Template talk:Nvidia

Computing Template‑class

	This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Template	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Why the change[edit]

So...why was this changed? The existing form was fine. Bourgeoisdude 17:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought this allowed for better "link density". All the redundant "GeForces", "Rivas", and "nForces" were a bit annoying I thought, and wasted tons of space. This format lets you click on any GeForce you want without looking at it spread over 2 lines. I don't really see a readability or "clickability" issue. The blue link text makes it readable, IMO.

If you disagree, maybe the font size could be upped? Or perhaps instead of GeForce 256, 1, 2, 3, 4, FX, 6, etc go with a list like NV10, NV15, NV20, NV25, NV30, NV40, G70, G80. That is probably less understandable though, but more readable perhaps.

I revised it to 110% font size. --Swaaye 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

edit -- Check this out. Similar to what I did, but maybe more to your liking? Template:History of Windows

Because NVIDIA has no announcements and heck there aren't even enough rumors to even justify putting in the GeForce 9 yet, I'm taking it out of this template for now, only because it is potentially misleading people into thinking there actually is or soon to be a new geforce product, but only one web article even mentions a rumor about it and admits they don't know. I think the article can stay for now, and of course we will add the GeForce 9 back in the template when it nears release, but for now it's just way too early. Bourgeoisdude 14:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we change the template to match other templates out there, such as Template:Intel processors.

Minor edit, here's a sample of what it may look like

-- XenoL-Type 20:58, 06 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

temporary list collection[edit]

Place any software that support Nvidia, HPC, CUDA, Quadro, Quadro Plex, XGI..etc.

Pegasy TMPGEnc 4.0 XPress (support CUDA)

--Ramu50 (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: editing and changing my previous talk contribs is allowed

NOT a mind map.[edit]

This template is NOT a mind map. It does not need to contain literally ANYTHING that relates to Nvidia. But, the irony was "Ageia", the company who developed PhysX and was acquired bu Nvidia, was left out in this template. Ouch, I wonder why. --218.102.212.107 (talk) 18:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not inject your own "mind map" to other readers, you should assume they have no specific knowledge about Nvidia whatsoever, and they may not understand a thing in your mind map about NVIDIA. For example, what is an "OOP library"? In what aspect does OpenKODE relate to Nvidia, is it developed by NVIDIA? Why was PhysX acquired by Nvidia, isn't it AEGIA, the company making PhysX, which was acquired by NVIDIA? You can link these things up does not mean that the others has to accept the way you relate them. I don't want another edit warring, so please discuss and reach consensus before making any further edits.--203.218.208.76 (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OpenKODE is placed as a reference, since Nvidia have mention before that it might have plans to implemant most of its devices with OpenKODE / OpenES. PhysX placed in companies / department was by accident. Legally speaking when companies buy another companies they own all of the technologies they bought, since Aegia doesn't really have a notability other the competitor against Havok, I thought it was fairly ok to placed in the template. I mean if it had more notable technologies, then I would probably placed it in Aegia's own template. But to me Aegia is just one of another game developing companies like EA. A lot of the things I place on here are totally not mind map they do serve the purpose of navigation. E.g. EPP (aka SLI RAM) and SoundStorm (sometimes confused with Azila) are commonly confused technologies. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The version of template is totally inaccurate, so I will provide the citations and revert it.

nView is a driver technologies ref

NVIDIA® nView™ multi-display software--bundled free with NVIDIA® ForceWare™ desktop, 
workstation, mobile, platform, and multimedia software solutions

MXM might be removed, but for now I will place it in nForce chipsets, it is a technologie similar to A-Link Express on motherboards, developed by the MXM-SIG not Nvidia.

TurboCache method of memory mapping is a technology similar to Intel GMAs which requrie MMIO mapping, and it requires the motherboard support.

ESA platform is somewhat similar to AMD Live / GAME and Nvidia said the chipset consists of overclocking architecture, but the website has no evidence to support it, and so far right they only provided software system tools.

