Talk:Nvidia

Shortcomings of the FX series

Can anyone put an accurate date on this section?--Hontogaichiban (talk) 11:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing around 2002?--Hontogaichiban (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Forceware

HTF can Forceware redirect to this page, when there is NO MENTION OF Forceware on this page?! Are there maybe too many NVIDIA marketing folks editing this page? Stolsvik (talk) 01:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Tone

This article could be written a little bit more objective, especially considering the recent situation in the GPU market, where in fact ATI leads the pack.

This article reads way too much like it was written for a tech website catering to the Mountain-Dew-drinking, l33t h4xor crowd.

ati leads the pack? hardly.

This page sounds like a giant add for Nvidia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.171.164.107 (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Question

Big question number two: WTF is this? "Xbox Inter Pentiam IIII Celeroon", "Playstation 5 (Reality Synthesiser RSX)" Geeez, guy from Poland must teach english-language encyclopedia site users how to write ;)

• The fact that you say ATI leads the pack results in you loosing any grounds of saying this does not have a NPOV. The 6800's and x800's are neck and neck, and the 6600gt dominates over the x700pro. I dont know about the other cards. Xxpor 02:24, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Could someone clean up the Backwards Compatibility area?

• Could someone make a new page (separate page) where people could list games that are now 'broken' by the new nVidia drivers?

Disputed

'BIG QUESTION' - in the first couple of sentences, it cites nvidia as the manfacturer for chips in the xbox306, but later in the article i reffers to ati. . . someting to take a look at for someone in the field, support chips vs. gpu? --68.105.140.47 19:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't say anything about the Xbox 360. The reference to the "current" Xbox was good until like yesterday or so. I'll change it though.Tommstein 16:42, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

The NV40 series is the first 3d card offering using customized chip designs for each level of performance. This is in contrast to previous generations, which either kept an identical design and lowered the number of pipelines and core speed, or reused older technology for lower-end cards. -- 4.243.112.180

Needs factual backup: [H]ard|OCP says "All of the parts from value to enthusiast will be based off of the same NV40 technology. The only difference down the line will be performance cuts in the way of core frequency, memory frequency, and the number of pipelines to reduce transistor counts in the lower end parts. All you need to keep in mind is that from top to bottom the whole GeForce 6 series cards will have the "same" architecture with the same major features," in direct opposition [1]. --ChrisErbach 01:28, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

NVIDIA Corp. is almost always known as NVIDIA, hence the name (see naming conventions). ed g2s • talk 03:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought NVIDIA was correctly spelt nVidia. If this is not so then quite a few Wikipedia pages need changing because I have seen the lowercase spelling on many pages. Yelhsa 14:36, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

• As did I. Xxpor 02:25, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Here's a reference that confirms all caps is correct: NVIDIA Corporate Logo Guidelines. --Platyk 20:14, 2005 Apr 10 (UTC)

• • It may be correct now, but it definitely used to be "nVidia" with only one capital letter and initial lowercase "n". I've added a sidelong glance to this fact under "Branding", mentioning three other trademarks that follow this style -- nDemand, nView, nZone. There are also nForce, nPower, nStant Media, nTersect, nTune. "nfiniteFX" doesn't really fit, but it also exhibits the initial lowercase "n". These can be found in the "trademarks-1.pdf" document which you get spilt on you when you visit http://www.nvidia.com/object/trademark_guidelines.html, which is itself a link from http://www.nvidia.com/page/companyinfo.html. HTH--Rfsmit (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Okay, so from the archived discussion below, I was "misinterpreting" the old logo because it uses stylized letter forms. But those stylized letter form look awfully like normal letter forms. So the logo looks like it says "nVIDIA". To suggest that the logo is "stylized" is original research. I tried to find a reference to its design language, and failed. Instead, we should simply be reporting what we see: that the logo actually reads "nVIDIA", and has been referred to as "nVidia" in the press.--Rfsmit (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• ST-Microelectronics - (Riva128 and Riva128ZX) Um wasn't it SGS-Thomson? Actually SGS-Thomson is now owned or absorbed into ST/Microelectronics, but a google search shows SGS-Thomson as the foundry for Riva128.

• Under the section "Market Leadership: GeForce", the article claims that nVidia purchased 3Dfx. This is patently untrue. Only the IP rights and the rights to make offers to the employees nVidia wanted to hire were purchased. I believe the stock still exists in some form (though no longer listed).

Do we really need a separate article for every nVidia card ever made ?

Based upon the latest updates, it seems to me thats where some people are trying to take this. Surely a page per series of cards made by nVidia is enough. I think we're about there already, personally. Articles are supposed to be informative summaries. Maybe some of the new guys wished they had the chance to contribute, not sure. *Update* if anyone wants to do something useful, you could fill out the nForce 3 page. Try and fill the gaps - thats my approach. Timharwoodx 06:55, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the Nforce 4 X16 is not a seperate bullet, shouldnt the NF3 mobile just be a part of the NF3 section? its the same core logic!

Response: I see no reason why not to.

what is the proper way to pronounce nvidia?

anyone know?

I've always heard it spoken as "en-vid-ee-uh" (with a fairly flat accent or slight accent on the "en").

Atlant 16:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Haven't you ever seen their commercial? Play BF2 :D. How atlant writes it is what is in their commerical. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 15:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know the actual pronunciation either...

nvidia doesn't have a lot of commercial in Taiwan..

is it really "en-vid-ee-uh"??--Davince 07:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Why would we lie? :-) (I have slight business contacts with NVIDIA so I'm pretty confident that I'm correct.)

Atlant 13:52, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Has nobody here ever seen the "the way it's meant to be played" video that most games begin with? A voice clearly pronounces the name.

In all the games with the "nvidia: the way it's meant to be played" screen at the start, the voice clearly pronounces it as 'enn-vid-ee-a'. Like video with an n at the start and an a at the end. 86.2.100.108 (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Mispellings

This page has numerous mispellings, referring to the 3dfx 'Vodoo' multiple times, as well as claiming things that are inaccurate and do not match with the 3dfx article.

This is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold! Atlant 01:15, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Response: If you see misspellings you should fix them.

Possible Origin of name

In the Latin lists of the Seven Deadly Sins, envy is referred to as invidia. Same in italian.

And we all know that in English, the saying is that someone is "green with envy". Nifty. --71.198.8.214 08:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

In Spanish, Nvidia is pronounced *exactly* like "envidia", our word for "envy". 201.235.51.21 03:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, it's invidia in Latin, regardless of the list of deadly sins. Regarding "In Spanish...," not exactly like that. A spanish I is like an English long E, so in spanish, en vee dee uhh. Look up the great vowel shift.

What 201.235.51.21 is saying is that both Nvidia and envidia in Spanish are pronounced the same. It's /em'bi.dja/ in both cases. Esmito (talk) 19:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

In spite of this speculation, which I myself was convinced of for some time, representatives of NVIDIA have repeatedly told me that the only reasoning behind the name was that the founders wanted to preserve the "NV" from the name of a graphics driver they worked on at SUN. The "-idea" part is probably to sound like "video". I'm not sure what the details of the true story are, but the current absolute statements regarding the "envidia" theory should be sourced or stricken. Sadangel 12:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I had prepped this to post on the main page as this is how it was told to me, but I have no source whatsoever so until such time as more concrete information sources can corroborate this I'll leave it in the discussion page.

It has been recounted by Jen-Hsun that while coding the RTL for one of their first chip designs (prior to incorporation) the founders initially had no ideas for how to refer to their design (ie a codename). In homage to the nonsensical computer science naming conventions like "foo" and "bar" the abbreviation "NV" was created, to stand for "Next Version". Files associated with the design took on the "NV" moniker and "NV" even appeared in some presentations to venture capitalists. The inside joke among the founders was that when asked what the design was the "Next Version" of was that they themselves did not know. This trend of happenstance continued when the time came to incorporate the company. A name was needed and the thought occurred to run grep on a dictionary of common words looking for "NV". This presented "envy" among other words, from which NVIDIA came after some thought. Jen-Hsun was frank in a belief that the name need not come from intense market research or trendy acronyms, and that the success of the company's products was far more important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.112.21 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

NVIDIA GeForce 5200

I got this Graphics Card, Nvidia GeForce 5200, and I wanna know if the graphics is alrght, i don't really want Great Graphics Card, like new Nvidia cards, cuz i can't afford So I wanna know hat games run on it

"Thanks:P" >x<ino 03:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Bad news - you just got the slowest graphics card since NVIDIA's MX series. The FX5200 suffers from really slow GPU speed amungst other things. Sorry. If you can afford a GeForce 6600 even if only the 128MB version it will blow that FX5200 out of the universe.

What are you talking about suker!?

I have one of the best series of all time...if you actually do yuor searches in Wiki/Nvidia. And you will find a list of the GeForce FX series, between there timeline, you will see FX 5200 is better than the rest of the GeForce Series. Bascially mine is series 5, it even as an extra function!

>x<ino 16:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I had nVidia GeForce FX5200 (128MB VRAM), but I was not satisfied with it, and i bought FX5500, but I am dissapointed with it too (is's actually the same, but with 256MB VRAM). Now I'm thinking yo buy nVidia's GeForce 7300GT or 7600GT, because I need pixel shader 3.0 support to play Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell Double Agent.

Riste Ristevski 18:05, 26 May 2007 (GMT+1)

Interesting you guys should mention this card. I had the FX 5200, FX 5500, and FX 5600. The 5600 and 5500 BOTH would ALWAYS have a random infinite loop errors, causing a freeze then automatic restart, but the 5200 never did. After some reading up, I found out that Nvidia has done absolutely nothing to fix them, but motherboard manufacturers disabled something in their BIOS that fixes it (apparently my motherboard didn't get that update).--Can Not (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Mess?

WTF ist that mess down there in the "Various Nvidia Card Details" department? Somebody gotta clean that up... -83.236.20.241 10:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dunno what you are talking about...more details!

>x<ino 16:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Resolved: A discussion was conducted and a consensus was arrived at, the outcome of which was to maintain status quo, to Keep current page at NVIDIA. speaks rohith. 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Why has this page since been moved to Nvidia when the consensus and resolution was to keep it at NVIDIA (which is inline with NVIDIA's website)? -Andreas Toth (talk) 03:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion at Talk:Nvidia#Requested Move 2 below. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I notice that at 17:31, 25 September 2007, this page was, in fact, moved to NVidia, even though this discussion would seem to indicate otherwise. Was the move the culmination of some other process? ENeville 21:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Anything that has got to do with moving an article should have been discussed HERE, first. And there had been one, the outcome of which was to keep. speaks rohith. 20:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

ULI

The article originally suggested Nvidia acquired ULI for US$1 million. This figure surprised me, I appreciate ULI wasn't the biggest of companies but I didn't think it possible they were that cheap, and indeed this webpage suggests the cost was US$52 million. [3] However to avoid further incorrect info, I just removed the figure until someone can do more research to get the correct figure. Nil Einne 21:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

According to filings with the SEC, they paid USD 53.1 million: "On February 20, 2006, we completed our acquisition of ULi Electronics, Inc. ... The aggregate purchase price ... of approximately $53.1 million, including $0.9 million of direct acquisition costs."[4]

Reads like an advert

Deleted the tag. How can you write a history of NVIDIA without talking about its products? The article is clearly critical of NVIDA products, such as the FX line, and therefore is not a ra, ra, cheerleading advert, but an attempt to write a factual overview of the company product history. If someone feels strongly about this, please post specific sentences as examples to the talk page. Timharwoodx 23:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I just made the headings less colloquial. Having written most of the text, I must say the headings were not actually mine. Timharwoodx 23:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the information is great -- but the style should be changed to be more formal and dispassionate. A few examples:

• "The NV2 incident remains something of a dark corporate secret for NVIDIA."

Is this true? How can this be verified?

• "NVIDIA's CEO Jen-Hsun Huang realized at this point after two failed products, something had to change if the company was to survive."

Consider rephrasing, such as "[Something] changed under CEO Jen-Hsun's directive.^Citation"

• "...it looked to many industry observers at the time as if the company was dead in the water."

Is there a less colloquial, more precise way to say this?

Again, the text is informative, and not an advert per se, but the passage as a whole seems to be written more for a historical corporate brochure than an encyclopedic entry. I hope you won't mind if I add back the tag in the meantime. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 19:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, try and find information about NV2 on the NVIDIA website. Its something they've never wanted to talk about. I've tried to think of other ways to say it, but frankly, it ends up dull, and even looses precision. NV2 is indeed a dark corporate secret for NVIDIA. Perfectly true comment. Nails the reality of it.

You seem to confuse cause and effect. Events do not happen at companies, unless directors order them to happen. NVIDIA changed its business model, because management recognized they had been doing things wrong. The prime mover in the process, the causality, is in the minds of senior management. I see it as logical for narrative to adopt a chronological approach to description.

As for dead in the water, yeah, I’ll agree that is lapsing into colloquial. Slightly too pictorial.

I still don't know what you mean by 'historical corporate brochure.’ I sense the problem you have is that the text is surprisingly readable, and therefore MUST be unsound in some fashion. I happen to think text can be accurate, informative, and readable, all at the same time. Again, how does one discuss NVDIIA without reference to the products? Must I remove reference to the GeForce products? How would that make any sense?

When I wrote it, actually, I thought the NVIDIA fans would flame me for being honest about how awful the FX lines was (the FX series designed by 3DFX engineers folks, btw, a cold shower for anyone who thinks 3DFX any sort of real future).

