Talk:GeForce 8 series

message: This is the first time I have created a new article on wikipedia. Constructive feedback will definately be needed. I read many of the rules and regulations about posting, and have made many edits to existing articles. I just need to know what else I need to make this "fit" with the GeForce series. Please submit feedback! Bourgeoisdude 18:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Shawnc. Bourgeoisdude 23:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me like this article contains a lot of original research, which is against Wikipedia policy. Please cite sources for these rumors. 66.245.44.26 21:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First Article

message: Are you sure the expected release date is June/July this year? Narwaffle 04:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. That's been the rumor though...I think you're right, it is likely that rumor is false. Will see if any "more accurate" rumors are present... Bourgeoisdude 17:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot find any significant rumors about the release date...unless someone or something tells me otherwise, I will edit this without the release date info as I am unable to verify its authenticity. Bourgeoisdude 17:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found rumors that seem to point that NVIDIA's newest GPU family will be released in the late Fall, so changed the article accordingly. Bourgeoisdude 23:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Release Date

message: Why is it that this page is such a magnet for vandalism? Was it something I said? Bourgeoisdude 14:42, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess it's because of the constant ATI/Nvidia fanboy warring... --Fat Hobbit 18:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism Watch

message: "In order to combat power supply concerns, Nvidia has declared that G80 will be the first graphics card in the world to run entirely off of the souls of dead babies. This will make running the G80 much cheaper for the average end user."
Blasphemy. :D
Vandalism?
Is it wrong for me to be LMAO from that statement? I must give him credit at least for the humor, nonetheless this is not the place... Bourgeoisdude 19:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhh... 

message: With the release of the cards coming tomorrow, the article should head in the direction of the other graphics cards articles.  For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_6_Series, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GeForce_7_Series, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_R520.  Pictures and individual benchmarks, while exciting for us hardware enthusiasts, aren't encyclopedic.  The rumors section will need to go. The official nVidia logos for the GeForce 8ks should be added.  Great care should be taken to cite the card's hardware specs instead of just editing in information and numbers.  These are just my thoughts, I look forward to working with everyone on the article =) Tyro 05:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, let's cut the 'rumors' for now since the real thing is here. Bourgeoisdude 21:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Expansion/Restructure

message: Alright guys, I got us started on moving this from a future product to a current one, now we need to change everything else. Any help in transitioning would be great, especially as I am still trying to figure out all the ways that wiki works. The card looks really awesome by the way: http://www.nvidia.com/page/geforce_8800.html Bourgeoisdude 21:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RTM is here

message: I've done most everything to make it updated, but it's in a weird format. 
The "Adressing the Rumors" section was just the old one with some minor word changes, and some question marks for unknown information (better than being unupdated and misleading).  
I got rid of some old references, corrected the details table + added information to it, and changed the "Production Information" article.
Viperman5686 --November 8, 7:16PM Eastern. 
:I did some pretty heavy chopping up and reorganizing, I think this layout will work though.  A section to say what all the GF8 cards have in common, and then a section for each series (8800, 8600 when it comes out, etc).  I tried to keep the language from being too technical as well, so someone reading the article won't need a huge GPU vocab dictionarty to get by.  Tyro 09:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed - Almost 

message: Does anyone really think the 8800 GTS can be called mid-range? I would argue the 8800 GTS is the high end and the 8800 GTX is the ultra high end. The midrange and entry level are unannouced although as this article speculates, they'll probably be the 8300 and 8600. Nil Einne 04:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been bold and changed it back to how it was. An anon is the one who changed it here. This is also more consistent with this article and our Geforce 7 and I guess 6 articles BTW... Nil Einne 04:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  High end & mid range 

message: will this card support agp
:Not natively, but in theory at least, it is perhaps conceivable that there could be one of those PCI-e to AGP bridge chips used to allow it to work on an AGP slot, but I'm going to say at this point it is highly unlikely. The new-gen video cards really need newer cpu archetectures to perform optimally anyways, so providing a new-gen graphics card to an old-gen PC may be an unwise decision. Heck, I'd be willing to bet that an old PCI version of a GeForce 8 series card (8300LE??) may be released before an AGP version would. So far, no official announcements have been made by nvidia or any of its manufacturers to support AGP or PCI versions, but we can't yet rule it out. Bourgeoisdude 22:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AGP 

message: GeForce 8 has very high power consumption!
:I think you should more appropriately say GeForce 8800 has high power consumption. I have no doubt that the mid/low-end models will be much more frugal.--Swaaye 20:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It says the 8600GTS draws 71W, but tests on the net, (Xbitlabs which is a believable source) show it to draw a modest 47W.   Which sounds more plausible as there are passively cooled 8600GTS cards where the heatsink isn't overdimensioned. 85.19.140.9 01:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power consumption 

message: It's been about 6 years since I've built a gaming desktop PC, thinking about doing it again soon, and I know absolutely nothing about SLI except that having two 8800GTX's sounds good. The Wikipedia SLI article mentions that on high end cards, the advantages of SLI can be diminished, does anyone know how this applies to the 8800GTX? Does anyone know what its SLI performance is like? --GothMoggie 15:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is for helping to improve the article.  Your question would be better answered on a tech forum such as arstechnica or tomshardware or anandtech or something.  Please see WP:NOT.  Thanks. --Yamla 15:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: SLI mode on two 8800GTX's uses 75% of the total processing capability of two cards.  Its like having the power of one card and half the power of the other card.  However, one 8800GTX/GTS outperforms two 7950GT's in SLI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 167.206.216.189 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SLI 

message: I think that someone (i will if you agree with me i  this) should write about the new features in way to show the improvements on the geforce 8, that is completely different from geforce 7 architecture.
There are many, like the filters, geometry shader and cuda processing.
Why bother making a page that shows the card clocks, you have to show to people why this card is good. Even because the most change was in the architecture.
In Nvidia page there is a pdf with 55 pages that shows all the improvements, we only need to write them here.
Thanks!!--Darktorres 18:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you--or at least I agree with what I believe you to be saying. I think it should follow the format/layout of previous wiki articles, but we should have extra content because it is a major architecture change. Let's model the page to be similar in layout to the GeForce 7 article, and have content extras like those in the GeForce 256 article (since it was the last "major architectural change"). Last edited by Bourgeoisdude 20:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, i saw the Geforce 256 article and i will make on the same layout. I pretend to make a `changes to architecture` and show what has changed. Something that could change is the fact that others articles (Geforce 7, for example) don't talk about architecture, only numbers and numbers. Numbers aren't the only important thing, it's like thinking that only the Gigahertz of your processor counts. But on my reference there is the difference between arct. 7 and 8. And i try to make it as simple as possible! --Darktorres 00:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem is that I doubt any of us have a grasp on the hardware. I know I don't. Beyond3D has the best architectural look bar none. Those guys are graphics programmers and have chatted with the engineers. Trying to duplicate that seems a bit like reinventing the wheel, especially when we don't really know for sure that we're right. I definitely think what I threw together for the 8800 here is enough. I have considered making that info more generic too. We sure don't need that kind of dense coverage on every eventual model, and all of the models will undoubtedly have the same technology at work. --Swaaye 23:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree completely.  The 7 Series wiki didn't define pixel chaders, vertex shaders, ROPs, etc, and neither should this. Viperman5686 01:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible.  This article is already too technical, the average reader would have a very hard time understanding it.  Tyro 10:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, ok. But some info like CUDA tech is missing, it's just like PureVideo, it's something new that could end with everyone using it (or not). I will add these. I didn't wanted to add Shaders, ROPS, but the fact that it can do HDR+AA should be mentioned.Darktorres 21:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We should talk about architecture improvements 

message: Is 8800's performance less dependant on CPU and memory speed that older cards?
:Due to the 8800's massively powerful GPU, it is quite easy for the CPU to hold it up. Cooldude7273 03:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bottlenecks 

message: is the geforce 8 series better than xbox 360s and ps3s gpu? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Falcon866 (talk • contribs) 01:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better in basically every way. Also vastly more expensive. --Swaaye 07:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  better than xenos and RSX 

message: Is there any word on when the 8900 will be released and what specs we will be looking at with this to be added to the page? Mattm591 21:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope--so far, no official word from anyone about the 8900 series at this time...Bourgeoisdude 01:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  8900? 

message: http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=37203
that page lists the specifications of the 8600GT and 8600Ultra. but is it a good enough source to be used as a source here? Pik d 09:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you're confusing The Inquirer with The Enquirer. 69.85.180.21 19:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  8600 specs, but "official" enough? 

