Talk:Graphics card

External graphicd

"fdngbnskugdbiubsdgusigdbsbdgisdgsdogbsogubsgbdsusbgusbgfuisdbguifsbudf a new external device.[12]" Who have decided that tomshardware is good source for wikipedia. The whole statement is just wrong. It is not even expected really. 34rjfvhrt4 4uihb ueyv kef hiwefbvwniervn ief grt4 gr eriteryutyhweiu gyrtuiubnvherdb

Max Power though a PCI-E bus

I thought that the PCI-E slot can provide 75 watts to a video card, and over that a 6 pin is required. The page implies that the socket can supply 150 watts and a power connecter is used for power past this amount. The citation shows that this is false and correct me if i am wrong this needs to be changed in the article. (Wikipedi 01:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC))

• 75watts is the maximum specified power draw for PCI-express

DDR2

I think it is a mistake to imply that DDR2 is only used on mother boards. Take a look at newegg.com. There are very nearly as many DDR2 video cards for sale as are DDR3. You should mention that DDR2 is most likely in use in far more video cards at this time than is the newer technology DDR3 and DDR4. In fact, judging from the systems I see for sale and the ones aqauntences buy, I suspect most current users have a shared memory architecture that uses system memory. I will guess that half or more of that memory is DDR, not DDR2. Please don't write from the perspective of an enthusiast.

RADEON is a series not a Manufacturer

I thought RADEON was a series of graphics cards not a Manufacturer. Am I wrong? It's in that table.--203.100.245.224 09:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No the Manufacturer is ATI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.123.201 (talk) 21:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Some contributions

Hi, I am a spanish wikipedist and after being working on the spanish version I have some contributions to this one. Please, be understanding with my poor English and help me to do it correctly. Thank you. Bedwyr 18:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Overclocking Wiki

I don't think this is a source worth linking to. Just adding back the link with the summary "readded link" doesn't help resolve the issue. Superm401 - Talk 02:14, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The link was to a site with information on how to maximize a video card's performance. It sounds perfectly relevant to me. This is the overclocking link that should be added. Dekard 13:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that it's only a minor wiki, with nothing really distinguishing it. Why should we link to this particular site? Superm401 - Talk 06:57, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not have a how to regarding overclocking video cards. Providing instructions and guidance is core to the mission of WP. If WP can't do it, at least link to someone who can. 68.233.187.80 14:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not supposed to do it (WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information), and we don't have to link to obscure sites that do. Superm401 - Talk 08:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Obscurity has nothing to do with the value of the content. The link is not in violation of any policy. This is a perfect example of content which doesn't fit WP but is useful to the reader. It stays. Dekard 13:26, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely the correct thing to do would be to put WP's own page on overclocking under See also, rather than an external link. Harumphy 10:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Definite instructions with download links and examples have far more value than a paragraph of overview. Its about providing specific help to the user. Dekard 13:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

AKA: graphics card

I put graphics card in there (at the very top) in the 'also know as' bit because someone asked me if a graphics card was the same as a video card and I figure its a common mistake. This makes it overall more useful.

Nice! There is also a redirect along the same lines so it should be clear that they are the same.

Woah...

I'd just like to point out that this page has quite a few spelling & grammar errors. I don't have time to fix them all, but somebody should look over this if they've got a minute. Cheezmeister 01:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Poorly written

This article is very poorly written, someone needs to simply redo the entire thing. This writing style does not fit the quality of Wikipedia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.171.96.192 (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

I said above that my english is far to be perfect. I encourage you to improve this article fixing mistakes or spelling errors. Anyway, I consider the contents and the style of this article perfectly valid for the Wikipedia. Bedwyr 20:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I second this notion, the article is very lacking of older technology and tends to focus on more recent developments in video card technology. There was no mention of older interfaces untill I added some. There is no mention of older VRAM and other video RAM schemes out side of contemporary static based GDDR and it's variants.

--Root Beers (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Bantilan Entertainment?

Just was looking over this article when I found the following paragraph within the opening lines of the article:

Most of the games of Bantilan Entertainment needs 512 MB Video memory to play their games. Geforce video card released their first 1024 MB Video memory to play the new release MMORPG 3D game of Bantilan Entertainment's Spider Fighting that was first released in Flash Format on Newgrounds.

Why on earth is this so important as to be mentioned in these opening lines?

Look at the history of the article and you'll see the attempts to vandalize it with that in the last days :) Bedwyr 08:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Narrow focus

No stuff on graphics libraries (speaking of that, no definition of "Graphics API" at all), no important, 2D techniques like blitting.

Seems to be written by a modern gamer with tunnel vision.

Please help improve. --Skypher 14:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you read the first line of "Graphics APIs" you'll see a brief definition; of course, you can improve that.

I'd be very grateful if you save contemptuous opinions :) Assumme good faith and things like that, you know...

Like I said above, I encourage you to improve this article. Bedwyr 21:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Raison d’être

Is this expression wrong? I'm not english native, so, maybe is it anything of "bad taste" to write it on account of being French? Is "reason for existence" the usual? I'd like learn about that. Thank you. Bedwyr 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

video card v graphics card MOVE

• Oppose video card is just as common if not more common than graphics card. 132.205.44.134 21:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Although I prefer graphics card myself, Googlefight says video card is the more popular term.[1] Can't see an overwhelming reason to move this. --DeLarge 16:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose For legacy sake it's been known as a video card. Graphics card implies 3D capabilities, a video card implies a video display functions. Older video cards like the first ones produced by ATi only had 2D capabilites. The term graphics card came to use when 3D was becoming more common. EX. NVIDIA 5200FX, Metaphorically- Phylum: Video Card Genus: Graphics Card Species: 3D GPU.

Piece of crap article needs so much work

This article needs a hell of a lot of work. When was the first graphics/video card? In the 60s or in 1981? Do games console have video cards or not? Is the XGA a card or loose standard? Really needs to start with a clear definition. Something along the lines of a separate computer system component held on a card, plugging into a bus, which (usually) holds video chipset, RAMDAC (in pre-digital days), video memory. If you skip out the 'card' bit, then any computer system that outputs to a screen has a video component, from way back in the 60s, the early computer consoles of the 70s (PONG!), the Apple I (notable for being the first home computer with a VPU), the VIC20, PET, TRS-80, etc...

Pretty sure that XGA was a 'made-up' term to follow in the path of CGA, EGA, VGA, SVGA. Come to it, I think SVGA was made-up, too. And these cards had a whole bunch of variations is speed, number of colours, amount of RAM etc. Does anyone here even remember ISA? Or when 256 colours was heaps for a PC.

If you want to talk about cards, then you are reduced to systems which use a plug in bus and cards, from early minicomputers through to delights as the Apple II, Amiga 2000, TRS-80 (some models), IBM PC, Mac II, SUN machines, digital VAX, SGi boxen... wow, lot of history.

Regarding the video/graphics terminology issue, I recall on olden days computers used in video editing that a graphics card was usually a card designed for output to a monitor, and a video card was a card used for outputting/processing TV/Video. These days, they are usually used interchangably.

And is 'analogical' really the word that we are looking for?

58.107.79.77 04:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some graphics techniques

Is the link titled "Some graphics techniques" really relevant? It links to some software download, not to information on graphics cards. Danielgrad 05:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think that with the images (and with the soft) people can notice some interesting effects :) Bedwyr 21:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not very comfortable with a link to some software download, but I just can't find a better alternative for the link... If I find anything, I'll be back! :) Danielgrad (talk) 12:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Outputs

I think the analog output connector referred to as SVGA should actually be called d-sub. SVGA is the protocol, not the connector, right?

Computer grpahics cards allow you to watch ducks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.46.108.136 (talk) 09:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

memory

whats the most amount of memory you can get on a AGP video card? is it 512mb or 1gb or something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pauldonald86 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure but my pc's graphic card only has 286 MB (only horrible part of the pc) and its only a year old its brand is Intel(R) G33/G31 Express Chipset Gamily. Pyrolord777 (talk) 00:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Updated page header bus listings

Added other bus topologies with video cards that fit. Matrox Makes PCI-X video, while VESA, ISA, and MCA are older forgotten about interfaces that had video cards for their bus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Root Beers (talk • contribs) 08:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

When was the last time the introduction section was updated? 1984?

There are a lot of extremely out of date things written in this article's introduction section. For instance, "Video cards are not used exclusively in IBM type PCs" IBM type PCs? Are those the devices people used to play vinyl records on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.158.67 (talk) 09:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that 'out of date' material is what is called history. Not out of place in an encyclopedia. IBM type PCs is about as good a way as any to refer to them. Any concrete suggestions for improvement? Zodon (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be something like "Video cards have been used to attach computers to displays since the introduction of displays." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.154.119 (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Description of Function

This article needs a section that clearly states how the average video card functions. 09:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DisplayPort source-side connector pinout.png

The image Image:DisplayPort source-side connector pinout.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:25, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup notice!

I've posted a cleanup notice until the 'other types of connections' section of this article is improved. Variations in spelling, capitalization, formatting and belief in what is and isn't a proper type of image have damaged the quality of this article. It shouldn't take long to fix. 24.60.183.239 (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

Some dufus pointed out that the broken infobox on the article by replacing the first heading in the article with something like, "THIS INFOBOX = FAIL". I cleaned up the obnoxious edit, but I don't know how to fix infoboxes. 68.95.127.111 (talk) 18:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Influence of OPENGL by Indigo?

Were 3D graphic cards influenced by OpenGL of Indigo workstations? According to my humble knowledge they were quite early in using a dedicated processor processing 3D graphics. Is it correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.74.100.134 (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Most SGI hardware used multiple processors that implemented a portion of the graphics pipeline. The InfiniteReality (circa 1996) is a good example of this. Rilak (talk) 11:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Graphics Processing Unit?

Suggestion: Merge with Graphics Processing Unit? Photographerguy (talk) 04:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

For what reason? They are very distinct topics. Rilak (talk) 05:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Advantages and disadvantages of a video card versus integrated graphics?

I assume there are a number of benefits (and limitations) to having a separate video card over an integrated GPU. I think it would be useful for the article to cover these advantages and disadvantages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.97.133.243 (talk) 15:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Add section about Shader Clocks

Nvidia cards have unlinked shader and core clocks. AMD have linked ones. Since this article only talked about core clock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.201.119.209 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)