Now I'll leave the tag up, but if no-one adds to this thread, and agrees with you, I see it as a debated, and lost point, frankly. Timharwoodx 22:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it reads quite well, but the style does not match Wikipedia's standards. I encourage you to read Wikipedia:Verifiability. (I will try to make a few improvements myself.) Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 22:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have made changes based on your comments. Yes, I have read verifiability, thanks. In fact, I've quoted it at other people MANY TIMES. One of my favorite examples, is that there is no verifiable evidence that Osama bin Laden carried out the 9/11 attacks, as the FBI openly admit. It’s a baseless conspiracy theory advocated by George Bush. So although the tv news says one thing, verifiability guidelines actually require the WIKI to be more cautious.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&hl=en

I enjoy writing. If people want footnotes, well, go ahead. Its a question of time. I tend to the view folks can always footnote a text later. If what you’re now saying the text needs better footnoting, I would not disagree. But there was no narrative text when I started, so we're clearly better off.

I also think the GoForce is presently a HUGE HOLE in the write up. Mobile phones are a big market, and both ATI and NVIDIA articles are more or less silent on it. I added a small amount of content to the ATI page on the matter, but its not been followed up by anyone. Timharwoodx 23:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

"If what you’re now saying the text needs better footnoting, I would not disagree."
This is exactly what I am saying, for every statement that a reader could reasonably question. In this case, I suspect that some of the statements cannot be footnoted at all for want of a source that does not exist. That does not mean that it is untrue, but that it is non-verifiable and thus not eligible for inclusion. (For a related discussion, see this email posting.) The reason for me being picky is that statements such as "dark corporate secret" paint the company in a negative light.

"I tend to the view folks can always footnote a text later."
Right, but not for information that is questionable to begin with.

"But there was no narrative text when I started, so we're clearly better off."
On the whole, of course—thank you for your contributions. I am just trying to push us one step further. Thanks, GChriss <always listening><c> 00:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Is the OEM info really needed?

I don't think listing Original Equipment Manufacturers is something that is needed here. I would say delete that section entirely and expand on the fact that they only design and sell the graphics processor, they do not build the actual graphics boards. What are some other thoughts?

YES, the OEM info is needed. unlike other outfits, nvidia doesn't just make cards and slip some chips on the side to OEMS. It makes chips ONLY, and other companies make the cards. I actually found this article because I was confused about this fact. The names of the companies which produce "nvidia" graphics cards are very important to anyone wanting to know about nvidia graphics cards.

ALSO, I'm removing the the "long list" warning tag, since 1) the list isn't very long, and 2) logicaly, it's a set of discrete links, not a paragraph of prose.Sys Hax 06:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"Four-pixel pipeline"

I'm not an expert, but it strikes me as more likely that the card has 4 pipelines that each output one pixel per cycle, rather than pipelines that output 4 pixels as the hyphen implies. SenorBeef 21:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

nVidia Vista drivers

Just wondering, why was it removed? There are no full Vista drivers lately, and there has been many problems running it. nVidia advertised that running their graphics cards under Windows Vista would give not only better performance, but better visual quality. I think it is rather significant, and very relevant. What parts about it werent' neutral?

68.150.223.221 08:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC) dashboardy (68.150.223.221)

Generic WP:NPOV violations; Instead of stating the facts, the section tried to assess the situations, stating "extremely unacceptable issues", etc. The section wasn't removed though, I'm not sure where you got that idea. -- intgr 14:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

changed "extremely unacceptable issues" to references with BSOD instances as example. also gave other sides of issue (WHQL certified windows drivers have been resolution to NVIDIA drivers). any problems now?

68.150.223.221 21:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)dashboardy

Same as last user, logged in... I looked at the page after and could not see 5.7 Windows Vista driver issues. Section is now present. Please review the section, discuss any further changes required. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dashboardy (talk • contribs) 21:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Sounds better now. -- intgr 22:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, this section appears to be gone again, and I for one think it is definitely relevant, so long as it is written without bias Tolstoy143 - "Quos vult perdere dementat" 22:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Shortcomings of the GeForce FX section

Some person had rewritten this section some time back, incorporating content from subsequent sections chronicling the later GeForces. The protion of this section towards the end feels like POV'd. I've removed some obvious POV, but I guess the section can be rewritten from an objective and factual point of view. rohith 18:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Build by NVIDIA (BBN) and others

I can't seem to find it in the article.

The BBN was widely used for nForce 680i and nForce 680i LT and some nForce 590, why it's not mentioned anywhere in the article, and where is the market history of desktop chipset sections?

BTW, RSX in PS3 and Xbox GPU are not PC chipsets!! --202.71.240.18 12:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Key People, Company info, etc

Anyone have info to contribute. Obviously Jensen isn't the ONLY key person...

SLI and GeForce 6

SLI came along with the Geforce 6 series, not the 7. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.198.158 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Old Drivers?

What is the point of the "old drivers" link in the infobox? It's quite handy, but that is not what wikipedia is for. All that is required is the official homepage. vLaDsINgEr 15:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Consoles with ATI chips

Is the part about Microsoft and Nintendo using ATI chips instead of NVIDIA chips in their consoles really necessary? 195.23.216.233 15:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The part about Microsoft and Nintendo using ATI chip instead of NVIDIA chips in the consoles really necessary 195.23.216.233 No, nVidia is the best chip ever opinion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Y Done Neıl ☎ 13:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Requested move 2

NVIDIA → Nvidia — Pretty clear cut in my opinion. The current name violates MOS:TM as there is no reason to have the name in all capitals just because the company wants people to write it that way. There is precedence (like Time instead of TIME, PlayStation 3 instead of PLAYSTATION 3. We are not supposed to use odd capitalizations just because the trademark owner encourages it. —TJ Spyke 03:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support. I might have allowed nVidia, a variation on the accepted eBay/iPod capitalisation trick, but reading the previous move request, the company no longer follows this style. So "Nvidia" is now the correct page. I bet there are many wikilinks to NVIDIA, and they should be corrected also. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 10:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support. Evidence is that outside the company "Nvidia" is preferred [5]. The company's own preference should be ignored, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) Whydontyoucallme dantheman (talk) 13:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support - The MoS serves to provide consistency within Wikipedia, and an all-caps non-abbreviated article title is against the consistency and the MoS. Neier (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support as above. Tigeron (talk) 18:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think we need to settle this as part of a much broader issue with WP:NC: there are many, many other articles on companies that do not follow the current MOS: WESCO International, NOVA Chemicals, DISH Network Corporation, PACCAR, CIGNA, ENSCO International are only a few of the many examples. I think the company articles are a different animal than the product articles of TIME and PLAYSTATION (where I agree all caps is ridiculous). It comes down to this: in the company naming issue, in modifying WP:NC to allow caps in this specific case we would be following the practice of others who write about the companies, like cnn, the New York Times, etc., etc. I have opened a thread here; can all interested parties weigh in there before we move this page? Thanks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • See WP:WAX. Hell, I started this move request after someone was complaining about this article being wrong (the person was trying to move Galaxy Technologies to GALAXY Technologies). TJ Spyke 05:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support, per nom. Though I would not be opposed to "nVidia" per the eBay/iPod passage of WP:MOSTM, pronunciation, semantic distinction and consistency with the nForce brand. - Cyrus XIII (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose The MoS may say editors should decap regardless of trademark holder preference, but I feel it's elitist for editors to impose their personal preferences instead of the trademark holders preferences. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  How are the preferences personal? Would you support using the star in Macy*s? The exclamation point in P!nk? Should we refrain from capitalizing adidas and thirtysomething and craigslist? -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

  Yes to all of those, if that is how the trademark holders want them done. When evaluating one preference against another (which is really what this is... some editors who happened to put together our MoS and their collective preferences, versus the owners of the marks in question), I give far greater weight to the owner than to random editors, even if you could muster 10000 of them all unanimously speaking. That's just me and my preference for how things ought to be done regarding commercial things, of course, but I feel the MoS is deeply flawed in this area and has been from the get go. Hence, since we're surveying, what the MoS says matters not a whit to me since it's, in my personal view, wrong. :) I expect that my view won't carry the day but I do want it on record. You'll of course get my willing consensus to go along with whatever we come out with, but you won't have my personal agreement that the correct answer was arrived at. ++Lar: t/c 01:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  Oh don't worry. I've got no dog in this race, and I'm not going to whack you with a "rule" or something. I wonder whether you're familiar with the justification behind WP:MOSTM, which isn't, as far as I understand it, based on preferences at all, but on WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  I've read it and I think the attempted application of NPOV in that instance is flawed... because it inherently IS a preference matter. Taking the line of "we're going to do it as we like, regardless of the trademark holder's view or wish" is inherently non neutral, it's "anti trademark owner", and no amount of tortured reasoning can convince me differently. I rather think the analogy is more along the lines of BLP's and marginal notability cases w.r.t. deletes, actually... in marginal cases, we honor the living person's wishes, absent a compelling reason not to. Well here, every single case of how to capitalise or punctuate a trademark really *is* marginal if you think about it (in the grand scheme of things it is not going to stylistically kill us one way or the other to capitalize things one way or the other), and our default position is "screw the property owner, (because, remember... a trademark is a kind of property, it has economic value and can be bought and sold) we're going to do as we like, they can go hang, nasty dirty money grubbers, who cares about them, we have a Free Project to do here, who cares about property rights or diluting someone else's valuable property by misuing it... screw them.". If I controlled a big corporation, I guess that would make me more/less (pick one) likely to be kindly disposed to WMF's projects? And that would be in general a: good/bad (pick one) thing? So no, I'm indeed very familiar with the (in my view) exceedingly flawed justification behind WP:MOSTM... ++Lar: t/c 02:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, I really don't think NPOV is a very good fit there either. I think it's more a case of WP:NOT, in particular Wikipedia is not a soapbox for advertising, and certain aspects of formatting essentially constitute advertising. To take an extreme case, would you support the rendering FedEx? I think if we were to use such a formatting, it would make it look as if we were advertising for them, which is what I see as being at stake. I mean, when the New York Times refers to LEGOS as "Legos", do they care whether they're diluting someone's brand name, and not disposing a company well towards them? Should they? Should we? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The guideline is very clear that we choose from among the various formats that already exist in the language. We don't somehow decide in an arbitrary way. In fact, your apparent concession that the guideline calls for this move seems to indicate that the rule is straightforward and you recognize that it applies in this case. No major publication recognizes that trademark owners have some "right" to compel others to use their wacky formats. It would not serve our readers to allow, as GTBacchus says, advertising principles to invade our encyclopedia. Croctotheface (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Er, no, we're not choosing arbitrary ways... don't fool yourself there, please. We're deliberately choosing the way the owner of the property does not want, as a snub to them, and as a way to devalue their property. (and potentially, if taken far enough, as a way to get lawsuits... I believe LEGO, for example, has sued organizations over the use of the term "LEGOS" rather than LEGO elements if their warnings were unheeded. I may be mistaken about that but it is not unheard of for a trademark owner to sue, in fact trademark law requires a vigorous defense of trademarks by the holders). The MOS/TM guideline is wrong in this, but it will prevail anyway... not because it's a good idea to thumb one's nose this way, but because there are people that give the appearance that they like thumbing their noses at property owners for no good reason at all, that's about all I'm conceding in this. ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The notion that we seek to "devalue their property" is just incorrect as a matter of fact. We do not have a policy of doing the opposite of what a trademark owner wishes. Our guideline says that we do not accord a formatting more weight because it is preferred by the trademark owner. We format nearly all trademarks the way the owner wants because nearly all trademarks are formatted in ways that accord with standard English. The trademark infringement/dilution claim is also without merit; if we are somehow guilty, then basically every major publication is likewise guilty. A large number of them use Lego and Nvidia. Croctotheface (talk) 06:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, in actual practice we tend to follow such publications as the New York Times. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Which, I beleive, is better equipped to defend against lawsuits than we are. ++Lar: t/c 11:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you genuinely think that decapitalizing trademarks leaves us open to legal challenges? If so, that sounds like an important thing to bring up at WP:MOSTM. If that's not the case, then we should find that out for sure. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think there is some small chance of it, yes. Not a big chance. Probably marginal to nil for most trademark holders. The chance is larger for nouning adjectives though than for miscapitalization. Most trademark holders will be more likely to be upset about usages like "Legos are cool" (vs. "Lego blocks are cool" which retains LEGO as an adjective) as that is much more dilutive of the trademark and therefore more strongly needs to be defended, than they are about LEGO vs Lego. But if you can avoid a small chance easily, does it matter exactly how small the chance is? No. Prudent risk management says if a particular risk is costless to avoid, avoid it. This avoidance is essentially costless. ++Lar: t/c 16:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Trademark dilution generally applies to cases where someone uses a trademarked word or phrase to refer to something other than what it is designed to represent. If we started calling our encyclopedia "Legopedia" just because we thought it sounded cool, then we would likely be liable for diluting the trademark. Using the brand name Lego or Tivo or Xerox to refer to generic equivalents is the same idea: it dilutes the power of the mark because it is being used to refer to other products unrelated to Lego's or Tivo's products. Choosing to use different typography does not at all dilute the mark; it's the same word, just formatted in standard English. Croctotheface (talk) 20:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Lar, I'm not seeing it. I don't see that we gain anything by using special formatting, and it's not true that there is no cost. The cost is that we make Wikipedia a vehicle for other people's advertising, and that we cross the line from description to promotion. I'd prefer to get a clear answer from legal than to assume that there's any risk that we're avoiding, because the avoidance is not costless. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Nvidia is not an invention and it is in fact prevalent in sources. Our guidelines call for the move. Croctotheface (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as per UnitedStatesian. And NVIDIA is the name used by the company, just check their website. Gsingh (talk) 13:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Support, we shouldn't be held hostage to companies' random typographical whims. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Well that's certainly neutral all right... your personal preferences aren't whims of course, only the property owners. :) ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, we are not hostile to the trademark owner; in the vast majority of cases, we use their formatting because it is standard. I could flip your question: why are you hostile to the language? Croctotheface (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Horsesforcorses (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Previous move discussion at #Requested move. feydey (talk) 07:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 3

