Talk:Nvidia

message: On February 6, 2009, a Wikipedian changed the opening sentence from "The multinational corporation Nvidia (, ), specializes in the manufacture of ... " to read: "Nvidia (, ) is a multinational corporation specializing in the manufacture of ...". The previous version gave context and established notability in accordance with the guideline WP:LEAD. It provided a definition of the subject-matter and made the subject-matter the grammatical subject of the opening sentence -- once again complying with WP:LEAD. Why then abandon this well-structured sentence for a bland and plodding version which has doubled the number of verbs and given undue prominence to Nvidia's corporate identity at the expense of the reason for its notability: its products? -- Can we establish, on good and clear policy grounds, a  consensus on an optimal introductory sentence? -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally agree with the change. The previous construction is too passive, and makes it questionable as to whether the subject is Nvidia or the manufacturing of graphics hardware. Here is the guideline: As a general rule, the first appearance of the page title should be as early as possible in the first sentence. (WP:BOLDTITLE) Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  The version reading: "The multinational corporation Nvidia ... specializes in the manufacture of ... " has nothing passive about it: it expresses the subject and uses that subject actively. No question arises as to whether the the article deals with he subject "Nvidia" or with specialization or even manufacturing -- the heading and the bolding take care of that. We can satisfy the edicts of WP:BOLDTITLE on the positioning of the page-title by using a construction such as "Nvidia, a  multinational corporation, specializes in the manufacture of ..." -- Leaving aside all personal opinions, I ask once again: can we establish, firmly based on the grounds of Wikipedia policies, a  consensus on an optimal introductory sentence? -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Several weeks later ... for want of a response, I propose to enhance the opening sentence to use the  "Nvidia, a  multinational corporation, specializes in the manufacture of ..." format. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentence 

message: Though somewhat amusing to see this, I want to raise the issue that between the "Market leadership" section that ends with the GF4 and the "GeForce 6 and later" section, there is no mention whatsoever of the FX (5000) series, which was one of nvidia's low points. Previous discussions above seem to indicate that there was content about the FX at one point, but this may have been removed. Please keep in mind that articles need to be NPOV and you cannot cherry-pick facts to include or exclude. The company's successes and failures both need to appear in the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A section was indeed removed:. This has been restored and edited a bit for NPOV. While it does need more sources, so does the rest of the history. Either remove the whole thing or leave this subsection in place. Otherwise, the article is biased because it only includes positive highlights from the company's product history. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing GeForce FX in chronology 

message: do not move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nvidia → NVIDIA — Seriously, NVIDIA is the name of this company, not Nvidia --Harbinary (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving Nvidia to NVIDIA 

message: Request protection for this page since Baseball Bugs is vandalising it.
:If you want a page protected, take it to WP:RFPP. If you want to get blocked for personal attacks, keep calling me a vandal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: How is nVidia American/Taiwanese?? --Aizuku (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  American/Taiwanese multinational corporation 

message: See earlier discussions of whether NVIDIA is pronounced /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/ or /ɛnˈvɪ.di.ə/.  Until someone can produce a high-quality, unambiguous source to settle this issue, I believe the pronunciation needs to be marked with a  tag.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "en-VID-eeyah" according to their official logo guidelines. Chai T. Rex (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation (again) 

message: Apparently there is a multi-million class action settlement, not mentioned on wikipedia.  Link: 
69.203.111.61 (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.nvidiasettlement.com 

message: By mistake I bought a Dell Vostro 3500 which it's graphic card is Geforce 310M. I am trying to upgrade my graphic card to open and use Google earth but something don't let me download a driver from Nvidia.com or Dell.com.
What's wrong to using Google Earth? any suggestion?46.100.50.123 (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why I am not able to open the Nvidia web site? 

message: When has the Store been launched? No info!
When has NVidia started selling software + games? Add info!! Naki (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NVidia Online Store?? 

message: Someone added a reference to this YouTube video of the NVidia logo, with a female voice whispering "NVidia", as a source for the claim that it's pronounced /ɛnˈvɪdi.ə/.  However, the voice very clearly (to me, at least) says /ɪnˈvɪdi.ə/ — the vowels in the first two syllables are obviously identical, and it doesn't make any sense at all to me how anyone can possibly hear this sound sample and think it's saying /ɛnˈvɪdi.ə/.  I know it would be WP:OR and unusable as a source here, but I'm strongly tempted to run this woman saying "NVidia" through a spectrum analyser program in order to show all of you that I'm not just hallucinating.  The material on the pin-pen merger (which, for what it's worth, is not a characteristic of my own speech) may be relevant here.  Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "en-VID-eeyah" according to their official logo guidelines. Chai T. Rex (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation — YouTube video 

message: I've skimmed through this talk page, and it seems like the biggest issue here is that there is just too much information for the average user to digest. For this reason, I have decided to embark on a full-blown consolidation edit. It will certainly take multiple edits and revisions, so if anyone is still interested in truly cleaning up this article, I would like to invite you to help me. Alright, time to dive in... Scrat (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full-Article Cleanup 

message: I am an NVIDIA employee and would like to propose changes that would correct out-of-date and incorrect information in this entry. I’m familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines, and want to ensure any changes proposed are accepted by the community. Below are a series of suggested updates on which I’d like your feedback and consideration.
I’d like to start with the introduction, which was flagged at the top of the entry as an inadequate summary. Explanations follow in brackets. 
NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA); /ɪnˈvɪdi.ə/ in-VID-ee-ə)(1) is an American global technology company based in Santa Clara, California. [ Shortening for clarity. ]
The company invented the graphics processor unit (GPU) in 1999.(2) [ Highlighting a key milestone in the company’s history. ]
Today, GPUs are used in computers ranging from smartphones to game consoles to engineering workstations. [ Removing redundancy in current entry. Also, NVIDIA is in the process of exiting the chipset business. ]
Researchers and scientists use GPUs for high-performance applications and in supercomputing sites.(3,4) [ Adding key business segments. ]
NVIDIA offers four brands of processors: GeForce®, Quadro®, Tesla™, and Tegra®. [ Summarizing main product brands. ]
Its competitors include Intel, AMD and Qualcomm. [ More accurately describing the competitive landscape. ]
Founded in 1993 by Jen-Hsun Huang, Chris Malachowsky and Curtis Priem, NVIDIA expanded from its roots in PC graphics into professional graphics and high-performance computing. [ Describing the company’s evolution. ]
Most recently, the company moved into mobile computing, where its system-on-a-chip powers a number of smartphones and tablets.(5,6,7) [ Adding key business segment. ]
Suggested opening without explanations:
NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA); /ɪnˈvɪdi.ə/ in-VID-ee-ə)(1) is an American global technology company based in Santa Clara, California. The company invented the graphics processor unit (GPU) in 1999.(2) Today, GPUs are used in computers ranging from smartphones to game consoles to engineering workstations. Researchers and scientists use GPUs for high-performance applications and in supercomputing sites.(3,4) NVIDIA offers four brands of processors: GeForce®, Quadro®, Tesla™, and Tegra®. Its competitors include Intel, AMD and Qualcomm.
Founded in 1993 by Jen-Hsun Huang, Chris Malachowsky and Curtis Priem, NVIDIA expanded from its roots in PC graphics into professional graphics and high-performance computing. Most recently, the company moved into mobile computing, where its system-on-a-chip powers a number of smartphones and tablets.(5,6,7)
1.      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-6EFBlybD8
2.	http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_20020111_5424.html
3.	http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/08/04/j-p-morgan-shows-benefits-from-chip-change/?mod=google_news_blog
4.	http://www.top500.org/
5.	http://www.slashgear.com/2011-the-year-of-nvidia-dominating-android-superphones-and-tablets-03168784/
6.	http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-supertablets.html
7.	http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-superphones.html
   
