED (2026-10-04): was a bare boolean plus 'EXPORT CONTROLLED (true). Regime: the Oct 2023 interim final rule, 88 FR 73458' with no paragraph, no mechanism and no expiry. Now recorded as a citation plus the three-layer mechanism.