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was - retain at Nvidia as per WP:MOSTM - WP:NC (companies) applies to legal status for dab purposes. Keith D (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Nvidia → NVIDIA — This article is about the company, not the trademark. So, it should conform to not MOS:TM, but WP:NC (companies), according to which an article is to be named after the official name of the company. The offical name of the company is NVIDIA Corporation. Hence, the article should be titled simply NVIDIA —, so speaks rohith. 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose per the reasons the article was just moved a month ago. Speedy close since the very recent discussion showed the consensus is not to violate MOS just because a company wants us too. TJ Spyke 00:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:MOSTM: "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'." WP:NC (companies) doesn't say anything about using all caps or official names. — AjaxSmack 00:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  This article comes under the purview of NC (companies) and not MOS:TM. This fact seems to have been forgotten in the previous RM. As you can see in the first RM, we came to the conclusion that it is indeed WP:NC (companies) that has to be followed here. Please read the argument for this RM before Supporting or Opposing the motion.

  According to NC (companies), the article is to be named after the official name of the company. However, the legal status of the company (in English: Corp., plc, Inc. or LLC; similar statuses in other languages that can come either after or before the company name), is not normally included. --, so speaks rohith. 00:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

  You say, "According to NC (companies), the article is to be named after the official name of the company." Could you please cite the part you are referring to because I don't see it. — AjaxSmack 04:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• NC (companies) talks about including the legal status of the company ("Inc.", "Co.", etc.), and does not mention letting articles violate MOS. The only way NC (C) would apply here would be if the debate was over "Nvidia" or "Nivida, Inc.". Odd capitalizations still fall under MOS and MOSTM. TJ Spyke 17:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose and close as per User:TJ Spyke. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies) does not support this and even has a ==see also== link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) which is very clear -- unless it is "N.V.I.D.I.A." there is no reason to use all capitals. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - nowhere does it say that other sections of the MoS are superceded by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), or that the fact that the company name is shortened should give free rein for anyone to ignore the other well-established naming conventions. Neier (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• oppose. previous move in January 2008 seems very sensible. Mcmullen writes (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose as per clear guidelines in WP:MOSTM since this is not an acronym. --DAJF (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - Within the English-language Wikipedia we use English-language conventions. The Commercial Jargon Wikipedia can do things differently if desired. -- Pedant17 (talk) 07:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - The commonest way to write it is nVidia - but we couldn't do that even if we wanted to - so no matter what, we get it wrong. Nvidia is as good as any compromise. SteveBaker (talk) 02:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

-- The company's official name as seen in the California Secretary of State's Business Portal, the company's NASDAQ scrip quote, its filing with the SEC and its very own Press Releases, so speaks rohith. 22:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I thought they were styled nVidia 70.55.84.89 (talk) 04:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

  They are - (at least in some of their publicity material) but due to technical restrictions, Wikipedia forces the first letter of an article title to uppercase no matter what. So even if it were desired to do this - we cannot. SteveBaker (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The way it's meant to be pronounced?

Does anyone know a publicly available description, citable as a reliable source, of the correct way to pronounce this company's name? (That is, something in print — and preferably something from Nvidia itself — not simply people's impressions from listening to audio recordings of the name being spoken.)

I've listened to the audio part of the Nvidia animated logo distributed as part of the Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword game, and I am convinced that the female voice is saying "inn-VID-ee-uh" (i.e., the first two vowels are identical). However, other people listening to the same audio might possibly think they are hearing "en-VID-ee-uh" (especially listeners whose regional dialects exhibit the pin-pen merger — something which is not the case in my own speech). And some people may be sure that the first vowel must be /ɛ/, not /ɪ/, because their aural perception is biased by the fact that the name is written with an initial letter N.

If there's a FAQ section on Nvidia's web site where this question is answered in print, I haven't managed to find it. And if we simply can't find any reliable source other than our descriptions of what we hear, we might (unfortunately) need to simply omit any mention at all of the proper pronunciation in the article — though I would push for that only as a last resort. Richwales (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This question has been answered many times in the discussion page before. It is pronounced "en-vi-dee-uh", from both commercials, and official podcasts.Shawn1cai (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, I'm trying to find something in print — preferably something official from Nvidia itself. People's impressions (yours, mine, anyone else's) of what an audio recording of the name sounds like are less valuable, because listeners' prior conditioning via their own regional dialects may cause different people to "hear" the same recording differently. I'm absolutely convinced, beyond any doubt whatsoever, that the recording I heard on the Civ4 game (see above) said /ɪn'vɪdiə/ — and I'm 100% confident in my own ability to correctly identify and describe what I heard — but saying that is obviously not going to sway someone else who is equally absolutely convinced beyond any doubt that it's pronounced /ɛn'vɪdiə/. And in any case, an editor's description of the sounds in an audio recording (including what others may have said in the past on this or any other talk page) is arguably original research and should be avoided — though an ultra-strict interpretation of this rule could easily result in the elimination of practically all phonetic transcriptions throughout Wikipedia, something which I'm not seriously proposing here. Richwales (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

How about mentioning the open source issue?

The fact that NVidia drivers aren't open source annoys a lot of people. Perhaps it should be mentioned??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.182.91.94 (talk) 16:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the open source issue is worth mentioning.

As is a companies change in policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.50.48 (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Network Interface Chipsets

NVIDIA is an important manufacturer of network interface chipsets. Yet the word "network" doesn't even appear in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.43.225 (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but NVIDIA does not make network interface chipsets. Their network interface is controlled by their MCPs, which not only manages network, but also onboard communications such as Audio, RAID, PCI, PCI-E, and USB.Shawn1cai (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Modified Images

The image of the riva128 has been photoshopped, the core chip has been smeared and replaced with an image of a 10 pin DIP IC that one would see in a 1970's calculator

Steven736 (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Pulling it out of your ass?

The whole "The company's name" paragraph sounds like crap someone just made up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.253.68 (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Eutectic vs high-lead solder

On 9 December 2008, The Inquirer conducted another series of tests to check whether the new MacBook Pro notebook computers used eutectic solder or high-lead solder.[27] They found that the 9400M chipset used eutectic solder, while the 9600M used a high-lead solder which they associated with the "old process" responsible for the failures.

This is journalistic goop -- and not descriptive or correct. A eutectic solder can be ANY formulation of elements (including lead) -- as long as that specific % mix present the lowest state change (melting, boiling, etc.) point. Tin/Lead eutectic: 63/37

Why are massive MCP failures not mentioned at all in the article? Both desktop and mobile nVidia MCPs. HP also issued warranty extensions for laptops with nVidia MCPs and nVidia had to foot the bill. I guess nVidia's stockholders are closely watching this Wikinazipedia article.

06:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.244.109 (talk)

First sentence

On February 6, 2009, a Wikipedian changed the opening sentence from "The multinational corporation Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA,  /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/), specializes in the manufacture of ... " to read: "Nvidia (NASDAQ: NVDA, /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/) is a multinational corporation specializing in the manufacture of ...". The previous version gave context and established notability in accordance with the guideline WP:LEAD. It provided a definition of the subject-matter and made the subject-matter the grammatical subject of the opening sentence -- once again complying with WP:LEAD. Why then abandon this well-structured sentence for a bland and plodding version which has doubled the number of verbs and given undue prominence to Nvidia's corporate identity at the expense of the reason for its notability: its products? -- Can we establish, on good and clear policy grounds, a consensus on an optimal introductory sentence? -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree with the change. The previous construction is too passive, and makes it questionable as to whether the subject is Nvidia or the manufacturing of graphics hardware. Here is the guideline: As a general rule, the first appearance of the page title should be as early as possible in the first sentence. (WP:BOLDTITLE) Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The version reading: "The multinational corporation Nvidia ... specializes in the manufacture of ... " has nothing passive about it: it expresses the subject and uses that subject actively. No question arises as to whether the the article deals with he subject "Nvidia" or with specialization or even manufacturing -- the heading and the bolding take care of that. We can satisfy the edicts of WP:BOLDTITLE on the positioning of the page-title by using a construction such as "Nvidia, a multinational corporation, specializes in the manufacture of ..." -- Leaving aside all personal opinions, I ask once again: can we establish, firmly based on the grounds of Wikipedia policies, a consensus on an optimal introductory sentence? -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Several weeks later ... for want of a response, I propose to enhance the opening sentence to use the "Nvidia, a multinational corporation, specializes in the manufacture of ..." format. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing GeForce FX in chronology

Though somewhat amusing to see this, I want to raise the issue that between the "Market leadership" section that ends with the GF4 and the "GeForce 6 and later" section, there is no mention whatsoever of the FX (5000) series, which was one of nvidia's low points. Previous discussions above seem to indicate that there was content about the FX at one point, but this may have been removed. Please keep in mind that articles need to be NPOV and you cannot cherry-pick facts to include or exclude. The company's successes and failures both need to appear in the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A section was indeed removed:[6]. This has been restored and edited a bit for NPOV. While it does need more sources, so does the rest of the history. Either remove the whole thing or leave this subsection in place. Otherwise, the article is biased because it only includes positive highlights from the company's product history. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Proper pronunciation of NVIDIA??

I'll ask one more time, very, very seriously: Can anyone cite a reliable written source which definitively says how the NVIDIA muckamucks intend for "NVIDIA" to be pronounced? For some time now, the article said /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/, but someone changed it just now to say /ɛnˈvɪ.di.ə/.

As I said several months ago (see Talk:Nvidia#The way it's meant to be pronounced? above), I am, personally, absolutely convinced beyond any doubt that NVIDIA's own pronunciation of its name (based on the audio of the animated logo at the start of a recent game) is /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/ ("inn-VID-ee-uh", with the first two vowels being identical). I know some other people seem equally absolutely convinced beyond any doubt that the correct pronunciation is /ɛnˈvɪ.di.ə/ ("en-VID-ee-uh"), and the only explanation I can come up with for this discrepancy is that those people's speech may have the "pin-pen merger" (please go read that if you aren't familiar with the term) — whereas my own speech does not have the pin-pen merger, and I therefore "hear" the pronunciation differently from some other people. Or, perhaps the person whose voice was recorded for the NVIDIA animated logo happens to speak a regional dialect with the pin-pen merger, and none of the NVIDIA execs have noticed or cared.

My first impulse, just now, was to simply revert the latest edit and put the text back the way it was before (/ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/). My second impulse was to leave it as it now is, but put a {{fact}} tag on the pronunciation until someone can supply a reliable source. But if no one can come up with a source, I believe it's better not to give any pronunciation until/unless it can be reliably sourced. Richwales (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the pronounciation but do wish to give you options on resolving this=

If you dont like editors using what they hear on commercials as a source then I suggest you bring this issue to either Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard and/or Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard as it seems concensus has been reached here and no one feels the need to discuss this anymore. But make sure if you do either one that you announce that you have done so here and to any editor's talk pages that would reasonably be interested in debating this from a viewpoint other than yours, such as those editors who commented in the two previous talk sections when this was brought up. To bring this to those noticeboards without informing the "other side" would not be seen as acting in good faith. It does seem that concensus has been reached that it is acceptable as the "en" at the front. In the case of a lack of sources concensus trumps the idea of removing unsourced material so I suggest that the article remain with the majority opinion and it is not removed nor changed until a further concensus is reached or reliable sources are found, removing or changing concensus approved material (sourced or otherwise) can be seen and labeled as vandalism. As a side note- written sources are not the only acceptable sources in Wikipedia, a commercial, properly cited, is acceptable. If someone emails the company and recieves an email back with the company's pronounciation that too is acceptable as a source.148.78.249.33 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Moving Nvidia to NVIDIA

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was do not move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Nvidia → NVIDIA — Seriously, NVIDIA is the name of this company, not Nvidia --Harbinary (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#General rules, the clear (if not permanent) consensus and convincing support rationales at Talk:Nvidia#Requested move 2, and the Google archive search linked there. --an odd name 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. This has been discussed a couple of times before and my opinion stays the same, "NVIDIA" violations MOSTM and shouldn't be used. TJ Spyke 20:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• No - per MOSTM. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose if anything it would be nVidia. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Protection

Request protection for this page since Baseball Bugs is vandalising it.

If you want a page protected, take it to WP:RFPP. If you want to get blocked for personal attacks, keep calling me a vandal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

American/Taiwanese multinational corporation

How is nVidia American/Taiwanese?? --Aizuku (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

I've looked through the history of this dispute, and the issue has been decided incorrectly in the past. Reliance on the MOS for trademark purposes is misplaced. As someone previously said, this article is about the company, not the trademark. The company's name, as filed with the Secretary of State, their own press releases and materials, and the overwhelming majority of new articles by professional journalists, is NVIDIA Corporation. It is not Nvidia or nVidia or any other variation. Another voter stated that Wikipedia should not be held to a company's typographical whims. This is also correct. We do not place articles according to the stylings used in the corporate logo (the mark around which a trademark is based)--but we do not alter the case of letters in official company names, either. We do not keep Microsoft at MicroSoft. We do not keep AMD at Amd, or BP at Bp, or WEGA at Wega (the letters don't stand for anything).