Nvidiaemployee (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed refresh 

message: A number of the updates in the above "Proposed Refresh" have been made, as well as some additional edits to provide a general overview. I will continue to adjust and expand on this refresh with that goal in mind.
Nvcoms (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refresh begun 

message: U.S. Plans Supercomputer Push by BY Shara Tibken in the WSJ October 12, 2011.  97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Supercomputer]] resource, with [[AMD]] 

message: That's an extremely misleading statement. And I don't think it's true. Nvidia may have coined the term, or have defined what requirements have to be fulfilled to call a hardware unit a GPU. I don't know. But it is very easy to show that there were graphics processing hardware units before 1999. Citing Nvidia's own press release as the only proof seems odd to me. --84.177.29.249 (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invented the GPU in 1999? 

message: This article sounds like marketing collateral rather than an encyclopedia entry. Am I the only one noticing this? Kortoso (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketing? 

message: Speaking as a Linux user myself, I think there's entirely way too much emphasis on Nvidia's lack of support for open source drivers.  The vast majority of users simply aren't going to care about this.  If the section is supposed to be about the drivers, then the fact that (binary) Linux drivers exist should be pointed out.  Optionally, one could point out that community-driven open source drivers also exist.  If the section is supposed to be about Nvidia's support of Linux, the controversy can simply be summed up with a single sentence, such as: "Nvidia provides a binary driver for Linux, along with an obfuscated open source driver, which was the basis for the community-driven nouveau driver."  If the section is meant to discuss Nvidia's drivers, in general, then I fail to see why it's so obsessed with this minor Linux controversy (except for the fact that most Wikipedians are probably also open source / Linux advocates).  Seriously.  I don't think we need to spend so much time on this, when it's only of interest to an extremely vocal minority (even if some of us happen to belong to said minority).
I wouldn't care so much, except that I've noticed a *lot* of people using Wikipedia as their soapbox.  Wikipedia isn't the place for that.  This is why I often try to avoid editing any articles in which I have a strong personal interest; it clouds your objectivity.
If nobody has any objections, I'll probably go ahead and rewrite the section, highlighting the existence of multiplatform, binary drivers, with community-driven open source drivers available for Linux. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if its needed. Fact is, AMD's so-proud opensource driver is very inefficient and AMD stated themself that they are providing inadequate amount of effort basing it on current(but not TARGETED) market value. That is, AMD is NOT interested in good opensource driver. Intel, on the other hand, just misses OpenGL4 support and their opendriver offers enormous performance. However the hardware is seriously lacking. So, currently, you have very famous situation - "Open, efficient, good hardware - pick two of three".77.11.56.164 (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

text: Did you ever get around to fixing the section? It seems that there are still a lot of meagerly supported ("communities" when the cite is about one---admittedly influential---person) weasel / OR / POV phrases in that section. I don't understand how such bad reference support gets past a B-review. --Nczempin (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

text: PLEASE, stop using this article as a soap box. Some of the "information' being posted in the damn summary is speculation on the part of a blog. Nvidia has not admitted some of the charges leveled against it, and, even if it had, mentions of its "restrictions" on Linux drivers in a specific x.org driver update do not belong in the main summary. Seriously, how many times do you read an encyclopedia article about Ford and see the first sentence discussing mechanics' opinions regarding the existence of a blinker issue in a 92 Torus? This stuff belongs in a forum flame war, not in a source of general information. --User:69.244.183.29 00:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much emphasis on the lack of open source drivers 

message: Is it just me, or should the RIVA series of video cards be included in this article? Most notably, the RIVA 128 (Nvidia's first commercial success) is missing from the "Major releases and acquisitions" section. Similarly, the "Product families" section is missing the RIVA series (I can see the NV1 being omitted, as it was manufactured and released by Thompson; on the other hand, the RIVA series could've broken Nvidia after the NV1's failure if it had been a flop as well). -- Dok Jones 14:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing RIVA series? 

