Talk:GeForce FX series

message: The second sentence in this area: ' With GeForce 3, NVIDIA introduced programmable shader units into their 3D rendering capabilities, in line with the release of Microsoft's DirectX 8.0 release, and the GeForce 4 Ti was an optimized version of the GeForce 3.' seems completely unclear to me.  What is this supposed to be saying, and how does it relate to the 5-series? 208.102.5.40 (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Specification" Section - Clarity 

message: The article alludes to the poor performance of the entire range of FX CPUs compared to their ATI counterparts.
"With the exception of the FX 5700 series (a late revision), the FX series lacked performance compared to equivalent ATI parts."
As far as I am aware, the performance of the FX5800 was pretty much equivalent to the 9700 and 9800 Pro, faster in some things, slower than others but on the whole, relatively equal. The issue with the 5800 in comparison with the equivalent ATI parts were it's a) its cost, b) the power requirements, c) the heat produced and the subsequential noisy cooling solution, d) the fact that the FX5800 came so out so much later than the 9700 Pro, but was only equivalent in performance (it had been hyped considerably).
http://techreport.com/articles.x/4966/1  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.41.89 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor performance of the 5800 Ultra? 

message: The following section is in dire need of references. It makes a number of somewhat controversial, or at least borderline derogatory, statements about NVidia's business practices; without substantiation (if not of the facts than at least that it is/was widely perceived to be true), I think it either needs to be toned down or removed. The section as currently written is reproduced below. --Kadin2048 16:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Disappointment: Questionable Tactics" Section 

message: I have the Gainward Pro/685 GeForce FX 5500. Is that worth adding here? --Migs 08:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FX 5500 

message: There isn't GDDR2, Right? 
Only GDDR3
Developed by ATI.
*No there definitely was GDDR2. It was used on older cards from NV. Google it. --Swaaye 20:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GDDR2? 

message: I can't see this card anywhere in this article, but I know it exists.
The one I've seen is a PCI-express 64MB card, but there may be variations.
Am I being duped? Or is this the real deal?
:Nope, they are made. NV Official Info and photo. It's based on FX5200. It looks like it uses the same AGP -> PCIe bridge chip (under the smaller heatsink) as GeForce 6600 and others. --Swaaye 20:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FX 5300? 

message: The information is wrong, the NV31, NV34, and NV36 have 2 pipelines with 2 TMU's while the NV30, NV35, and NV38 are 4 real pipelines with 2 TMU's.
:No, it is correct. NV3x behaves oddly. The number of textures per pass depends on how many textures. If 0 color, it is 4x1, if color, 2x2. It's very complex. That's why I'm holding a discussion http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?p=934346#post934346. 
:also look at: http://www.beyond3d.com/misc/chipcomp/?view=chip&orderby=chip_name&order=ASC&n=0 --Swaaye 03:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but it's not as simple as the Radeons or even later GeForces. That 4x1 situation does exist. Still, the fact that it is primarily 2x2 is worth being the primary mention. 4x1 needs to be noted or we miss a critical note for the arch. --Swaaye 17:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  table 

message: I'm assuming that the GeForce FX interlaces because the miceteeth found on videos and the artifacts when viewed on the windows movie maker preview, how to I force progressive scan? Is it a feature? How do you make the card use progressive scan without the need to deinterlace? 96.228.19.6 (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  miceteeth and interlacing 

message: I have an FX5100 it came in an old compaq system, it is a card not an integrated chip, has anyone else seen one? i think it should be added to the list, i can provide all the details - Stony (talk) 10:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FX 5100 

message: :Image:NVidia Dawn.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:NVidia Dawn.jpg

message: This obviosly is a screenshot from a user's computer. and as such, because the poster most likely took the screenshot, he has a right to post it.  nVidia has no dispute rights, because nobody owns an image taken from a screenshot generated by your own video card.  nobody can copyright an interface.  also you havee the right to post screenshots because nobody owns the likeness of a program.  distributing the program may be infractions, but the program's screenshots are not protected.  It upsets me with great indigence when people try to be so meticulous.  I feel like my rights of freedom of speech are violated, and it makes me feel like saying things that are better not said on wikipedia.  nobody can tell me what i can and cannot post as far as screenshots.  delete it and i will re post it cuz i ripped it to my hard drive   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.151.133 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use of the Dawn image 

message: That is a bad comparison.  A 9x00 are very very old GPUs.  I would compare a 5x00 geforce to a x1000  series card.  and in that respect, the nVidia does fall short.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.151.133 (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comparison of 5800 to 9700 

message: The bulk of this article is highly critical of the GeForce FX and makes a lot of comparisons to ATI, seemingly biased towards ATI, granted it is a lower-end card but this article read mores like a negative review and I'm tempted to tag it with  or . -- OlEnglish (Talk) 01:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality issues 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on GeForce FX series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714194445/http://www.nor-tech.com/solutions/dox/PO_GFFX_5600_5200.pdf to http://www.nor-tech.com/solutions/dox/PO_GFFX_5600_5200.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070922175438/http://www.theinquirer.net:80/default.aspx?article=39402 to http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39402
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929083801/http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_fx_5900_ultra_review/default.asp to http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/evga_e-geforce_fx_5900_ultra_review/default.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:55, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified