Talk:GeForce 9 series

message: Wikipedia is not the place to list random trivia like the exact clock speed of each CPU, unless it has particular historical significance (e.g. a clock speed or memory bus width that had never been achieved before).  There is a whole series of these GeForce articles which are mainly non-encyclopedic trivia.  I propose to merge them all into one page, with a subsection for each “series” noting its technical developments, and eliminating the tables of trivial data. 
This merger should at least include:
* GeForce 9 Series
* GeForce 8 Series
* GeForce 100 Series
* GeForce 200 Series
* GeForce 400 Series
* GeForce 500 Series
* GeForce 600 Series
Kerfuffler (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger of all GeForce pages, remove boatloads of trivia

message: This is taken from one of the source articles, digitimes.
"Nvidia's G92 mid-range graphics chip is provisionally set to launch on November 12 this year, while the launch date of the entry-level G98 still remains unknown, according to sources at graphics card makers.
Nvidia plans to replace the GeForce 8800GTS series with the G92, while the G98 will replace entry-level products in the GeForce 8 series, noted the sources."''
G92 replaces GTS? Have i missed something here? Mid-Range?
90.241.17.164 17:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  G92 is the GPU codename, it's on several new revisions of D8P and D8E geforce 8 cards and the 9600GS and 9800GX2, but the main card it's associated with is the D8P or 8800GT; so really they're saying the 8800GT is replacing the 8800GTS. 8800GTX, GTS and ultra had G80 chips and have already passed their end of life.--KX36 (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: G92 Not better than Geforce 8800 Ultra??

message: Please note that TheInquirer (or any other publication for that matter) never refers to any sources, and is pure speculation. Given TheInquirer's track record of predicting upcoming hardware, there's little chance any of the G92/G98/GeForece 9-series details are true. There's no point contributing to this page until Nvidia releases the official details, in which case the entire page will have to be re-written anyway.  --Ghaib 13:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And you believe that reports from VR-Zone and any other sites (Beyond3D for example) also from "undisclosed sources" should be given more credibility than Inq's reports just the Inq is "given TheInquirer's track record of predicting upcoming hardware"? If you're concerned about the credibility of the source, than all reports who did not reveal sources should be removed (Including Beyond3D articles), and so far, I DO NOT see sites given out sources, but only one reference to the GM on analyst meeting, touting 1 TFLOPS performance for G92 only. If that's what you say, then this article is basically crystal ball, and the result, AfD, am I right? Oh, By The Way, if no published third-party sources were given in this article, this article is also qualified for AfD (Am I seeing a second nomination?). --220.246.210.29 12:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TheInquirer speculations

message: Unless you can come up with a link to a page other than a wikipedia that contains the word EngineFlux, or can put forward a damn good reason why it should be mentioned, stop putting it back in. As of now, it's not even a RUMOR. 58.111.196.91 04:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Without a reference it will be deleted. This is consensus and it will stay until referenced content can be added. If the sock puppeteer editor from Chicago continues to vandalize the article they should be reported immediately to WP:AIV or WP:ANI and an administrator will block them. 142.167.69.56 23:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: “Real” is not the question; “verified” is.  Also, personal attacks are not appropriate. Kerfuffler (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  EngineFlux 

message: This page is very G92-centric, but it now seems that G92 is not going to be the GeForce 9 series (it may in fact just be a cut-down, shrunk, slightly tweaked G80). Although FiringSquad forums are hardly a reliable source, there's some details at:
http://forums.firingsquad.com/firingsquad/board/message?board.id=hardware&message.id=110268
So, I've ripped out the first line and the photo of the 8800 GT, since they don't seem to be relevant to a GeForce 9 article. The remaining speculation was, at the time, mentioned for the G92, though I'm leaving it in as it *may* be relevant to whatever the actual 9-series GPUs are. AntiStatic 06:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is absurd.  The only verifiable information on the article page doesn't even identify these products as "GeForce 9 Series".  This should be merged back into the Nvidia article if and when there is an indication from Nvidia on whatever the GeForce 9 series is.  The editors who wanted to cut and paste unverified speculation aren't helping Wikipedia. patsw 01:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It would be silly to scrap the page, as there will be a GeForce 9-series in the future, and then this whole article can be re-writtenAcasperw 10:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) What is the objection to a merge? (2) The Wikipedia doesn't have "this article will have verified content in the future" articles. 18:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrap the whole page? 

message: Just to make this clear, the G92 card will be a 8800 GT wich will fall just behind 8800 GTS 320MB performance wise. Not a GeForce 9 Series card.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremepilot (talk • contribs) 17:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  G92 - Not GeForce 9 Series 

message: The article now says it will be released in March and February, so which is it? 71.84.195.131 (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date? 

