Talk:List of Nvidia graphics processing units

message: Hello, could someone who knows how please update the 9 series table to show that a 4gb GTX 950 is available? I can't seem to figure out how to do it without making a horrible mess of the table.  Source: https://www.amazon.co.uk/MSI-Nvidia-Gaming-Graphics-Card/dp/B00UHHXXH8   Thank you!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.70.123 (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: These tables are now a mile long sideways. This wasn't the case a while ago. Now i have to scroll left and right ? They were much denser initially and fit perfectly in one page. I someone with a 4k screen editing these ? Just cause it fits your 4k screen doesn't mean it's usable for the rest of the planet.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.253.76.35 (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. I recently did an edit on some tables removing API data from them and placing it at the top of the corresponding sections since the info is the exact same for the entire product stack with no variations. Someone reverted it. The reason I did it in the first place is that given no deviation, those columns seem unnecessary and only serve to make the table wider than it needs to be.Jtenorj (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think those wikipedia editors don't know that phones exist and that not everyone has a 4k display, i wrote this on a 1080p display, also, 4k correctly only refers to DCI 4K used in cinemas, the consumer "4k" is 3840x2160, it's slightly narrower than DCI 4k.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RhebucksOnRyzen (talk • contribs) 07:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Who ruined the tables ????? 

message: Quadro Plex, Quadro NVS, Quadro FX mobile. Alinor (talk) 15:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Alinor (talk) 14:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing Nvidia products 

message: There used to be a table with the heading "Features" from the GeForce 6xxx to 200 series, below the main information table, the last one being here: List_of_Nvidia_graphics_processing_units#GeForce_200_series. This table's columns have varied over time - for example, the Features table for the 8xxx series lists everything from different types of SLI support (rather redundantly in two colums), PureVideo support, and CUDA support; whereas the former only mentions SLI and PureVideo. I propose that we re-introduce the features table, and make it comprehensive and consistent.
As for motivation and a reason for why I'm here, I'm coming from the Nvidia NVENC article. I noticed that the article did not have a list of which GPUs supported NVENC and which didn't. In the talk page someone suggested that instead of editing the NVENC article itself, I create a table on this article instead. Considering that previous generations have had information regarding PureVideo added to them, I feel like NVENC would be a great complement to that.
However, since I want consistency, I feel like it might be a good idea to change some of the more recent entries - the GeForce 900, 10 and Volta series GPUs all have a column for SLI support. Since there's a precedent already for having that information in a table, I think it might be good to remove it from the main table and put it back into the features.
The table would look something like this:
Model	Features	Features 	Features    	Features	Features	Features	Features	Features
Model	Scalable Link Interface (SLI)
(including  SLI HB)	PureVideo	Nvidia NVENC	CUDA
Compute ability	        	        	        	
GPU 1	        	         	            	        	        	        	        	
GPU 2	        	         	            	        	        	        	        	
As you can see from the links I've embedded into the table, most of this information can and will be sourced from elsewhere in Wikipedia - except of course for NVENC (for which the official support matrix will be used). I think it's important, however, to have all of the basic information of which GPUs support what technology to be included on this page. It may prompt readers, unacquainted with the technologies listed, to continue reading about them by clicking the links available on the tables.
I'd like some input from other editors before I go ahead and make some changes, so I await your replies. TiredOcean (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-introducing "Features" tables 

message: Hey Guys, I can't see a difference between those two cards. Is that correct? Best regards, 84.144.205.205 (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  GeForce 7900 GX2 vs GeForce 7950 GX2 

message: Volta section probably should be moved down entirely to workstation section. GV100 is already dubbed there. Elk Salmon (talk) 07:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volta 

message: I'm confused,  I see three devices but can't identify them in the tables.
0x10de	0x1d01	
0x10de	0x1d10	
0x10de	0x1d12  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.121.218 (talk) 03:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about the three devices MX150 / GT1030 / GP 108 

message: Those numbers, that are part of techprocess brand, does not represent anything that can be measured with a given number. It's just an abstract number based on density delta. Elk Salmon (talk) 19:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh?  The use of nanometers to measure "minimum feature size" of a manufacturing process is well established.  From PCMag: Historically, the feature size referred to the length of the silicon channel between source and drain in field effect transistors (see FET). Today, the feature size is typically the smallest element in the transistor or the size of the gate. --Vossanova o< 22:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Since FinFET it's just a virtual number calculated from density improvement rate. 12FF is just a brand name. It's not a measurement. It does not measure anything. And if you would refer to fin width. It's less than 10 nm in 16FF. 12FFC is a rebranded 16FF++++ process with 12FFN being Nvidia optimization. Density varies through process refreshes.  Elk Salmon (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fab 

