Jump to content

Talk:GeForce: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Change 'product naming scheme' graph
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(99 intermediate revisions by 51 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
==It's spelled "GeFORCE"==
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
1=
{{WikiProject Computing|importance=Mid|hardware-importance=Mid|hardware=yes}}
{{WikiProject Video games|class=C|importance=Mid}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 1
|minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = Talk:GeForce/Archive %(counter)d
}}


== Change 'product naming scheme' graph ==
it's GeFORCE not GeForce.
: Have you looked at Nvidia's website lately?


The product naming scheme graph is not up to date and should not include notes about specific generations, rather all the generations and how they're named. Here is a link to the ATI naming scheme graph which does it right:
the logo in the article reads GeFORCE. i saw the latest logo and saw that now it's GeForce (latest geforce GPU logo).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon#Product_naming_scheme
== This is a summary page ==


I believe that the Memory graph area should be taken completely out of the graph as it pertains to specific generation models rather than the naming scheme. I do not want to do it so please consider this and someone who is more involved take it out.
I don't think this page needs detailed lists of part specifications added to it, 6800 or otherwise. Its a portal to the main GeForce pages, and nothing more. If you think Wiki is lacking, and at this point I would beg to differ there, having personally done a lot of the cleanup and created the navigation bar, please add the detail to the linked pages. [[User:Timharwoodx|Timharwoodx]] 07:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Thanks - 8/28/07
: i think this page needs gpu power consumption stats. that would be awesome:)


The only problem is is that NVIDIA didn't use this product naming scheme until GeForce FX (which I thought there should be a note about that). For example, the GeForce 4 Ti 4200 isn't a budget GeForce 4, its power was more of a midrange card. Plus all NVIDIA did before GeForce 4 (when they had four numbers in their models) was either use three numbers, or just suffixes, which still aren't consistent with today. Besides that, ATI's lineup isn't any better. ATI's best DirectX 8 card was Radeon 8500, which isn't a midrange card. While I'm sure they marketed the 9200 as a budget R300 card, it was really a budget R200 card. -- [[User:XenoL-Type|XenoL-Type]] 20:37 10 September, 2007 (UTC)
:here are some
:http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gpu-consumption2006.html
:http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/ati-powercons.html


== Naming of series to reflect "real world" naming conventions ==
:: Summary page or not I wouldn't want to have to open 10 tabs to check card vs. card when I could easily look at a table and be done with it. I second the power consumption stats as well.


There series titles should reflect the actual name of the GPUs, for example, GEFORCE GTX 1660 belongs in the one thousand (1000) series. The same with the newer line of GEFORCE 3080 belong in the three thousand (3000) series, not in the hundreds series ー 100 and 300 respectively like they are posted now. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Newb787|Newb787]] ([[User talk:Newb787#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Newb787|contribs]]) 10:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)</span> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Neutrality dispute ==


== Adding information on current and past processors ==
Seems like much of this article was deposited by nVIDIA's copy writers. In particular, the GeForce Go section uses uncited phrases like "flexible and powerful." ---Ransom (--[[User:208.25.0.2|208.25.0.2]] 19:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC))


The RISC-V page includes a reference to GeForce processors under [[RISC-V#In development|Implementations- In Development]]. All GeForce cards currently use a processor called Falcon, and Nvidia is developing a replacement for it, using the RISC-V architecture. Should there be a new section on the GeForce processors? Or should we include some basic info on them in the introduction?
:Fixed? I changed this:
:"Since the GeForce 2, NVIDIA has produced number of counterpart designs for notebook computers. Branded GeForce Go, the notebook graphics processing units (GPU) from NVIDIA are flexible and powerful. GeForce Go provides top-to-bottom solutions for many mobile platforms including thin and light, desktop replacement, and business notebooks, as well as mobile workstations. NVIDIA’s notebook GPUs deliver long battery life with good system performance."
:to:
:"Since the GeForce 2, NVIDIA has produced number of counterpart designs for notebook computers, such as the GeForce Go, a notebook graphics processing unit (GPU). GeForce Go provides solutions for many mobile platforms including thin and light, desktop replacement, and business notebooks, as well as mobile workstations."


