Talk:GeForce 700 series

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Computing / Hardware  
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Computer hardware task force.

Price Drops[edit]

Recently, the GTX 770 and 780 have received price cuts. The 770 has been dropped to 329 USD from 399. The 780 has been dropped to 499 USD. Source: Ace Sky (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

GTX Titan[edit]

The GeForce Titan will be part of the 600 series.

So, just to clarify, it is categorically italicnotitalic the 780 and italicnotitalic the harbringer of the 7XX series?
the titan is actually a series in itself, its nor 600 or 700 as far as I know, I would like to propose to make a new article labeled GTX Titan, using the info on the Geforce 700 Page since its basiacly gear towards the titan anyways, I don't want an article move because they a lot of redirecting will happen and it will make 700 series page useless. Matthew Smith (talk) 16:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

OpenCL 1.2 support? can you give a reference to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Lack of sources[edit]

The only two reference links on this page does not mention the GeForce 700 series with a single word. Given the release of the GTX Titan, and the apparent gearing towards computing rather than graphics, it does not seem likely that the geForce 700 series will have anything to do with the GK110. Basically everything but the mobile section seems to be unrelated and/or guesswork. If no one can provide some solid sources this article will be cropped heavily. EBusiness (talk) 08:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Big round of deletion done. It is still not a good article, it still lacks some sources and some better text, but is certainly better than a copy paste job of a marketing paper about a chip that may not even feature in the line. The section about the mobile releases is an attempt at striking a balance between providing some information on the released products, and not citing totally unreliable sources. EBusiness (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

GTX 770 and other unreleased cards.[edit]

Anyone with a slight insight into the graphics card market will expect a GTX 770 to be released soon, probably along with a GTX 760 or GTX 760 Ti simultaneously or shortly thereafter. It must however be noted that however qualified, these are guesses.

When it comes to specifications things turn way more sour. The tech sites have plenty guesses, but rarely any reliable sources for those guesses. The resulting article stream speaks for itself, only 8 days before release Toms Hardware for instance list the GTX 780 as having 2496 CUDA cores, 208 TMUs, 40 ROPs and a 320 bit memory interface [1]. And just 2 days before the launch they have finally figured the MSRP, though they got it wrong by $50 [2]. How can we trust information on GTX 770 or any other unreleased cards from sites that have mere days or weeks ago published false claims about the GTX 780?

Wikipedia is not a news site, and it is definitely not a rumour site. However cool it would be for Wikipedia to hold information about unreleased products, the truth is that there is no way we can reliably get such information, and simply repeating the rumour on Wikipedia makes it no less a rumour.

The verifiability rules have been broken over and over again when dealing with unreleased hardware, that is neither a reason nor an excuse to continue this practice. I know that there exist other articles stuffed with unsourced or weakly sourced information about the same topics, that is no reason to introduce the same information here, so please don't. EBusiness (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC) (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

760m-780m specifications[edit]

The official specifications for the new notebook GPU's have been released for a few days now and have not been added to the page.


Hy EBusiness. I have something to ask. As you say that anyone that want to know about GK110 can just read the whitepaper, should we just put the important bit of the whitepaper over here. I mean, wikipedia is a place for information and I doubt some people are liking this page empty about GK110 and can do nothing because of the lock you put. Cretman121 (talk) 09:48, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

You are quite welcome to expand the GK110 section, but do remember the editorial guidelines, we prefer 3rd party sources, and sources that actually take the time to digest the info in order to filter out the "marketing" that you are pretty much guaranteed to find in such a paper. Finding good sources is a big part of the job. Also, while a few extra good lines on the GK110 would certainly be welcome here, I'd consider a more elaborate writeup on the computing features to be a much better fit for the nVidia Tesla article.
If you want to contribute to a semi-protected article before you are autoconfirmed (aren't you autoconfirmed yet?) you can always post edit suggestions on the talk page. You can even copy whole sections into the talk page in order to make elaborate edits that can then easily be copied back. See also: Wikipedia:Protection_policy#Semi-protection. EBusiness (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I want to thank you for being so polite. Not everyone over here is like that. Secondly, I agreed with you every bit, writing GK110 compute capabilities on nVidia Tesla is the perfect fit since GK110 is a compute chip but as GK110 compute functionality information originate from here, pretty much everyone who reads it here will think that its gone. Finally, as GK110 spec has already gone public, I think its safe to say that most of the GK110 sources has already been distilled by tech sites that publish GK110 architectural detail. So I agreed with you the primary article for GK110 will be over nVidia Tesla like you said but will be supplemented over here. And yes I'm already autoconfirmed. Cretman121 (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

GM107, GM108, GM200, GM204, GM206[edit]

Since this article was written, where a section for GK110 was included, it appears the 700 Series has also included the Maxwell chipset. I noticed it lacking from the page when I went to look up the compute capability of my 750Ti and the only mention of compute capability is that GK110 would give it Capability 3.5. The Maxwell chipsets (GM107, GM108, GM200, GM204, GM206) give these cards 5.0 or 5.2[1].Enotdetcelfer (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(Edit request) The pixel fillrate for the 760 is calculated incorrectly.[edit]

As far as I can tell, the pixel fillrate should be 32 x 0.980 = 31.36 (rounded to 31.4 to be consistent with the rest of the table) according to "Pixel fillrate is calculated as the number of ROPs multiplied by the base core clock speed". I noticed this because it has the same amount of ROPs and a lower clockspeed than the 770 below it, and yet a higher pixel fillrate.