message: Ok, I'm hope I'm not alone in this, but I believe my new "slimmed" tables are just prettier and more useful. But they keep getting reverted by this user. I don't want this to end in some useless edit-war and violate this 3 revert-rule, something they already did. I didn't have to deal with this in the past, so I don't know how to proceed exactly. Should I just report it to the admins? I mean, maybe I'm also just wrong and you guys liked the old tables more even? But eg. see the topic on this talk page here about "who ruined the tables" talking about pre-my-edit look and I even got thanked for my changes on my talk page already, which was a nice surprise. Honestly, this constant fighting is tiring me. And if this is what I have to deal with on here, then I don't think I will continue. 
And I'm not the only one affected by this reverting. The user often reverted a table header to "Fab (nm)", as discussed above, and also took back another user's change to move the API support out of the tables. Something that is superfluous there and just wasting space as all models support the same APIs anyway.
IonPike (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have temporarily semi-protected the page. This is not an endorsement of the current state, but an encouragement to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus with reasoned discussion. Note that "freedom of expression", which I've seen in edit summaries, is irrelevant; see WP:FREE. --Yamla (talk) 11:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  10-, Volta- and 20-series table re-design/streamlining 

message: This gigantic article slows down my Firefox considerably when loading and/or editing. How about splitting the consumer and professional lines of cards into seperate articles?
--Wasmachineman NL (talk) 08:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The whole point of this article is to put all of Nvidia's graphics cards into just one article, and while I wish we can optimize it so it doesn't slow down when editing that's on Wikipedia's end not ours. TurboSonic (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: split Quadro/Tesla/GRID and GeForce into seperate pages 

message: Note that while the Tesla cards do not have video outputs, they are perfectly capable of headless operation of a virtualized graphics environment... something like Geforce Now or Google Stadia would be using these kind of cards.  They would have the same fillrates and other stats as their Quadro or Geforce counterparts, assuming equal clockrates.
--73.145.176.30 (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tesla card fillrate 

message: Looking at the absurdly high FLOPs on newer nVidia GPU's, suggestion to change the tables from GeForce 10 series onwards to TFLOPS for processing power. It is very confusing to read the current tables as is with a jumble of numbers in the processing power section when comparing tables; example 2060 vs 1660.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.32.92 (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Convert 10 series+ tables to TFLOPs 

message: I own a GTX 960A which has substantially differences to the "normal" GTX 960. Even it is a 9xx the chips are from the last (GM) generation (except 920A A). nice list is found here: []  --  92.117.176.15 (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTX 900A series missing 

message: I was interested to see how price-performance for Nvidia GPUs has fallen over time, so I did some calculations and generated metrics such as cost-per-tflop, and cost-per-billion-transistors - perhaps some of you here would be interested: see this spreadsheet.
:It doesn't look like the spreadsheet shows any data that would be useful. TurboSonic (talk) 21:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The data is interesting, but I think on this page it is not relevant, on another page like this yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FLOPS Bensuperpc (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

text: I did some cleanup formatting on your sheet, and added launch prices of earlier models (G80/G92) and a plot at the bottom. I like it. Hansschulze (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 23:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  I created a GPU performance data google sheet, and did some processing 

message: @IonPike: Just wanted to mention that I too appreciate that this and several related pages are layed out in a logical and fairly functional manner.
I had to keep working with this data for a few weeks while researching how best to upgrade some classic MacPro3,1 (2008) machines.  I've had to gather data for many complicated scenarios before, but the intersection of restrictions created by old CPU instruction sets, newer macOS system requirements, and the ongoing rapid development of CPGPU tech is a very challenging scenario to work out.
Thanks in no small part to all the work that you and others such as @TurboSonic: @Jtenorj: have done to refine this presentation.  The logical layouts on the whole group of related wikipedia Video Card pages is far superior to the effectively sparce or even broken matrix spec information that many OEMs make available.  That is when they are willing to provide even that much, as too often it seems like some part of many corporations would prefer if none of their customers actually understood how their products worked and just took their word for it.
Rather than some long discussion of the Dilbert like conflicts between STEM and Marketing/Sales, I just want to say: I've seen the raw data, and really appreciate all the work that's been done here.
Tree4rest (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enabling Positive Consumer Advocacy and overcoming e.FUD<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt</ref> 

message: I think it is necessary to mention that MX 230/250 is not based on Turing architecture.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.42.28.230 (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  MX 230/250 