I think these would be relevant sources to include:
::If anyone doesn't like it, feel free to revert, but I took out such claims as "delivers long battery life with good system performance", and the already mentioned "flexible and powerful". [[User:207.42.160.58|207.42.160.58]] 22:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Tue1100_Nvidia_RISCV_Story_V2.pdf
This source states that Falcon has existed for at least 10 years, and that it is a proprietary ISA. The new RISCV-based architecture will have a 64-bit address and data width, in contrast to Falcon, which is 32-bit.


:::It's hard to look at this page as being unbiased. The whole article is dismally low on citations and rife with advertising language. There needs to be some serious cleanup here.[[User:NorsemanII|NorsemanII]] 20:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


https://download.nvidia.com/open-gpu-doc/Falcon-Security/1/Falcon-Security.html
::::Did some work a while ago (like removing claims of the cards' "prowess"), but looking back it still needs a lot of work. --[[User:72.140.244.130|72.140.244.130]] 02:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
This source states that Falcon has had 3 security modes since the Maxwell architecture was introduced.


I am looking for a reliable source on the timeline of when the RISCV processor will be introduced, and when Falcon was first introduced.
:::::Other than quips like, "once again established NVIDIA's performance leadership over its competitors," the article is fine. Just needs some TLC to make it infomrative instead of pitchy.

==Quadro==

Nothing on the Nvidia Quadro workstation lines (both desktop and laptop)? --[[User:NantonosAedui|Nantonos]] 17:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
:Quadro != Geforce. It has its own article.
::I was imprecise, apologies. Nothing on comparisons of Quadro with GeForce? There is a lot of shared silicon between the two lines (eg for mobile chisets, Quadro 2500M ~= GeForce 7900GTX). Some comparative material would be good.
:I'm under the impression that for games both are about the same, but for professional applications the Quadro is just shockingly faster.[http://features.cgsociety.org/story_custom.php?story_id=3321] --[[User:Swaaye|Swaaye]] 18:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
It depends, the Quadro is a professional series card, but they have low end and high end. Some are very basic corporate desktop cards, others are high end cards these tend to be called DCC (digital content creation) cards. It's difficult to track them w.r.t. the mainstream cards due to the way they are named and marketed. Quadros started out as very similar hardware with features enabled like anit-aliased lines and two sided lighting which would affect 'professional' application performance & benchmarks, but they have grown into an entire differentiated product line, you can no longer make simple comparrisons between GeForce and Quadro, the DCC stuff is the high end where NVIDIA seems to have adopted the FX product label so the high end is the Quadro FX 5600, the core is probably G80 based but it may well be a dedicated silicon design, they tend to have significantly enhanced memory performance w.r.t. mainstream cards and drivers certified for use with specific applications.

== The advert tag ==

See the neutrality dispute above, I'll add some specifics here.

*"is an evolutionary improvement" - Can anyone tell me what that means?
*"once again established NVIDIA's performance leadership over its competitors" - This ''isn't'' advertising?
*“perform extremely well on older DirectX 7 and 8 titles.” - According to what standard?
*“the high-end GeForce 256” - Which means what exactly? Details, not advertising babble! -[[User:NorsemanII|NorsemanII]] 00:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
**"is an evolutionary improvement" - Can anyone tell me what that means?
::sure. This means it's not a major change but offers refinements. It is similar to its predecessor in many ways.
**"once again established NVIDIA's performance leadership over its competitors" - This ''isn't'' advertising?
::Well, GeForce2 GTS outperformed its competitors for quite a while. Voodoo5 was no match and Radeon could only win in a few circumstances with 32-bit color. Same with Kyro.
**“perform extremely well on older DirectX 7 and 8 titles.” - According to what standard?
::This is tricky. NV3x was built to perform very well on older titles. It has an inefficient hardware design to do this. Unfortunately it was not really a useful design choice because it hindered DX9 performance while boosting speed in old games that didn't need help anyway.
**“the high-end GeForce 256” - Which means what exactly? Details, not advertising babble!
::There are two GeForce 256 boards. The value board with SDR and the high-end model with DDR. This isn't properly conveyed in this sentence though so it will be removed.

