![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 February 2016. The result of the discussion was delete. |
I am slightly confused. The article starts off by saying that these chips "will" use HBM2, but then ends off by saying that they use GDDR5 or GDDR5x. These are completely different memory technologies, no? Which is it? 184.170.93.22 ( talk) 01:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
This should be called GeForce 1000 series, since it comes after the GeForce 900 series, not after the GeForce 9 series. -- uKER ( talk) 04:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
References at the bottom of this page need tidying up, with consistent syntax and dates for each of the links, a caption or brief description would help. Millzie95 ( talk) 22:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The table in the Products section, in particular, seems to be speculating about some of the information. A lot of the information is cited,b ut not all of it. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. All the information must be cited with a reliable source (not a speculative blog post). This article is actually pretty good. The authors have worked hard to list the information we know for sure. But there's still room for improvement. Without a reliable citation, information should be removed. Unfortunately, that includes much of the info for the 1070 and some of the info for the 1080. -- Yamla ( talk) 14:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Approximate spec values in the Products table should be marked with a tilda (~) rather than being calculated first then corrected later, this will help to differentiate between confirmed and rough specs. Millzie95 ( talk) 16:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Should Founders Edition pricing be included alongside MSRP? Millzie95 ( talk) 17:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The article is comming along nicely, more specific detail added and products table is updated with the most recent information we have, references have been improved and see also section has been expanded. Millzie95 ( talk) 08:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
@ 210.187.221.194: is claiming [1] cites his/her claim that the 1070 has a single-precision processing power of 6500 GFLOPS. However, the article states, " Single precision performance is calculated as 2 times the number of shaders multiplied by the boost core clock speed." The article claims the 1070 has 1920 shader processors and the citation shows a boost clock of 1.6 GHz. 2 * 1920 * 1.6 is 6144, not the 6500 that the user is claiming. Perhaps the article is explaining how to do this calculation incorrectly? I'm concerned that this user is adding uncited and incorrect information and then launching personal attacks when challenged. -- Yamla ( talk) 16:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you stupid or really unable to use your brain to find info? Nvidia says 6.5 TFLOPs right there on their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.187.221.194 ( talk) 16:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the same can be said of GTX1080. 8223 is calculated by base core clock (1.607 * 2 * 2560 = 8227.84). but it could be 8873 calculated by boost core (1.733 * 2 * 2560 = 8872.96) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.35.68.250 ( talk) 09:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
210.187.223.163 ( talk · contribs) removed external links in this edit, saying "Stop adding links that are not official Nvidia links". Actually, we prefer journalistic sources over vendor sources. That is, journalistic sources are better and we should use them in preference to vendor sources. See WP:RS, specifically the "Vendor and e-commerce sources" section. I have not reverted the removal because I have not verified whether or not the removed sources are of sufficient journalistic integrity, or whether they just serve as spam in this article. Their removal may be entirely appropriate. -- Yamla ( talk) 19:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed there's a bit of back and forth from editors and users as new information comes out on the official clock speeds of the known 10 series parts. Some are editing floating point performance numbers to reflect (shaders * 2 * boost clock), some are instead following the proper (shaders * 2 * base clock) calculation. In some ways, they're both valid. With parts like these having a minimum boost clock that is much higher than their base clock, their peak FLOPS can be significantly higher than their rated base FLOPS (both the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 are gaining somewhere in the region of 600-700 GFLOPS at minimum turbo). However, the technically correct calculation is (shaders * 2 * base clock), and no previous articles have displayed calculations using the boost clock of any particular card, such as the article for the GeForce 900 series. I personally feel that the boost clock calculation is unnecessary, but also inaccurate as Nvidia's Turbo Boost technology will allow cards to turbo well beyond the minimum rated turbo boost. -- Arbabender ( talk) 01:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess you're right about how to calculate performance. but, first, you said, "Single precision performance is calculated as 2 times the number of shaders multiplied by the boost core clock speed." and "by the boost core " is clearly wrong. I think you should have written "by base core" so good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byunsangho ( talk • contribs) 09:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Thanks whoever added the whitepaper link, it's a good source and provides plenty of useful info. Millzie95 ( talk) 14:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
there is no volta article so the link just went right for the geforce article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.73.96 ( talk) 10:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
GTX 1060 pixel fillrate should be 32 px/clock, not 48. While it has 48 ROPs, each GPC can only handle 16 px/clock. Same as why 1070 has lower than 1080 in this article.
EDIT: So to be in line with rules, under desktop it should be 48.2 GP/s and 44.9 GP/s for notebook. 74.66.132.81 ( talk) 03:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
See https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2875/geforce-gtx-1050 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.67.49 ( talk) 15:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I notice that the spec references keep being changed from 2nd parties to Nvidia itself. I do not believe this is okay as the Nvidia specs do not include full specs (core config, for one example), and Wikipedia's policy on sources encourages 2nd and 3rd parties. Anybody else have any thoughts? Dbsseven ( talk) 16:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10768/nvidia-announces-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-gtx-1050
https://techreport.com/review/30822/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050-and-gtx-1050-ti-graphics-cards-unveiled — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bouowmx (
talk •
contribs)
13:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The official information is now on Nvidia support, SLI official not supported and all other implantations, async computing not supported, time for an official Direct3D support on Pascal issue on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 ( talk) 14:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
There's a vandal adding deliberately uncited information to the chart stating the Titan Xp's base clock is 1405. Now, that number is probably correct, but we need a citation for it. nvidia's provided spec sheet shows the boost clock is 1582 MHz but doesn't list the base clock. Anyone have a citation which meets WP:RS which we can use here? -- Yamla ( talk) 00:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2948/titan-xp Did you 2 morons even look at the source you cited? It says "GPU Clock: 1405". It really shows that ignorant morons like both of you should not be allowed to edit at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.233.40 ( talk) 15:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
References
The 1030 has recently been announced, with the specs on Nvidia's website . Apparently it's the last Pascal card, and needs to be added to the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoolahoopz ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC) ^^ Not true. NVIDIA has plans for 1070 Ti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B826:6A30:4DB6:3DB5:770D:E476 ( talk) 00:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
there are 3 of them now, all GP108 / MX150 [1] 68.101.121.218 ( talk) 04:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
References
@ 210.187.151.217: I see you have repeatedly added links to the current nvidia drivers for this product series article (and a number of other nV GeForce product articles). I appreciate your effort to add more links to wikipedia. However these links are not encyclopedic, and not in keeping with WP policy (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM). Multiple editors ( Yamla, Denniss, and myself) have reverted your edits, and provided comments explaining why this editing style is disruptive. If there is a specific, justifiable reason for these links, please discuss it here (or the appropriate talk pages). The policy is edit-revert-discuss, repeated restoration of your edits without discussion is edit-warring. Continued disruptive editing will lead to referral to the administrator's noticeboard for edit-warring. Dbsseven ( talk) 16:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Cautilus: (and anyone else interested) I see there has been some back-and-forth on the categorization of the Titan X. It seems this and similar categorization issues could be resolved with better defined categories. In the case of the Titan X, multiple RSs describe it as "prosumer" and targeted compute rather than gaming markets [2] [3] [4] Finding a better consensus and perhaps adding or changing the infobox categories might alleviate some of these issues. A related discussion is open on the graphics processing unit infobox talk page, please feel free to chime in there. Dbsseven ( talk) 15:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, DisplayPort 1.3/1.4 support is disabled on Pascal cards by default. It's listed as "DisplayPort 1.2 Certified, DisplayPort 1.3/1.4 Ready" in the official specs.
Nvidia released a firmware update that enables DP1.4 support:
https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4674 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
212.178.20.226 (
talk)
20:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I reverted this change. The provided citation does not actually state that the Turing architecture is the successor to the GeForce 10 series, nor does it mention that the next round of GPUs will be called GeForce 20. There's a lot of rumours floating around about the next GPUs, but Wikipedia requires reliable citations, not predictions. There's a good chance the next GPUs will be called GeForce 20 and will be based on the Turing architecture, but that's not the point. WP:V. -- Yamla ( talk) 13:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, both 1660 and 1660Ti. Link 1, Link 2 Not sure where this is supposed to go. Is this part of the GeForce 10 series? They're Turing cards, so... GeForce 16? -- uKER ( talk) 08:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I see someone has touched up some of the GeForce series' articles changing some of the units (apparently at random) in the tables' headers to refer to kibibytes, mebibytes and gibibytes, instead of the usual kilobytes, megabytes and gigabytes. Personally I feel the change as one that someone could do out of novelty from coming to know about the existence of such units, but despite the terms being technically correct, using them seems quite pedantic in that it introduces a technicality that not only goes against the way the whole world refers to these units of information, but it even causes the article to contradict all of its cited (official) sources, which employ the usual "non binary-based" units. The ambiguity between the two possible values of the "non bi" units is a known, expected fact, acknowledged in the lead of the Gigabyte article, probably among others. -- uKER ( talk) 14:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
It might be more convenient for background info on a single card, compared to having to scroll past everything.