message: Hello, watch out for TDP in watts, it's not power consumption. I was picking the card also by this atribute, and assumed, when card have less TDP, it will draw less power, but it's not true.
Just between cards NVidia GTX 260 and GTX Nvidia 260 core216, I was happy that 260 core216 has even less TDP from 200 at around 180/170, and that SP216 it has even less power consumption, I was at the edge of what Power supply can handle with my 150TDP card before, so I was affraid to get GTX 260 with 200W TDP, but was happy to see core216 has 180/170, so I was about to get that card. BUT...
https://www.anandtech.com/show/2619/9
as we can see from grahps, GTX 260 core216 has bigger power consumption, by 2 watts in idle, and 16 Watts in power output.
Be carefull when choosing card by this assumption, that some card has less TDP than your previous card and that you can get it. I warn you, that even with 20 less TDP, it can still draw 20% more power. (the graphs shows total system power output, if you would count only graphic card, +16W, means basically, from 100Watts to 116Watts, it can be almost 20% more).
This was lession for me, I am stood shocked, so I want to warn you, because I know, many people are choosing cards also according TDP, but you cannot count power consumption from it. Usually, it means less power, but not always.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lofr2 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power consumption issues 

message: Wiki only lists GF117, but encode matrix and Techpowerup 810M, 820M lists a GK107 version.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.87.64.108 (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  810M and 820M have a kepler architecture variant and NVENC 

message: Why is font size at 80%? Wikipedia style guidelines advise to avoid reducing font size inside of tables in general (only for use when required to fit on-screen, which does not appear to be the case on many display sizes in this case, especially for the early tables), and to never use a font size below 85% WP:FONTSIZE 09:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Font Size 

message: There is an existing note:
It appears to lack useful context (i.e. clarifying what "inability to output graphics" really means [e.g, within Nvidia's product lineup, the physical PCB's lack of output connectors, how the user is expected to interact with the GPU's functionality, etc]) . Tesla cards can render and "output" graphics, as seen by their usage in Nvidia GeForce NOW servers (reported usage from in-game tools, not officially confirmed by Nvidia) and their utilization for Nvidia vGPU and GRID remote desktop acceleration and remote application rendering suites. The graphics are not output by a DP, DVI, VGA, etc connector, but are output over a network connection (elsewhere in the host computer/server). Similarly, fillrate and graphics API are applicable for that use case.
To rectify this, I believe simply removing the note will be sufficient, since it's the primary offender. Whether or not fillrate and graphics API compatibility need to be added, is a different discussion, IMO.
--12.189.223.245 (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tesla note 

message: The GTX 660 Ti also came in versions with 3GiB of memory;
https://tweakers.net/videokaarten/vergelijken/#filter:NYzLCsIwFER_pcw6QmqlafMBggtXWYqL0lzrxb5IglZL_t1UcDXMDOes4PFJLpj7NBvqqQ08jdC3pvck8KD3a3IWGl1YsrKUWWAIzE1Hhj8EnUuZquOWzpywXS7gfxayZqb2ZD30RRUHkVdVfU1nGo_cB3LpWKGKutpy2GAUUu2TfWiWf4kxfgE
https://www.gigabyte.com/eu/Graphics-Card/GV-N66TOC-3GD#ov
NitroX infinity (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  GTX 660 Ti 3G(i)B 

message: Where do flops numbers come from?  Are you getting them straight from Nvidia spec sheets?  Or is it just cores*clock rate?  Or something more complicated?  It'd be nice to clarify this in the field descriptions section, which currently doesn't even mention processing power.  Similar questions for fill rate. 68.55.179.229 (talk) 11:10, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details of field descriptions 

message: First would be to get rid of all of the old multi-GPU systems, since this article isn’t about systems. And get rid of the redundant “GPU accelerator” in the names in the first column.
Second would be to add FP16/TF32 stats, PCIe or NVLINK speeds, etc.
Third would be process nodes, transistor counts, die size.
Fourth, remove the MUL+MAD column. This info can be put in parentheses for old GPUs, or deleted since very few scientific routines could take advantage of it, or most likely simply listed as the true theoretical FLOPs. After all, it wasn’t the first time that theoretical FLOPs were hard or impossible to hit. If someone cares they could research the history. A readable table is more important.
An additional nice-to-have would be to add columns to the CONSUMER cards for FP16 multiply+FP32 accumulate which is important for some AI training but is gimped (it’s half of the advertised FP16 number), to clarify their true capabilities. 46.211.1.63 (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up Data Center section 

message: The HPC card "NVIDIA A800" is missing in the article. Specs and further informations can currently (08.02.2024) be seen via https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/design-visualization/a800/. Clash crafter (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no point adding anything. List of product articles are now banned on Wikipedia and soon all will be deleted. Listing is only allowed as Category now, so each product should have own article. Elk Salmon (talk) 23:13, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing product 

message: I see a number of modifications  were made by 67.84.203.109  which added FLOPS32 to the fixed function GPUs.
What does this even mean?  It appears that the clock speeds were just multiplied by 2. The fixed function GPUs were not programmable.  They unlikely used standard floating point, so FLOPs doesnt make sense.  Also you would need more than 2 FLOPs to emulate the operations performed by a fixed function GPU per clock.
Suggest remove these columns? Squater (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove/Clarify FLOPs for fixed function GPUs