Talk:GeForce

It's spelled "GeFORCE"

it's GeFORCE not GeForce.

Have you looked at Nvidia's website lately?

the logo in the article reads GeFORCE. i saw the latest logo and saw that now it's GeForce (latest geforce GPU logo).

This is a summary page

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. Timharwoodx 07:00, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i think this page needs gpu power consumption stats. that would be awesome:)

here are some

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/gpu-consumption2006.html

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/ati-powercons.html

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.

Neutrality dispute

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 (--208.25.0.2 19:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

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."

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". 207.42.160.58 22:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.NorsemanII 20:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did some work a while ago (like removing claims of the cards' "prowess"), but looking back it still needs a lot of work. --72.140.244.130 02:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)? --Nantonos 17:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.[1] --Swaaye 18:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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! -NorsemanII 00:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "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. --Swaaye 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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? j.engelh 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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. -Lwc4life 14:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it's mainly POV. We don't need such kinds of statements here. rohith 19:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stating facts does not violate POV policies..... 71.105.218.44 06:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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%"? 86.6.44.148 23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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