message: It seems unlikely that this is the longest consumer graphics card ever, since a full length PCI card is a bit over 12" long, and I'm pretty darn sure that there existed some full length PCI graphics cards which would have qualified as "consumer". --Dyfrgi 06:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Longest card ever? 

message: It's been said that the 8800 cards won't run with just 4 or 8 PCI-e lanes (eg .  Any news on whether or not the same will be true for 8600 cards? 69.85.163.51 04:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PCI-e/8600 

message: How about not using symbols like tide (~) to represent terms like "about (amount)"... They look awful in encyclopedia... --202.71.240.18 09:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Something

message: Since NVIDIA has not made any official announcements as to the 8600 series avaiability other than the generalised statements like "Spring of 2007", the April 17th date is not official, is it? I just hate having things stated as fact before we know they are fact, and the chart just proclaims the release of the 8600 series the 17th but we do not KNOW that. Put it in the article and say "such and such source" claims the release will be April 17th or whatever, but in the chart it is as if NVIDIA has it set in stone and can be misleading. Bourgeoisdude 15:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, read the Dailytech article again, although nvidia.com does not say it is happening, nvidia has indeed announced the new cards. I guess I'm just a little too over-anxious to ensure it only proclaims future cards if they're official, but they are official this time... Bourgeoisdude 15:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: It's not official until it's official

message: According to the infobox at the top of the article, the 8500 GT is listed as an "entry-level"/low-end GPU.  I don't think that's quite accurate.  Although the 8500 is the weakest card of the current bunch (as of April 17th), is surely won't be in a couple of months.  I think we should leave this entry labeled "TBA", and following the style of the other Geforce series articles (Geforce FX,6,7,etc.), by removing the "GT", "GTS", etc. to prevent eventual overcrowding.  And we probably shouldn't put in the 8300 until it's more official.  So, I think it should look something like this:---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
Finally, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any of the sources after the 1st bullet point in the "Future Development" section say that the any other card other than the 8500 GT, 8600 GT, and 8600 GTS will ship on April 17th.  So I think the bullet point should be reworded to indicate that the other cards mentioned (the 8600 Ultra and the 8300 series) will ship soon after the 17th, but not on the 17th (however, it is important to note they will ship, as there are entries in the .inf's of newer drivers and some websites that mark their existance).- 
67.167.93.51 22:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is 8500 really "entry-level"?/ 8300 release date 

message: This website says that NVIDIA will NOT release an 8800 gs that it was a typo in the 158 driver release notes. 
199.8.170.40 15:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the reference to it. --Xyzzyplugh 06:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No 8800gs 

message: While there is little if any info on the GeForce 7 article in regards to the mobility chips, can we at least attempt to integrate the info on the GeForce 8 mobile gpus? I'm just thinking if we don't start now, we'll never do it. I'll start a section and put the reference URL and such, assuming I stay 'unbusy' at work for a while... Bourgeoisdude 16:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I hate to start a frame and not finish it...unexpected issues up. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks. Bourgeoisdude 16:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GeForce 8M series announced 

message: According to several websites the peak theoretical FLOPS don't reach ~ 500 Gigaflops because the MUL operation or something isn't  always available. So should I change the FLOP count or say it is not always possible to reach this peak FLOP count because the MUL operation isn't available.
AMD's Radeon HD 2900 XT graphics processor - The Tech Report
And that page links this Beyond 3D page as its source NVIDIA G80: Architecture and GPU Analysis - Page 11
Someone look into this because I'm not completely knowledgeable with this FLOP stuff, just repeating what the site said. --Sat84 11:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Floating Point Performance 

message: isn't the 8800 Ultra card currently the bestt in the world? shouldn't this be noted? --AnYoNe! 17:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It all depend on on the POV, and NPOV. Plouiche 15:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it was already noted on the main GeForce page, if not here, but a more accurate term would be "the fastest" rather than best. 74.103.180.140 17:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Content like that also dates the page and that means more work in the near future when it is inevitably surpassed. It's also not the fastest in every case, such as in some older games that don't work quite right with the cards due to driver issues.  --Swaaye 17:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The best? 