message: Dailytech used them as a source in this article but somehow typed DX10.1 instead of DX10 as in the source.
http://www.dailytech.com/NVIDIA+Details+GeForce+9600+GT/article10218.htm
then other websites started to quote dailytech:
http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/01/04/geforce.9800.gx2.9600.gt/
then they started to quote themselves:
http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/02/08/geforce.9300m.9500m.slip/
There are webistes with actual card review stating that its only DX10:
http://www.pconline.com.cn/diy/graphics/reviews/0801/1205247_1.html
I am sick of changing it back again and again, so please stop changing DX10 to DX10.1 unless real new information proves otherwise.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baboo (talk • contribs) 07:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How DX10.1 rumor got its start 

message: About the 9800 GTX, I don't know if thats the real information or not, and we haven't heard an official announcement from NVIDIA yet. I suggest you remove that information. I've been hearing several stories about the specs, and plus those aren't very reliable sources that has been posted in this article.
:I agree. If you read the comments section of both sources, the general consensus is that the specs are made-up, or don't actually represent the 9800 GTX at all. I'm going to remove the specs for the 9800 for now, as, let's face it, why would nVidia release a next-generation "high-end" card that's worse than the current-generation 8800GTS G92? Shralla (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: it has been released and the specifics, although not complete, are up to date  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  9800 GTX specs? 

message: Come on guys, the card's out already.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.115.176 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  9800gx2 Released 

message: I don't know why the 9800 gtx memory rate was listed at 70.4 GB/sec; the article linked by the ref said 128 GB/sec. I changed it; please revert if this is wrong. I see 2200*256/8 = 70.4 ... this is sorta confusing.
Also, maybe it would be useful to list the memory rate divided by 60 fps, the optimal monitor refresh rate, e.g. 2.13 GB/frame assuming 128GB/sec. This number might be more relevant, as most direct3d/opengl apps redraw the entire frame every time.
:: Go to specifications, 70.4 is good ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti (talk • contribs) 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  corrected mem access rate 

message: Just a suggestion, would be nice if we can make a table for the mobile 9 series just like the other series for consistency. Probably a technical summary.
Someformofhuman  Speak now! 08:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. It will be done.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the portion of the 9M section that is not in table form be removed?  It seems a bit redundant to have the exact same information in both list and table form. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

text: LOL, yeah of course. It's redundant to repeat the same information again. That's why I said we should convert it to a table instead. Say we can do something like this like what the GeForce 8 Series has done. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_8_Series#GeForce_8M_mobile_GPUs. Someformofhuman  Speak now! 23:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Table-lize the GeForce 9M Series

message: The image :Image:GeForce newlogo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --00:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:GeForce newlogo.png

message: 9650M GT is now officially stated in Nvidia. Can somebody do this addition?
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_9650m_gt_us.html
I'll try to find more sources if there are any.
Someformofhuman  Speak now! 08:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 9650M GT

message: I'm pretty sure 9650M GS can go as far as 1024 mb?
No sources at the moment. appart from http://www.komplett.dk/k/kcp.aspx?sku=380446&sku=374380&sku=392246&sku=361594&sku=381316.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.239.169.163 (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 9650M GS

message: The information on the mobile chip 9300M GS seems to suffer from copy/pasted info, that hasn't been properly updated. The page referred to at www.nvidia.com lacks any evidence for the claimed clock speeds. Further nVidia's info specifically states that the chip only has 8 processing cores. This seems to be a valid source for correct info regarding the chips capabilities: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9300M-GS.9452.0.html
--Faerloev (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 9300M GS info wrong

message: If no one objects, I would like to update all the GeForce 9 (and GeForce 8, and GTX) page(s) to say that the cards support OpenGL 3, as nVidia has released a driver update to include full OpenGL 3.0 functionality on GeForce 8 and higher cards. source  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandell (talk • contribs) 04:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OpenGL 3 support 

message: I think 9400M mobile chip should be added into this wiki. Each Macbook(start from early 2009) would equip one 9400M.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Css2002 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why 9400M is missing? 

message: There's a pretty large variation in the specs of these cards. There's 96 or 48 SPs, 128, 192, or 256 bit memory buses, GDDR3 and DDR2 memory types, and speeds are all over the place. Not quite sure how to put it nicely in the table. AntiStatic (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  9600 GSO 

message: there is a geforce 9, for old PCI slot?
GeForce 9400 GT  
GeForce 9500 GT  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.214.229 (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geforce 9 old PCI ? 

message: I've removed the following link & Description as it directed to a missing page:
Many GeForce 9500 GS with black fan covers are being recalled:
https://9500replacement.msicomputer.com/emea/default.aspx
Efan78 (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  GeForce 9500 GS Broken/Missing Link