message: Recently NVIDIA published documentation of Device Control Block (DCB) layout in NVIDIA VBIOS. I cannot update the article due to COI but it might be good to update the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.78.148 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: COI doesn't mean that no one who e. g. works at Nvidia can contribute to articles. If all the statements are factual and supported by reliable secondary sources, no one will bat an eyelid if you happen to work in the Nvidia universe.--Nczempin (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation 

message: An (alleged; it could also be genuinely different people, with coincidental similar behaviour and insistence on keeping this sentence in the lead) IP-hopping editor keeps adding in this bit to the lead section: Nvidia drivers impose artificial restrictions, like limiting the number of monitors that can be used at the same time.Nvidia Removed Linux Driver Feature Due to Windows. I've pointed out in my edit summary that since this statement does not appear anywhere in the article, there is no reason to put it in the lead (perhaps other than by someone with an agenda?). I've reverted this and been re-reverted. The IP has not accepted my request to take it to the talk page, so I'm doing it now. Please note the section above, where a related concern has been voiced by an editor. What should be done about this? --Nczempin (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree. I don't know who is making the edit, but it does NOT belong in the lead section. I almost never edit wiki articles, but I moved that sentence to the free and open source software section. I had wanted to look up some quick Nvidia info (mainly where the headquarters is), and I immediately noticed this sentence and how out of place it was. Not only is it out of place, it's not even very credible. It's a blog post and is purely conjectural. Nvidia has not commented on the issue, and there's no solid evidence Nvidia did this for anything other than technical reasons.  --User:69.244.183.29 00:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability of "Nvidia imposes artificial restrictions" in lead section 

message: I don't think "The Way It's Meant to be Played" is their slogan any more. The first google search result for that phrase is a press release from 2002. I don't know what their current slogan is, or if they have one at all. For now I'm just removing that field from the infobox.  Jfmantis (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slogan is out-of-date 

message: Vibrante is not notable on its own and will serve better when read together with Nvidia's page. Mr RD 17:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No merge I believe first the article should be expanded rather than merged with the Nvidia page. It is also too specialized and would get lost in the main page. If merging the DrivePX page would be more appropriate. Dbsseven (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Merge The article is way to small and would probably have more "viewership" on the main Nvidia page.Pastorma (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

text: No merge the article should be expanded, Not merged with the Nvidia page. It provides quick clarification for anyone interested in embedded operating systems, in-vehicle operating systems, etc. It should be treated in a similiar way as the Windows (Microsoft) operating system and the Android (Google) operating System.  appropriate. Jjmeza (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

text: No merge Operating systems are independently notable. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

text: No merge As per above – (t@lk) 01:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Vibrante]] 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Please, someone, describe the Omniverse service! --Nashev (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide pointers to media articles about the Omniverse?  If there are articles, and if they are from media sites, or other reliable sources, then some text can be added to this article. - Dyork (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Omniverse 

message: Nvidia's contributions to deep learning lie in CUDAs ability to parallelize linear algebra operations. Deep learning in a nut shell is a vast series of Matrix and Vector operations, a normal CPU gets swamped by these where as a GPU has more cores and other optimizations that can run these operations in parallel at a much greater speed. The section as it currently stands confuses that contribution to GPGPU/parallel programming with contributions to deep learning. While these two ideas are clearly closely related they are separate, in much the same way that the Linux Kernel being open source enables cluster computing but one wouldn't call Linux a break through in cluster computing. It's also worth noting that alot of the sources for NVidia's "deep learning" are actually discussing GPUs for ml, and NVidia is neither the only producer or GPUs nor is CUDA the only API for GPGPU, OpenCL for instance is an API which functions in much the same way, so quite a few sources such as the Economist article fall in reference to NVidia. The other advantage to renaming this section to Parallel Programming is that it would also enable cryptocurrency and bitcoin to be added to the article which are what spike the prices of GPUs not ml. 186.222.15.100 (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to switch Deep Learning Section into a Parallel Programming/GPGPU section 

message: Looking through this article and the product families section really stuck out to me. Is this typically allowed without proper citations? X70Tons (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that the Nvidia article is of slightly lower interest amongst Wiki users, and there are a couple of ip address users who work in very close cooperation, so close that it could be confused for sockpuppetry who add the promotional stuff and then edit war to keep it in place. But because the article is of lower interest it tends to stick. I agree though that the article has some issues, the entire thing comes off as a bit of an advertisement. I've been chipping away at the Deep Learning section which started off just shy of suggesting that Nvidia invented Hal 9000 to what it is now. 186.222.15.100 (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

text: The part about the 2021 GTC keynote also seems promotional and not noteworthy. Yannn11 19:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds good, did my best to make it less puffery. Yannn11 22:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotional Section? 