message: I'm reasonably sure what you've got posted as the 8800GTX's powerconsumption is wrong, and i remember reading in two places that the 8800 Ultra was a revision to the G80 that allowed it to consume less power then the 8800GTX, which I believe was rated for 177W.
yeah here we are:
Firingsquad claims: "8800GTX 177W, 8800 Ultra, 175W, 8800GTS 147W".
http://firingsquad.com/hardware/nvidia_geforce_8800_ultra/
Anand states: "Beyond cooling, NVIDIA has altered the G80 silicon. Though they could not go into the specifics, NVIDIA indicated that layout has been changed to allow for higher clocks. They have also enhanced the 90nm process they are using to fab the chips. Adjustments targeted at improving clock speed and reducing power (which can sometimes work against each other) were made. "
Im gonna go ahead and change that, till someone can proove me wrong.
:Er you are wrong, I don't exactly know what max board power means but I'm sure the 8800 Ultra WILL draw more power as its core/shader/mem clocks are higher and the revision enabled higher clock-speeds not power consumption as I remember. Here's a link to some power consumption figures  and  but I just reverted to the old ones.--Sat84 04:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Power consumption

message: I notice the "GeForce 8800 GTX (XFX model pictured)" image is not very sharp, I was wondering if it would be okay/proper to upload an image of a sharper photo, but different model (Evga 8800GTS).
Not a huge/important thing, but curious.
--KittenMya 20:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: certainly. I was thinking of doing the same but I haven't had the will to pull the card out of my computer. :) --Swaaye 22:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GeForce 8800 GTX (XFX model pictured) Image 

message: i heard the guys at voodoo managed to make crossfire work on an nvidia boards.
could it be done on  an Intel boards too?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.130.242.203 (talk) 07:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossfire on Intel MoBo?? 

message: I know http://forums.firingsquad.com/firingsquad/board/message?board.id=hardware&message.id=110268 isn't exactly a reliable source, but it's probably not far wrong in this case. I can't think of a clean way to tag the 8800GT line as "not certain", so if people feel strongly enough about it, undo the edit.
AntiStatic 07:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  8800GT specs 

message: Just a quick 8800 GT "to do"/discussion list to avoid any edit warring:
1) 8800 GT GPU clock - The link I gave said 740 MHz, someone edited it to 600 MHz which also rings a bell for me, though I'm not sure why. Include one, both, neither?
2) Shader clock - I can't find any mention of it anywhere. Ditto for power and transistor count.
3) Pictures - the only pics I'm aware of are the ones released by mobile01.com and also at http://forums.vr-zone.com/showthread.php?t=193203 - both of these appear to be from the same source, as they are both identical save for the watermarks. Either that or the vr-zone pictures are just ripoffs of the mobile01 images with the watermarks photoshopped out. Although they look like press-pack images, I'm pretty sure neither of these are GFDL'd nor could be used via fair use.
Also, need a cite for 8800 GTS v2. I can probably hunt one down tomorrow if noone else can be bothered :)
:done. cited inquirer article
Gah, too many people editing the same page at once ...
AntiStatic 15:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GeForce 8800 GT stuff 

message: :Although marketed as midrange cards, the 8600 series has been criticised by a few publications, such as PC Format and Custom PC for being underpowered successors to the GeForce 7 series, in a similar way to ATI's competing HD 2600. 
While I'm aware of the criticisms, as it stands, the above statement is potentially misleading. There is no question that the 8600 series is better then the 7600 series. The reason for the criticism has been that the 7900GS and X1950Pro which in some locations, particularly at around the launch of the 8600 series were comparable priced but were usually better performing. This criticism has been particular vocal given that the X1650 and 7600 were generally unquestionable better then the previous high end, and the same with the 6600GT compared to the 9800XT. However there 8600 series were obviously always intended to be successors to the mid range only so even though there is valid criticism, it needs to be worded properly Nil Einne 21:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm left confused by the claims that the 8500GT is a bit slower than the 6600GT, partly because I swapped my 6600GT out for a 8500GT a while back and benchmarked the crap out of them in the process. The 8500 was slightly faster than the 6600 in some tests, and massively faster in others. Supertin (talk) 08:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midrange 