The MX 250 is available on laptops. Finding technical information is a challenge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.194.172 ( talk) 01:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
As you can see by my recent edit, I temporarily replaced the release date template with standard typing as it still incorrectly read 7 years, at least as a temporary fix until the issue is solved completely. Hope you understand and thank you Aliy Dawut ( talk) 06:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 11 February 2016. The result of the discussion was delete. |
I am slightly confused. The article starts off by saying that these chips "will" use HBM2, but then ends off by saying that they use GDDR5 or GDDR5x. These are completely different memory technologies, no? Which is it? 184.170.93.22 ( talk) 01:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
This should be called GeForce 1000 series, since it comes after the GeForce 900 series, not after the GeForce 9 series. -- uKER ( talk) 04:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
References at the bottom of this page need tidying up, with consistent syntax and dates for each of the links, a caption or brief description would help. Millzie95 ( talk) 22:59, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The table in the Products section, in particular, seems to be speculating about some of the information. A lot of the information is cited,b ut not all of it. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. All the information must be cited with a reliable source (not a speculative blog post). This article is actually pretty good. The authors have worked hard to list the information we know for sure. But there's still room for improvement. Without a reliable citation, information should be removed. Unfortunately, that includes much of the info for the 1070 and some of the info for the 1080. -- Yamla ( talk) 14:57, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Approximate spec values in the Products table should be marked with a tilda (~) rather than being calculated first then corrected later, this will help to differentiate between confirmed and rough specs. Millzie95 ( talk) 16:52, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Should Founders Edition pricing be included alongside MSRP? Millzie95 ( talk) 17:04, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The article is comming along nicely, more specific detail added and products table is updated with the most recent information we have, references have been improved and see also section has been expanded. Millzie95 ( talk) 08:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
@ 210.187.221.194: is claiming [1] cites his/her claim that the 1070 has a single-precision processing power of 6500 GFLOPS. However, the article states, " Single precision performance is calculated as 2 times the number of shaders multiplied by the boost core clock speed." The article claims the 1070 has 1920 shader processors and the citation shows a boost clock of 1.6 GHz. 2 * 1920 * 1.6 is 6144, not the 6500 that the user is claiming. Perhaps the article is explaining how to do this calculation incorrectly? I'm concerned that this user is adding uncited and incorrect information and then launching personal attacks when challenged. -- Yamla ( talk) 16:22, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Are you stupid or really unable to use your brain to find info? Nvidia says 6.5 TFLOPs right there on their website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.187.221.194 ( talk) 16:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
I think the same can be said of GTX1080. 8223 is calculated by base core clock (1.607 * 2 * 2560 = 8227.84). but it could be 8873 calculated by boost core (1.733 * 2 * 2560 = 8872.96) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.35.68.250 ( talk) 09:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
210.187.223.163 ( talk · contribs) removed external links in this edit, saying "Stop adding links that are not official Nvidia links". Actually, we prefer journalistic sources over vendor sources. That is, journalistic sources are better and we should use them in preference to vendor sources. See WP:RS, specifically the "Vendor and e-commerce sources" section. I have not reverted the removal because I have not verified whether or not the removed sources are of sufficient journalistic integrity, or whether they just serve as spam in this article. Their removal may be entirely appropriate. -- Yamla ( talk) 19:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed there's a bit of back and forth from editors and users as new information comes out on the official clock speeds of the known 10 series parts. Some are editing floating point performance numbers to reflect (shaders * 2 * boost clock), some are instead following the proper (shaders * 2 * base clock) calculation. In some ways, they're both valid. With parts like these having a minimum boost clock that is much higher than their base clock, their peak FLOPS can be significantly higher than their rated base FLOPS (both the GTX 1070 and GTX 1080 are gaining somewhere in the region of 600-700 GFLOPS at minimum turbo). However, the technically correct calculation is (shaders * 2 * base clock), and no previous articles have displayed calculations using the boost clock of any particular card, such as the article for the GeForce 900 series. I personally feel that the boost clock calculation is unnecessary, but also inaccurate as Nvidia's Turbo Boost technology will allow cards to turbo well beyond the minimum rated turbo boost. -- Arbabender ( talk) 01:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess you're right about how to calculate performance. but, first, you said, "Single precision performance is calculated as 2 times the number of shaders multiplied by the boost core clock speed." and "by the boost core " is clearly wrong. I think you should have written "by base core" so good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Byunsangho ( talk • contribs) 09:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
References
Thanks whoever added the whitepaper link, it's a good source and provides plenty of useful info. Millzie95 ( talk) 14:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
there is no volta article so the link just went right for the geforce article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.212.73.96 ( talk) 10:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
GTX 1060 pixel fillrate should be 32 px/clock, not 48. While it has 48 ROPs, each GPC can only handle 16 px/clock. Same as why 1070 has lower than 1080 in this article.
