Talk:GeForce 700 series

GTX Titan

The GeForce Titan will be part of the 600 series.

So, just to clarify, it is categorically italicnotitalic the 780 and italicnotitalic the harbringer of the 7XX series?

the titan is actually a series in itself, its nor 600 or 700 as far as I know, I would like to propose to make a new article labeled GTX Titan, using the info on the Geforce 700 Page since its basiacly gear towards the titan anyways, I don't want an article move because they a lot of redirecting will happen and it will make 700 series page useless. Matthew Smith (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

OpenCL 1.2 support? can you give a reference to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.139.162 (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Lack of sources

The only two reference links on this page does not mention the GeForce 700 series with a single word. Given the release of the GTX Titan, and the apparent gearing towards computing rather than graphics, it does not seem likely that the geForce 700 series will have anything to do with the GK110. Basically everything but the mobile section seems to be unrelated and/or guesswork. If no one can provide some solid sources this article will be cropped heavily. EBusiness (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Big round of deletion done. It is still not a good article, it still lacks some sources and some better text, but is certainly better than a copy paste job of a marketing paper about a chip that may not even feature in the line. The section about the mobile releases is an attempt at striking a balance between providing some information on the released products, and not citing totally unreliable sources. EBusiness (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

GTX 770 and other unreleased cards.

Anyone with a slight insight into the graphics card market will expect a GTX 770 to be released soon, probably along with a GTX 760 or GTX 760 Ti simultaneously or shortly thereafter. It must however be noted that however qualified, these are guesses.

When it comes to specifications things turn way more sour. The tech sites have plenty guesses, but rarely any reliable sources for those guesses. The resulting article stream speaks for itself, only 8 days before release Toms Hardware for instance list the GTX 780 as having 2496 CUDA cores, 208 TMUs, 40 ROPs and a 320 bit memory interface [1]. And just 2 days before the launch they have finally figured the MSRP, though they got it wrong by $50 [2]. How can we trust information on GTX 770 or any other unreleased cards from sites that have mere days or weeks ago published false claims about the GTX 780?

Wikipedia is not a news site, and it is definitely not a rumour site. However cool it would be for Wikipedia to hold information about unreleased products, the truth is that there is no way we can reliably get such information, and simply repeating the rumour on Wikipedia makes it no less a rumour.

The verifiability rules have been broken over and over again when dealing with unreleased hardware, that is neither a reason nor an excuse to continue this practice. I know that there exist other articles stuffed with unsourced or weakly sourced information about the same topics, that is no reason to introduce the same information here, so please don't. EBusiness (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

http://videocardz.com/43048/nvidia-geforce-gtx-760-final-specs-unveiled 81.99.64.14 (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

760m-780m specifications

The official specifications for the new notebook GPU's have been released for a few days now and have not been added to the page. http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-760m/specifications http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-765m/specifications http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-770m/specifications http://www.geforce.com/hardware/notebook-gpus/geforce-gtx-780m/specifications

GK110

Hy EBusiness. I have something to ask. As you say that anyone that want to know about GK110 can just read the whitepaper, should we just put the important bit of the whitepaper over here. I mean, wikipedia is a place for information and I doubt some people are liking this page empty about GK110 and can do nothing because of the lock you put. Cretman121 (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You are quite welcome to expand the GK110 section, but do remember the editorial guidelines, we prefer 3rd party sources, and sources that actually take the time to digest the info in order to filter out the "marketing" that you are pretty much guaranteed to find in such a paper. Finding good sources is a big part of the job. Also, while a few extra good lines on the GK110 would certainly be welcome here, I'd consider a more elaborate writeup on the computing features to be a much better fit for the nVidia Tesla article.

If you want to contribute to a semi-protected article before you are autoconfirmed (aren't you autoconfirmed yet?) you can always post edit suggestions on the talk page. You can even copy whole sections into the talk page in order to make elaborate edits that can then easily be copied back. See also: Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection. EBusiness (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I want to thank you for being so polite. Not everyone over here is like that. Secondly, while I agreed with you every bit, writing GK110 compute capabilities on nVidia Tesla is the perfect fit since GK110 is a compute chip but as GK110 compute functionality information originate from here, pretty much everyone who reads it here will think that its gone. Lastly, as GK110 spec has already gone public, I think its safe to say that most of the GK110 sources has already been distilled by tech sites that publish GK110 architectural detail. So the primary article for GK110 will be over nVidia Tesla like you said but will be supplemented over here. And yes I'm already autoconfirmed. Cretman121 (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

(Edit request) The pixel fillrate for the 760 is calculated incorrectly.

As far as I can tell, the pixel fillrate should be 32 x 0.980 = 31.36 (rounded to 31.4 to be consistent with the rest of the table) according to "Pixel fillrate is calculated as the number of ROPs multiplied by the base core clock speed". I noticed this because it has the same amount of ROPs and a lower clockspeed than the 770 below it, and yet a higher pixel fillrate.

I'd edit it myself, but the article is semi-locked, and as I've never edited articles before (or posted on the talk page hah) I figured I'd let someone else do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.80.219 (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)