message: This info about this card in the table is inaccurate. The clock speed is around 576 mhz, not 600. The shader clocks are not, to my knowledge, 1500. The card does not have a release date of december. Certain companies, such as bfg, are already selling new cards with 112 shader processors. If you look on their site, it will either say "112 shader processors" or 96+ shader processors, which is, I assume, the "rev 2" card with more shaders enabled that everyone is expecting.
-reply:
I would have corrected this but I don't know how to edit the charts.
Check this thread for an explanation of the differences in full:
http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2126925
Basically what happened here is that the chart is referring to the 8800gts rev3 as rev2.... rev2 was released the same day as the 8800GT and it is based on the G80 with more stream processors enabled.
rev3 will be released dec 12th and it is based on a G92 with more stream processors enabled compared to the GT
Each SP cluster is 16 stream processors:
8800GTSv1 = G80 with 6/8 SP clusters
8800GTSv2 = G80 with 7/8 SP clusters
8800GTX = G80 with 8/8 SP clusters
8800GT = G92 with 7/8 SP clusters.
8800GTSv3 = G92 with 8/8 SP clusters.
So that one you already saw being sold with "112 shader processors" is the real rev2, the one listed here in the chart as rev2 is actually rev3.
If someone knows how to edit those charts please correct this.
Also there are stock speeds declared by nvidia and then there are a plethorea of overclock speeds set by each manufacturer.
Taltamir (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  8800gts rev2 

message: I'm not so sure what is controversial about the 85/8600 series. 8600 GT thoroughly outperforms 7600 GT and X1600, while 8600 GTS does outperform cards such as 7900 GT and X1950 Pro in a few games (i.e. Oblivion). Secondly, they have dropped in price dramatically since launch, making them excellent values especially if you desire their top-of-generation video decoding hardware.--Swaaye 20:14, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of 8600 "controversy" section 

message: We're dealing with graphics cards here, of course it's US-centric. They're owned by US companies who design them in the US, build them in the US, and reveal them in the US. Please, if you can somehow make computer parts more geographically appealing, be my guess. I'll give you until the end of the month before I remove the template.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.151.242 (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we REALLY need a US-centric tag?

message: The section says that 8500/8600 both have Purevideo2, does the 8300 GS/GT have it?219.79.72.53 (talk) 08:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding PureVideo/2 to notes 

message: Unless I'm missing something here, the listed stats for the GTSrev2 don't make sense - they indicate a shader clockspeed lower than the GT (same core) and the same number of shader processors, but still show a notably higher shader performance in GFLOPS. In theory, the card is supposedly more powerful - so the problem lies either with the number of shader pipes (possibly 128) or the shader clockspeed (1500 or higher). According to http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/1234/2 their anonymous engineering sample lists 650/1625mhz core/shader clocks, however those may not be reliable due to the nature of the sample. Also, http://www.thinkdigit.com/forum/showthread.php?p=672226 lists stats for the 8800gts rev2 and some sources, indicating the same clockspeeds as the same engineering sample and 128 shader units. This makes sense as producing a GPU core with 112 shader units doesn't make a lot of sense, considering the power-of-two grouping of shader groups.  Taking these into account as well as the 3 FLOPS per ALU value used by the other 8800 cards, I have updated the table accordingly to bring the G92 cards in line with what makes sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.186.216 (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  8800GTS rev2 doesn't add up 

message: :Image:GeForce newlogo.png 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 insure 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) 23:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:GeForce newlogo.png

message: "...rumoured on both Chiphell.com and vr-zone.com for the G100 chip, which will result in the 9800GTX, Nvidia's new high end offer to come:
- Codenamed G100
- 65nm process
- 256 shader processors
- 780MHz core clock
- 3200MHz memory clock
- 512-bit memory width
- 2048MB (256X8) GDDR5 chips
- GDDR5 @ 0.25-0.5ns
- Dual DVI-out
- Supports DX 10.1, VP3
- 15-25% lower TDP than 8800GTS"
These are really just rumors based on highly uneducated guesses. Wrong chip type - 512 bit bus is 16 chips, not 8; 256 processors would drive the chip size out of TSMC limits; wrong TDP estimate (it calculates pretty well); GDDR5 isn't expected to run at 3200MHz, et cetera, et cetera. I removed that nonsense and put an internal link to Comparison of NVIDIA Graphics Processing Units where some data confirmed by sources has appeared by now. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 16:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation removed 

message: There are still no citations for the statements regarding the 8800GT being incompatible with PCI-E 1.0a.  Nvidia says they are fully backward compatible (Answer ID 2120), and I know from personal experience that it works on my DFI NF4 PCI-E 1.0a motherboard.
   PCI Express 2.0 Support 
 
  Question 
  Are PCI-Express 2.0 graphics cards / motherboards compatible with PCI-Express 1.1 and 1.0? 
 
  Answer 
  Yes, PCI Express 2.0 products are fully backwards compatible with existing PCI Express products and platforms.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.166.80.136 (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  8800GT compatible with PCI Express 1.0a 

message: Or else why would Newegg have them in stock?  24.6.46.92 (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparently there is a 8800GS 

message: I'm looking at a PC case, the instructions say "NVIDIA 8800GTX compatible." Is there something weird about the 8800GTX that would make it incompatible with certain PC cases? If so, this should be mentioned. ---Ransom (--208.25.0.2 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTX8800 size issue? 

message: It has suggested that Wikipedia note about use of GeForce 8 Series in most recent board, that used in Sega Rally 3. It is called Sega Europa-R. The bold-printed is an advesory to this problem.
Check this note:
Europa-R Specifications
----
*CPU: Intel Pentium Dual-Core 
*RAM: 4 GB 
*GPU: NVIDIA GeForce 8800 
*Other: Compatible HDTV (High Definition), DVD Drive Support, Sega ALL.NET online support 
* Protection: High Spec original security module.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.160.194.63 (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sega Europa-R 

message: This section needs many citations for it's claims about the 8500 GT. I haven't seen any articles claiming that the 8500 is "on par" with the 6600 GT. There are so many things wrong with this section - comparing it with the high end 8800 cards? Obviously they won't perform as well. They're not high end cards. The "older cards" such as the 7900 GS mentioned cannot be compared with these mid-range cards either - the 7900 is a high end card (albeit, an older series). All in all, these many criticisms need sources, and the section needs to be rewritten to reflect a neutral POV. Delta (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  8500/8600 section 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NV50 redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geforce8. This is not really correct because the GeForce 9 series also uses the NV50 chipset. I dunno what to do best in this situation. A new page just for NV50 seems to be superfluous.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.245.198.184 (talk) 02:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirection from NV50 

message: Need to define the suffixes GS, GT, GTX, etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwaisberg (talk • contribs) 08:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  acronyms 

message: This article is completely silent on the issues with compatibility with Mac Pro computers, specifically the two models of 8800 GT for Mac and their compatibility with 16-bit and 32-bit EFI in 1st and 2nd Generation Mac Pro computers (MacPro1,1 and MacPro3,1) respectively. Apple as an article on this ( http://support.apple.com/kb/HT2848 ) and NVIDIA does also ( http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_8800gt_for_mac_us.html , javascript:LoadOverviewFeatures(); ("1st Generation Mac Pro" link)). Other information is hard to come by; even vendors of these cards can't seem to keep their inventory straight, shipping 630-9897 cards for machines for which only 630-9492 will work. GeForce 8-series cards are required for compatibility of Portal and other Source-engine games for Mac Pro under Steam.
Some message boards talk of certain character sequences in serial numbers on these cards which don't appear to be wholly accurate. 216.229.13.9 (talk) 20:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mac Pro compatibility 

message: Isn't this the first nVidia card with Geometry Shaders? Why isn't the term "geometry shader" mentioned anywhere on the page?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.39.225 (talk) 04:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geometry Shaders 

message: When I started checking some of the links, I got 404 errors from most of the nvidia.com links, too many to mark each one. The original content might be moved to the legacy devices section, or perhaps they are stored in wayback machine on archive.org? It is difficult to keep up with such vendors. There are probably a lot of folks who still own these video cards, so I can't advocate archiving the site. For example, I was looking for some information on how to configure Linux kernel options, gart window size and all. Nividia considers the series obsolete, so this might be of historical interest although reference citations no longer exist. There are probably a lot of pages in a similar state, just opening the subject for conversation, what do we do with such data? Wiki should be the go-to place for cutting-edge technology, maybe also for information you can't find anywhere else?
Hpfeil (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mostly Dead Links circa Sep 2011 

message: No information whatsoever?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.82.232 (talk) 05:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 8200?

message: I made the edit for changing the initial price of the 8800GT from $200 to $300. I specifically remember going to Microcenter right around the time it came out and they wanted $389 for a reference model (PNY) and on Newegg it was only $329. 
I asked the salesperson to price match it and he initially said no, but as I was walking in the parking lot of the sales person stopped me and said "We can match the price!" and to this day I will never forget that moment. --Greg Pace (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  8800GT Initial Price 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on GeForce 8 series. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2377
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on GeForce 8 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/20070925073721/http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38884 to http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=38884
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105062655/http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2377 to http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2377
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Yoshi the crocodile (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screen refresh rates