EDIT: So to be in line with rules, under desktop it should be 48.2 GP/s and 44.9 GP/s for notebook. 74.66.132.81 ( talk) 03:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
See https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2875/geforce-gtx-1050 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.67.49 ( talk) 15:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I notice that the spec references keep being changed from 2nd parties to Nvidia itself. I do not believe this is okay as the Nvidia specs do not include full specs (core config, for one example), and Wikipedia's policy on sources encourages 2nd and 3rd parties. Anybody else have any thoughts? Dbsseven ( talk) 16:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10768/nvidia-announces-geforce-gtx-1050-ti-gtx-1050
https://techreport.com/review/30822/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1050-and-gtx-1050-ti-graphics-cards-unveiled — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Bouowmx (
talk •
contribs)
13:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The official information is now on Nvidia support, SLI official not supported and all other implantations, async computing not supported, time for an official Direct3D support on Pascal issue on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.157.6 ( talk) 14:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
There's a vandal adding deliberately uncited information to the chart stating the Titan Xp's base clock is 1405. Now, that number is probably correct, but we need a citation for it. nvidia's provided spec sheet shows the boost clock is 1582 MHz but doesn't list the base clock. Anyone have a citation which meets WP:RS which we can use here? -- Yamla ( talk) 00:21, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2948/titan-xp Did you 2 morons even look at the source you cited? It says "GPU Clock: 1405". It really shows that ignorant morons like both of you should not be allowed to edit at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.138.233.40 ( talk) 15:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
References
The 1030 has recently been announced, with the specs on Nvidia's website . Apparently it's the last Pascal card, and needs to be added to the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoolahoopz ( talk • contribs) 02:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC) ^^ Not true. NVIDIA has plans for 1070 Ti. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:B826:6A30:4DB6:3DB5:770D:E476 ( talk) 00:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
there are 3 of them now, all GP108 / MX150 [1] 68.101.121.218 ( talk) 04:03, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
References
@ 210.187.151.217: I see you have repeatedly added links to the current nvidia drivers for this product series article (and a number of other nV GeForce product articles). I appreciate your effort to add more links to wikipedia. However these links are not encyclopedic, and not in keeping with WP policy (see WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM). Multiple editors ( Yamla, Denniss, and myself) have reverted your edits, and provided comments explaining why this editing style is disruptive. If there is a specific, justifiable reason for these links, please discuss it here (or the appropriate talk pages). The policy is edit-revert-discuss, repeated restoration of your edits without discussion is edit-warring. Continued disruptive editing will lead to referral to the administrator's noticeboard for edit-warring. Dbsseven ( talk) 16:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
@ Cautilus: (and anyone else interested) I see there has been some back-and-forth on the categorization of the Titan X. It seems this and similar categorization issues could be resolved with better defined categories. In the case of the Titan X, multiple RSs describe it as "prosumer" and targeted compute rather than gaming markets [2] [3] [4] Finding a better consensus and perhaps adding or changing the infobox categories might alleviate some of these issues. A related discussion is open on the graphics processing unit infobox talk page, please feel free to chime in there. Dbsseven ( talk) 15:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Apparently, DisplayPort 1.3/1.4 support is disabled on Pascal cards by default. It's listed as "DisplayPort 1.2 Certified, DisplayPort 1.3/1.4 Ready" in the official specs.
Nvidia released a firmware update that enables DP1.4 support:
https://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/4674 — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
212.178.20.226 (
talk)
20:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I reverted this change. The provided citation does not actually state that the Turing architecture is the successor to the GeForce 10 series, nor does it mention that the next round of GPUs will be called GeForce 20. There's a lot of rumours floating around about the next GPUs, but Wikipedia requires reliable citations, not predictions. There's a good chance the next GPUs will be called GeForce 20 and will be based on the Turing architecture, but that's not the point. WP:V. -- Yamla ( talk) 13:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Actually, both 1660 and 1660Ti. Link 1, Link 2 Not sure where this is supposed to go. Is this part of the GeForce 10 series? They're Turing cards, so... GeForce 16? -- uKER ( talk) 08:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I see someone has touched up some of the GeForce series' articles changing some of the units (apparently at random) in the tables' headers to refer to kibibytes, mebibytes and gibibytes, instead of the usual kilobytes, megabytes and gigabytes. Personally I feel the change as one that someone could do out of novelty from coming to know about the existence of such units, but despite the terms being technically correct, using them seems quite pedantic in that it introduces a technicality that not only goes against the way the whole world refers to these units of information, but it even causes the article to contradict all of its cited (official) sources, which employ the usual "non binary-based" units. The ambiguity between the two possible values of the "non bi" units is a known, expected fact, acknowledged in the lead of the Gigabyte article, probably among others. -- uKER ( talk) 14:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
It might be more convenient for background info on a single card, compared to having to scroll past everything.
The MX 250 is available on laptops. Finding technical information is a challenge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.109.194.172 ( talk) 01:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
As you can see by my recent edit, I temporarily replaced the release date template with standard typing as it still incorrectly read 7 years, at least as a temporary fix until the issue is solved completely. Hope you understand and thank you Aliy Dawut ( talk) 06:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)