Talk:GeForce 200 series
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Video games||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
- Why does this page show the Zotac 280 AMP edition and not the original Nvidia GTX 280 Specs like the others? Someone must have recently changed that because it used to have the normal 280 specs... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Power consumption is for the whole system, not the GPU. This either needs a note or the right numbers (AFAIK, it's 236W for the 280 and 182W for the 260). --Anteru (talk) 06:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- 1 Source needed for the names of the GT 220, GT 210 GPU Chips
- 2 GT 100 Cards Belong in Article
- 3 GTS 240 does exist. Its an OEM card. Look at Nvidia site.
- 4 Image copyright problem with Image:GeForce newlogo.png
- 5 "GTX" prefix missing from the article name
- 6 G200 is NOT the new Mobile Chip !
- 7 9800 GTX cores
- 8 Config Core note
- 9 GT 220
- 10 GeForce 300 Section is too Speculative
- 11 The GeForce GTX 260 55nm
- 12 GT 300 postponed?
- 13 Removing Future/300 section
- 14 TDP instead of Power Consumption
- 15 DX10.1 compatibility
- 16 GT 8400 GS
Source needed for the names of the GT 220, GT 210 GPU Chips
Someone inserted that the names of the actual GPU cores, and this needs to be sourced as there does not appear to be a reference to it, in the article. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
GT 100 Cards Belong in Article
The GT 100 series belongs in the article due to the fact that these card were released during the time the 200 series generation and the GTS 150, in particular, is based on the GTS 250, which is a series 200 card.Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
GTS 240 does exist. Its an OEM card. Look at Nvidia site.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_gts_240_us.html Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:GeForce newlogo.png
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.
"GTX" prefix missing from the article name
I have noticed that is article (at this time) is called "GeForce 200 Series", while according to linked sources, the correct title should be "GeForce GTX 200 Series". I believe the "GTX" prefix is dropped by a mistake. So, I took the liberty of adding it.Fleet Command (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- The GTX prefix should not be read as applying to the entire 200 series. Nvidia also uses a GT prefix and will probably have some GT 200 parts out before the 300 series is released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 06:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
G200 is NOT the new Mobile Chip !
Somebody needs to clean-up the naming conventions in this article too much tlk of GTX200 etc, when the CHIP is the G200, the series is the GTX200 series. Specifically the G200 is not the mobile version of the GTX 280, it is the DESKTOP model of the GTX280. Look at the chips (65nm/55nm) http://techreport.com/articles.x/14934/2 ; http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/evga-geforce-gtx260-216-55nm_3.html those are G200s not the mobile chips, which are G92Bs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 08:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
9800 GTX cores
doesn't the 9800 GTX have 128 cores not 112 http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_9800_gtx_us.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Math1337 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Config Core note
Where does the 1 beside the Config Core column heading lead to? And what do the numbers separated by the colons refer to?
- i looked around the internet a bit and added some basic information, but i couldnt find much on it. all info is from the NVIDIA website i put at the external links section unless otherwise noted. --Siavash1989 (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I have one (Gigabyte OC, DDR3) here:
CUDA Device Query (Driver API) statically linked version There is 1 device supporting CUDA Device 0: "GeForce GT 220" CUDA Driver Version: 2.30 CUDA Capability Major revision number: 1 CUDA Capability Minor revision number: 2 Total amount of global memory: 1073414144 bytes Number of multiprocessors: 6 Number of cores: 48 Total amount of constant memory: 65536 bytes Total amount of shared memory per block: 16384 bytes Total number of registers available per block: 16384 Warp size: 32 Maximum number of threads per block: 512 Maximum sizes of each dimension of a block: 512 x 512 x 64 Maximum sizes of each dimension of a grid: 65535 x 65535 x 1 Maximum memory pitch: 262144 bytes Texture alignment: 256 bytes Clock rate: 1.63 GHz Concurrent copy and execution: Yes Run time limit on kernels: Yes Integrated: No Support host page-locked memory mapping: Yes Compute mode: Default (multiple host threads can use this device simultaneously)
GeForce 300 Section is too Speculative
The entire paragraph on the 300 series is entirely too speculative and doesn't properly cite sources. The only reference is an unlinked mention of "The Bright Side of News on April 22 2009." Given the extreme secrecy under which these products are developed, I am highly suspect of any claims made in this paragraph. It quite possibly should be deleted entirely if the author cannot produce proper citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagwiki (talk • contribs) 16:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The GeForce GTX 260 55nm
In this article this graphic card appears in the specs with 805 GFLOPS. This value it's wrong. the card has 874.8 GFLOPS according to the GPUReview site what is a credible source.
GT 300 postponed?
Any references to support the alleged postponing of GT 300 series to Q3/10? To me the changes made by 188.8.131.52 seem like vandalism. See also edits to Comparison of Nvidia graphics processing units.
Removing Future/300 section
This entire paragraph is poorly written and full of speculation on a product that is not due until 2011. This was noted back in August and nothing has been done. It degrades the quality of the article as a whole and I'm removing it. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
TDP instead of Power Consumption
I was looking at the articles for the Geforce 8 Series, Geforce 9 series, and the Geforce 200 series. The tables for the 8 and 9 series list the power consumption of the cards whereas this article lists the TDP (Thermal Design Power). I wasn't active at the time and am curious as to why this was changed. Thank you for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IndyK1ng (talk • contribs) 19:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, looking on the Nvidia website I can see the high end cards are all DX10.1 and shader model 4.1...
Could someone more knowledgeable with wiki's fix it? As I was relying on these pages to accurately get specifications for troubleshooting hardware issues concerning the game Krater.
GT 8400 GS
I see no reference to the NVidia geforce 8400 GS Rev3 which is also based on the GT218 core. Shouldn't it be mentioned on this article? Or is there some other place? Reference: http://nouveau.freedesktop.org/wiki/CodeNames/ --13:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk)