Talk:GeForce

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.

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

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)

Adding information on current and past processors

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)