: The above dispute is 6 months old and the page has been overhauled since then. Those "advertisement" paragraphs were multi-paragraph glorifications before. It seems you are sensitive to overly descriptive adjectives. Some of the writing is inaccurate. I will fix your concerns. This is not worthy of a giant whiny tag though. --[[User:Swaaye|Swaaye]] 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

== NV15 is NOT the earliest GeForce2 ==

The article states "GeForce2 - Launched in April 2000, the first GeForce2 (NV15) ...". I do have the following video card according to ''lspci'': '''VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV11 [GeForce2 MX/MX 400] (rev a1) / Class 0300: 10de:0110 (rev a1)'''. Someone got it wrong - the article or lspci? [[User:Jengelh|j.engelh]] 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

== The loop (reboot) error in Windows XP ==
Please take into account it's very hard to give resources to something that mainly lives in forums. But it does affect many users. -[[User:Lwc4life|Lwc4life]] 14:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
:I believe that it's mainly POV. We don't need such kinds of statements here. [[User:Mr. XYZ|rohith]] 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
::Stating facts does not violate POV policies..... [[User:71.105.218.44|71.105.218.44]] 06:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
This is completely irrelevant to the article. Allowing some user with a driver issue to contaminate a very generic article with a very narrow issue is ridculous, especially when it takes up so much space. There are/have been innumerable bugs with various generations of graphics cards, this is not the place for this stuff, the issue is not whether it is factual it is whether it belongs in this article and whether it should take up more space than the meat. This seems better served with an external link or perhaps a reference to an article about a loop reboot NVIDIA driver issue.

=='Naming Scheme' Table==

Just a quick one... The Shader Resolution in the Budget row reads "≤50%" - ie. "less than or equal to 50%". Should this not instead read "≥50%" - "more than or equal to 50%"? [[User:86.6.44.148|86.6.44.148]] 23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

== Change 'product naming scheme' graph ==

The product naming scheme graph is not up to date and should not include notes about specific generations, rather all the generations and how they're named. Here is a link to the ATI naming scheme graph which does it right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon#Product_naming_scheme

I believe that the Memory graph area should be taken completely out of the graph as it pertains to specific generation models rather than the naming scheme. I do not want to do it so please consider this and someone who is more involved take it out.


[[User:RedrickSchu|RedrickSchu]] ([[User talk:RedrickSchu|talk]]) 16:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks

Latest revision as of 18:12, 15 July 2024

Change 'product naming scheme' graph

[edit]

The product naming scheme graph is not up to date and should not include notes about specific generations, rather all the generations and how they're named. Here is a link to the ATI naming scheme graph which does it right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon#Product_naming_scheme

I believe that the Memory graph area should be taken completely out of the graph as it pertains to specific generation models rather than the naming scheme. I do not want to do it so please consider this and someone who is more involved take it out.

Thanks - 8/28/07

The only problem is is that NVIDIA didn't use this product naming scheme until GeForce FX (which I thought there should be a note about that). For example, the GeForce 4 Ti 4200 isn't a budget GeForce 4, its power was more of a midrange card. Plus all NVIDIA did before GeForce 4 (when they had four numbers in their models) was either use three numbers, or just suffixes, which still aren't consistent with today. Besides that, ATI's lineup isn't any better. ATI's best DirectX 8 card was Radeon 8500, which isn't a midrange card. While I'm sure they marketed the 9200 as a budget R300 card, it was really a budget R200 card. -- XenoL-Type 20:37 10 September, 2007 (UTC)

Naming of series to reflect "real world" naming conventions

[edit]

There series titles should reflect the actual name of the GPUs, for example, GEFORCE GTX 1660 belongs in the one thousand (1000) series. The same with the newer line of GEFORCE 3080 belong in the three thousand (3000) series, not in the hundreds series ー 100 and 300 respectively like they are posted now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newb787 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information on current and past processors

[edit]

The RISC-V page includes a reference to GeForce processors under Implementations- In Development. All GeForce cards currently use a processor called Falcon, and Nvidia is developing a replacement for it, using the RISC-V architecture. Should there be a new section on the GeForce processors? Or should we include some basic info on them in the introduction?

I think these would be relevant sources to include: https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Tue1100_Nvidia_RISCV_Story_V2.pdf This source states that Falcon has existed for at least 10 years, and that it is a proprietary ISA. The new RISCV-based architecture will have a 64-bit address and data width, in contrast to Falcon, which is 32-bit.


https://download.nvidia.com/open-gpu-doc/Falcon-Security/1/Falcon-Security.html This source states that Falcon has had 3 security modes since the Maxwell architecture was introduced.

I am looking for a reliable source on the timeline of when the RISCV processor will be introduced, and when Falcon was first introduced.

RedrickSchu (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:GeForce&oldid=1234700622"