Nvidia's statement.

The Enthusiast System Architecture (ESA) is the industry’s first open-standard PC monitoring 
and control protocol for real-time communication and control of system thermal, electrical, 
acoustic and operating characteristics.

PC monitoring is usually done through VRM regulator on processors, which is display on BIOS. But they are no evidence GPU has a VRM, control protocol were not explained nor was published or refer in any white paper. ref

PhysX. I apologize previously for putting them under acquisitions. Nvidia's stated that GPU will consists of some sort of architecture for PhysX, but the only architecture they done was add PhysX features onto ForceWare, and included CUDA.

CUDA API, paragraph 1 & 2

Section: Evolution of the ISA and Compute Capabilities, paragraph 2, showed that the atomic function of the PhysX were only driver implementations.

Nvidia PhysX

The 8.09.04 WHQL release of the PhysX System Software comes with the latest PhysX runtimes 
used in the newest game titles.

There are no architecture design on the GPU, it was just a rumor. --Ramu50 (talk) 22:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest Ramu50, to read more "sources" before making himself misunderstood the terms and make tendicious edits (or violating 3RR rules) here in Wikipedia. Here are something I would like to express after I read your so-called "citations":

One, nView is a multiple-display technology enabled via a driver, does not necessarily mean that it is a "Driver Technology".

Two, ESA does not equal to AMD Game! or AMD Live! platform or any kind, simply because ESA has specialized hardware connected through USB to monitor various system components. Does AMD Live! or AMD Game platform have this kind of hardware? You get the difference between them? Read the whole ESA webpage first before replying this. Also, who gave you the impression that a GPU (especially on high-end products) does not have any VRM?

Four, nobody EVER mentioned that the GPU has architecture change just for CUDA. It's pure NVIDIA changing the naming from "Stream Processor (SP)" to "CUDA parallel processors".

Five, you are still being brainwashed by the opinion that "MIDs are made by Intel, NVIDIA and AMD etc." as pointed out by another editor on the ATI template.

Six, make sure you understand a subject before categorizing it, period. Because what I feel after reading your "citations" is "misunderstand", "misunderstanding" and "misunderstood". --203.218.101.83 (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For starters I never said they are the same, I use it only as an example, therefore I clearly stated they are "similar", do they automatically assume what other said is always wrong and you are always right. Because your editing show a lack of knowledge on the topic of Nvidia. Think you are so smart, and yet I don't see you having any success in your contributions to Wikipedia. If GPU does have VRM that is compatible VRM by all means give citations, because the fact is majority are not. First the MID was by Intel, Nvidia whatever clearly show you have absoutely no understanding of MIDs at all. I have more understanding of MIDs than you as show in MID article reference, for your information. What an amateur you are, doesn't even understand stream processing and the revolution of how each programming languages is built-into processors, yet the first thing you do is challenge other people with disrepct. --Ramu50 (talk) 04:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramu50 is back with IP 75.154.186.241[edit]

Just to sort out a few things.

1) A-Link Express is ATI Technology, not NVIDIA's, NVIDIA uses HyperTransport technology for communications between northbridge (MCP) and southbridge.

2) A registry hack for overclocking ≠ NVIDIA technologies/products.

3) There's enough reference to the "ScanLine Interleave by 3dfx" in the SLI (Scalable Link Interface) page if somebody is interested to click on the link and read the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.218.195.66 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 4 May 2009

"chipsets" under Graphics Processing Units[edit]

Why are these labeled as "chipsets", particularly when directly under GPUs, is motherboard chipsetsTeeTylerToe (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization[edit]

I changed all the GeForce series' articles' capitalization to make the S in "series" lowercase. Some of them are still pending due to DB-move requests. Please stand by, and do not revert this change. Thanks. --uKER (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Switch[edit]

Should we add the Tegra page to "Console components" under "Other products" because of the fact that the Nintendo Switch is using a customized Tegra SoC? MysteryMii215 (talk) 18:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC) MysteryMii215[reply]