message: Does a single bit of YouTube drama really deserve its own section on a company's wiki page? I would be fine with a general controversies section that includes the aforementioned incident but in my opinion it doesn't deserve its own main section in the article. --0x004d (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I propose that we merge Nvidia#GeForce_Partner_Program and Nvidia#Hardware_Unboxed_controversy into a single Nvidia#Controversies section. --0x004d (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hardware Unboxed Section Inclusion 

message: A new article :Nvidia GTC has been :WP:CONSPLIT off from :Nvidia#GPU Technology Conference. The new article originally was set up to redirect to this article, but someone has tried to flesh it out into its own article. The editor who did so also has declared a COI with respect to the subject matter. This was a bold split made by a new editor who probably didn't fully understand what they were doing and was unaware of :WP:PROSPLIT. Perhaps some others more familiar with the subject matter can assess things and see whether a stand-alone article for the conference is warranted. FWIW, most of the content appears to be new (i.e. not copied and pasted from this article) so there might not be any attribtuion issues to deal with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nvidia GTC 

message: On December 2, 2021, the FTC sued to block the $40 billion merger.  FTC alleges "vertical deal between chip supplier Nvidia and chip design provider Arm would allow combined firm to stifle competing next-generation technologies."  https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2021/12/ftc-sues-block-40-billion-semiconductor-chip-merger
77.124.54.20 (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be alright if I were to take it from the lede and relegate it to the body? To me it seems like a failed acquisition doesn't really need to be in the lede unless there's a greater importance to the deal's falling through that I'm missing. Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ARM Acquisition 

message: For reference: https://images.nvidia.com/aem-dam/en-zz/Solutions/about-us/NVIDIA-Partner-Network-Brand-Guidelines-May-2020.pdf
Can we move the page to correctly say NVIDIA not Nvidia?
Most articles on Wikipedia and the vast majority of third-party sources write "Nvidia". It's already made clear in the note at the very beginning of the article that the stylized proper writing of the name is in uppercase.
There is no need for a stylization throughout the whole article.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation, Spelling, Branding   

message: How has one of the biggest scandals to ever happen in the personal computer space not mentioned once anywhere on Wikipedia? I remember Nvidia having underfill and solder bump problems with the G86, G92 and many chipsets, the xbox 360, and laptops from Dell, Apple, and HP? 
More coverage here
There was a series of memes of people brutally burning up their 8400, 8600, and 8800 gt's while trying to reflow them in an oven. 
Nvidia tipped it's hand with a 8-K document they sent to the SEC. They knew they have a problem.
There was a class action lawsuit and multi-million dollar settlement? Evil genius fin (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bumpgate? 

message: The redirect NV101@ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:NV101@]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The redirect Nv1dia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Nv1dia]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: — Assignment last updated by HaEvNa (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Writing Workshop

message: Until September 23, 2013, Nvidia did not release documentation for its advanced hardware, preventing the creation of free and open-source device drivers without resorting to reverse engineering. 
Instead, Nvidia furnishes proprietary GeForce graphics drivers in binary form for X.Org, along with an open-source library that interacts with the Linux, FreeBSD, or Solaris kernels and the proprietary graphics software. Nvidia had also initially offered, but later discontinued, a concealed open-source driver limited to two-dimensional hardware acceleration, which was included in the X.Org distribution. 
Dissatisfaction arose in free-software communities due to the proprietary nature of Nvidia's drivers, limiting features on certain platforms. Nvidia also provided an obfuscated open-source driver, discontinued later, which only supported two-dimensional hardware acceleration. 
Due to the restricted design of the drivers, Nvidia graphics cards may lack sufficient functionalities on certain platforms and architectures. This limitation arises because the company exclusively offers driver builds for x86/x64 and ARMv7-A. DT2139 (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision in Section “Open source in software support” for avoiding original research