Considering the issue as a trademark one is simply incorrect. The matter is of placing the article at the proper place, following the proper spelling of the name. Time Magazine is indeed "Time Magazine"--as the unit of Time, Inc. Initialisms pronounced as a word for companies, where the individual letters no longer mean anything, are still kept in all caps, which is inconsistent with NVIDIA's treatment here. The issue is pretty straightforward: the company's name is fully capitalized, irrespective of trademark (wherein it is actually mixed-case), just like PNY (not Pny) and WESCO (not Wesco). It should be treated as such on Wikipedia. -- Dharadvani (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style defines "tradmarks" as including "words and short phrases used by organizations to identify themselves and their products and services". The usage of the term "trademark" by 'NVIDIA® Corporation ("NVIDIA")' matches this: the company claims a plethora of trademarks, with varying upper and lower case, including: "NVIDIA, the NVIDIA logo, [...] nView" (but not "nVidia" or "nVIDIA") - see the "Trademark Information" legal notice at http://www.nvidia.com/object/legal_info.html retrieved on 2010-05-30. All in all. we can regard "NVIDIA" as a trademark - thus the Wikipedia rules on tradmarks apply, and we should generally use the standard English form "Nvidia" per previous discussion on this talk-page (most recently summarized at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nvidia#Moving_Nvidia_to_NVIDIA ). - Comparisons with initialisms like "IBM" hold less weight when dealing with a semi-initialism: we don't pronounce the name as "en-vee-eye-dee-eye-eh". Compare "pronounced not spelled" initialisms used as brands and as corporate names by (for example) Esso (for SO = Standard Oil), Sun Microsystems (from Stanford University Network), Nabisco (from National Biscuit Company), Sony (branded "SONY"), Fiat (not F.I.A.T.), etc. - Pedant17 (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The name of a company is not a trademark. A trademark is a mark used in identification on stylized marks--the printed images on products, packaging, letterhead and so forth, registered by the USPTO and having nothing to do with the formal name of the corporation. The name of the company is NVIDIA Corporation, as can be verified by filings with the Secretary of State. That has nothing to do with registered trademarks, which are handled by the USPTO. Your examples, including Esso and Nabisco, are not pertinent, because the corporate names were formally changed. Again, see WESCO--an article properly rendering the company name on Wikipedia, and WEGA--another such article, pronounced as a word, and abbreviating nothing. Sony, moreover, is not registered as a corporation under the name SONY, so that example fails as well. The logo typeface is not at issue; the only issue is the company's actual name, and since no one outside of Wikipedia uses "Nvidia", noting that technology journals properly render the name as NVIDIA within their articles, it is inaccurate to do so here.

The page is not located at the company's name, and it is both wrong and confusing. Pronunciation of a name has nothing to do with how it is written, and altering the case of a proper name because of some misguided use on inapplicable trademark styles is indefensible. --Dharadvani (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As a former NVIDIA employee, seeing this page title has always driven me nuts. "NVIDIA" was even used internally, and all internal marketing (and non-marketing) guidance declared it the proper capitalization of the name. --67.185.151.148 (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have to oppose renaming at this time, citing MOS:TM#General_rules bullet number 3:

“

Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official": avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss

”

See the older discussion link Pedant17 provided as well as another recent example here. Airplaneman ✈ 04:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Except you're applying English text formatting to non-English text. The Realtor, Time, and Kiss examples are all English words outside their trademarked context. Why does every use of NVIDIA then use the all-cap form in the article? Why is EVGA Corporation not "Evga Corporation"? Why does that very page link to the NVIDIA page in all caps? Or why is it ATI Technologies instead of Ati? Why is the iPod article display it's title with a lower 'i'? Why eBay? I can find more places on Wikipedia where the cited rule is broken rather than followed. For the three examples in the MOS you cite, the articles themselves follow a standard-English captalization throughout the article. It seems for this article we're all admitting that NVIDIA is the proper form, except for the title.

I think Dharadvani makes the best point. Nobody uses Nvidia. Not the press, not NVIDIA themselves, nobody. Except for the Wikipedia article's title. (not even the article content!) Why is that so special? To me Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules is a far better policy to be following here. Also, I think there's an interesting argument made earlier in this page questioning whether the trademark rule should even apply since not only is NVIDIA a trademarked form, but it's also the legal form of the name in the view of the California state government, in terms of official filings to the SEC, etc, etc. Would removing the little (R) after the name mean it no longer falls under MOS:TM? --67.185.151.148 (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A brief Google News search for "nvidia" turns up about 90% of press sources referring to it as "Nvidia". ATI and EVGA are written as a series of capital letters (by Wikipedia and by the press) because they're pronounced as a series of capital letters; Nvidia is not. For iPods and eBay, Wikipedia is just echoing the style guide adopted by the reliable sources it uses; the first-letter-lowercase guideline at WP:MOS overrules the "general rule" about normal English capitalisation.

If you think policy should be changed, I'd suggest raising it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks). --McGeddon (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

On the current Google News page, 14 of 20 articles identify it as 'NVIDIA'--this varies by source, but all finance-related pages stick with the company's name as formally registered. I don't know how to say it more clearly than this: a trademark style guide has zero bearing on an entity's formal name. A trademark is a stylized rendering to identify source--it is often a stylized version of the entity's name, but in no case is that actual name rendered improperly. eBay and iPod are clear violations of the trademark MOS with no rationale. The reality is simple: the company's name is NVIDIA. Trademark MOS is irrelevant (the typical trademark style is nVIDiA anyway). --Dharadvani (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Open up a requested move if you'd like so more people can weigh in on this matter. You could also bring this issue up at Talk:iPod and Talk:eBay. I've given my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Airplaneman ✈ 01:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nook Color states '[...] (styled "nook color" or "NOOKcolor") [...]'. Perhaps a similar approach could be used here. --trevj (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation (again)

See earlier discussions of whether NVIDIA is pronounced /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/ or /ɛnˈvɪ.di.ə/. Until someone can produce a high-quality, unambiguous source to settle this issue, I believe the pronunciation needs to be marked with a {{fact}} tag. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

www.nvidiasettlement.com

Apparently there is a multi-million class action settlement, not mentioned on wikipedia. Link:[7]

69.203.111.61 (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

^ If I could bump this somehow I would, I believe this lawsuit is (was) relevant and should be included in this article. Dninyo (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Why I am not able to open the Nvidia web site?

By mistake I bought a Dell Vostro 3500 which it's graphic card is Geforce 310M. I am trying to upgrade my graphic card to open and use Google earth but something don't let me download a driver from Nvidia.com or Dell.com.

What's wrong to using Google Earth? any suggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.100.50.123 (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

NVidia Online Store??

When has the Store been launched? No info! When has NVidia started selling software + games? Add info!! Naki (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation — YouTube video

Someone added a reference to this YouTube video of the NVidia logo, with a female voice whispering "NVidia", as a source for the claim that it's pronounced /ɛnˈvɪdi.ə/. However, the voice very clearly (to me, at least) says /ɪnˈvɪdi.ə/ — the vowels in the first two syllables are obviously identical, and it doesn't make any sense at all to me how anyone can possibly hear this sound sample and think it's saying /ɛnˈvɪdi.ə/. I know it would be WP:OR and unusable as a source here, but I'm strongly tempted to run this woman saying "NVidia" through a spectrum analyser program in order to show all of you that I'm not just hallucinating. The material on the pin-pen merger (which, for what it's worth, is not a characteristic of my own speech) may be relevant here. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:IPA for English#Pronunciation of Nvidia, on the theory that the people working there have been dealing with lots of different angles of the dialect-vs.-transcription issue (and, therefore, may hopefully have useful thoughts to offer on this question). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Full-Article Cleanup

I've skimmed through this talk page, and it seems like the biggest issue here is that there is just too much information for the average user to digest. For this reason, I have decided to embark on a full-blown consolidation edit. It will certainly take multiple edits and revisions, so if anyone is still interested in truly cleaning up this article, I would like to invite you to help me. Alright, time to dive in... Scrat (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Initial restructure and consolidation finished. After getting into the finer points of this article, I've discovered that many of the phrases and wordings used are not fully objective. I have likely removed most of them, but another revision will have to weed the rest out. Also, the long list of dates with very little coherence needs to be rethought. In short, lots of work needs to be done as of yet, but now the article is at least relatively short and easier to digest. Scrat (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have both found myself and been shown that some of my previous revisions were a bit too harsh. I agree completely with this view, and as a result I have added back in what I hope to be the most important information about NVIDIA. We still need to add a certain flow to this article, as the list of dates is still a bit staggering. If you disagree and think that the article was better the way it was or should be longer, please say so; I don't want to be the only one working on an article for a multi-million dollar corporation without some sort of opinion or guidance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrat9518 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed refresh

I am an NVIDIA employee and would like to propose changes that would correct out-of-date and incorrect information in this entry. I’m familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines, and want to ensure any changes proposed are accepted by the community. Below are a series of suggested updates on which I’d like your feedback and consideration.

I’d like to start with the introduction, which was flagged at the top of the entry as an inadequate summary. Explanations follow in brackets.

NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA); /ɪnˈvɪdi.ə/ in-VID-ee-ə)(1) is an American global technology company based in Santa Clara, California. [ Shortening for clarity. ]

The company invented the graphics processor unit (GPU) in 1999.(2) [ Highlighting a key milestone in the company’s history. ]

Today, GPUs are used in computers ranging from smartphones to game consoles to engineering workstations. [ Removing redundancy in current entry. Also, NVIDIA is in the process of exiting the chipset business. ]

Researchers and scientists use GPUs for high-performance applications and in supercomputing sites.(3,4) [ Adding key business segments. ]

NVIDIA offers four brands of processors: GeForce®, Quadro®, Tesla™, and Tegra®. [ Summarizing main product brands. ]

Its competitors include Intel, AMD and Qualcomm. [ More accurately describing the competitive landscape. ]

Founded in 1993 by Jen-Hsun Huang, Chris Malachowsky and Curtis Priem, NVIDIA expanded from its roots in PC graphics into professional graphics and high-performance computing. [ Describing the company’s evolution. ]

Most recently, the company moved into mobile computing, where its system-on-a-chip powers a number of smartphones and tablets.(5,6,7) [ Adding key business segment. ]

Suggested opening without explanations:

NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA); /ɪnˈvɪdi.ə/ in-VID-ee-ə)(1) is an American global technology company based in Santa Clara, California. The company invented the graphics processor unit (GPU) in 1999.(2) Today, GPUs are used in computers ranging from smartphones to game consoles to engineering workstations. Researchers and scientists use GPUs for high-performance applications and in supercomputing sites.(3,4) NVIDIA offers four brands of processors: GeForce®, Quadro®, Tesla™, and Tegra®. Its competitors include Intel, AMD and Qualcomm.

Founded in 1993 by Jen-Hsun Huang, Chris Malachowsky and Curtis Priem, NVIDIA expanded from its roots in PC graphics into professional graphics and high-performance computing. Most recently, the company moved into mobile computing, where its system-on-a-chip powers a number of smartphones and tablets.(5,6,7)

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-6EFBlybD8

2. http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_20020111_5424.html

3. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/08/04/j-p-morgan-shows-benefits-from-chip-change/?mod=google_news_blog

4. http://www.top500.org/

5. http://www.slashgear.com/2011-the-year-of-nvidia-dominating-android-superphones-and-tablets-03168784/

6. http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-supertablets.html

7. http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-superphones.html

Nvidiaemployee (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Refresh begun

A number of the updates in the above "Proposed Refresh" have been made, as well as some additional edits to provide a general overview. I will continue to adjust and expand on this refresh with that goal in mind.

Nvcoms (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Supercomputer resource, with AMD

U.S. Plans Supercomputer Push by BY Shara Tibken in the WSJ October 12, 2011. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Invented the GPU in 1999?

That's an extremely misleading statement. And I don't think it's true. Nvidia may have coined the term, or have defined what requirements have to be fulfilled to call a hardware unit a GPU. I don't know. But it is very easy to show that there were graphics processing hardware units before 1999. Citing Nvidia's own press release as the only proof seems odd to me. --84.177.29.249 (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

100% agree, and I'm going to remove it. Even if it were true (and I think most people would agree that it requires you be very specific about the definition of GPU), it's not properly sourced. --98.254.202.225 (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on the lack of open source drivers

Speaking as a Linux user myself, I think there's entirely way too much emphasis on Nvidia's lack of support for open source drivers. The vast majority of users simply aren't going to care about this. If the section is supposed to be about the drivers, then the fact that (binary) Linux drivers exist should be pointed out. Optionally, one could point out that community-driven open source drivers also exist. If the section is supposed to be about Nvidia's support of Linux, the controversy can simply be summed up with a single sentence, such as: "Nvidia provides a binary driver for Linux, along with an obfuscated open source driver, which was the basis for the community-driven nouveau driver." If the section is meant to discuss Nvidia's drivers, in general, then I fail to see why it's so obsessed with this minor Linux controversy (except for the fact that most Wikipedians are probably also open source / Linux advocates). Seriously. I don't think we need to spend so much time on this, when it's only of interest to an extremely vocal minority (even if some of us happen to belong to said minority).

I wouldn't care so much, except that I've noticed a *lot* of people using Wikipedia as their soapbox. Wikipedia isn't the place for that. This is why I often try to avoid editing any articles in which I have a strong personal interest; it clouds your objectivity.

If nobody has any objections, I'll probably go ahead and rewrite the section, highlighting the existence of multiplatform, binary drivers, with community-driven open source drivers available for Linux. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)