I'd edit it myself, but the article is semi-locked, and as I've never edited articles before (or posted on the talk page hah) I figured I'd let someone else do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

That is the problem with sources for unreleased hardware, the specs are now 50/50 based on two different sources that boast different clock rates, so it is not calculated incorrectly, it is calculated using a different clock speed. Part of me want to just remove the card from the list and wait for the official release, but I'd really hate to have to take that fight over what may amount to 3 days of slightly wrong information. And this time around at least there is a source listed (though it is hard to claim that a 3rd party source not mentioning in a single word how they obtained that information is highly reliable). EBusiness (talk) 09:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Please ban EBusiness and revert his vandalism[edit]

EBusiness has been vandalising the GeForce 700 page and thinks he owns it. He keeps removing external links and good info that others have added to the page. What the hell is wrong with Wikipedia supporting vandals and preventing people that actually care about good info being added from editing? Unsigned

Someone keep on removing the source references, I will not stand for that, any edit that does so will be reverted. As for the external links I don't see a lot of value in most of them, but if anyone believe that there is a few pages out there with special relevance for the subject I generally don't see much harm in adding them either. I have already explained that the old GK110 writeup is marketing text not suitable for Wikipedia. See also previous discussions on the subject. EBusiness (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
You are nothing more than a vandal that keeps on vandalising the GeForce 700 Series page for your own perverse thoughts. To everyone that can revert this vandal's vandalism, please do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Badmouthing me is one thing, that only makes you look stupid, but deleting my comments is a really annoying habit. If you want influence on the article start out with leading a sober debate. EBusiness (talk) 17:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I just turned down a spurious protection request from the IP at WP:RFPP (and will you start signing your messages? It's not hard.). For redundancy's sake, I'm copying my response below, since it addresses content and behavior.

    "No. First of all, this is, at the moment, more a content dispute than anything: your patently false claims of vandalism are personal attacks and if you don't stop making them I will block you. Second, Ebusiness actually is correct in their edits--they remove blatantly promotional language and information, they add sources, they remove a plethora of external links." Drmies (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

I will revert Ebusiness vandalism in January 2014 and there's nothing you can do, (Personal attack removed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit request) GeForce GTX 770[edit]

GeForce GTX 770 codename is GK104-425 according to Please add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RonRodex (talkcontribs) 04:27, 2 July 2013

I'm not really sure what to do with those numbers, the last part is a chip binning number as far as I can tell, but I have never found a description confirming that. And I have never seen an nVidia source even use them. As I see it, if an article relay such a number it should also have at least a rudimentary description of what it means, and I have found no source for that. EBusiness (talk) 10:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

OpenGL 4.4[edit]

OpenGL 4.4 support has arrived for GeForce 600/700,.. (Personal attack removed). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

GK180, GK110[edit]

Why are there no articles for GK180, GK110, GK106, GK104, etc? (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Because it has been deemed that they would be too redundant with pages like this, and would contain too little info on their own. That said I could see some valid arguments for making articles on chip series as they don't really map to the branding series. Starting approximately from GeForce 8000 series and AMD HD 5000 series the same chips tend to be sold branded as different generations. If you want to discuss making such a change I'd suggest starting on the Comparison of Nvidia graphics processing units and Comparison of AMD graphics processing units talk pages as you would be more likely to get comments from the people who would object to such a change, and therefore have a decent chance of settling the matter in a civilised manner before beginning the work. EBusiness (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

NVidia has never supported OpenCL 1.2[edit]

I'm not sure why this page lists OpenCL 1.2 support. NVidia has never shipped a driver with OpenCL 1.2 support, they stopped at OpenCL 1.1.

If you install the 319.37 Linux driver and query for the OpenCL version number you get the following

 CL_DEVICE_OPENCL_C_VERSION = OpenCL C 1.1  — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 

I think Apple forced them to support OpenCL 1.2 on Macs, but indeed until they have Win/Linux support it should not be written as 1.2 here. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

According to Microsoft, Direct3D 11.1 has to be complete in order to execute Direct3D 11.1 feature level[edit]

I've only edited it once, but Nvidia does not support Direct3D 11.1 or 11.2 fully. Microsoft says it has to support all of the features, and Nvidia is lying about it. Someone has edited it back, and I am on an edit restriction on not to revert it, so I went to the talk page. Nice to see someone edited back the OpenCL 1.1 as Nvidia does not support OpenCL 1.2, but Nvidia does not fully support Direct3D 11.1 feature level. --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 19:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Direct3D 12.0 support[edit]

Please see before you state that the GeForce 400, 500, 600, and 700 series fully support Direct3D 12 or DirectX 12. They do not support the full Direct3D 12.0 standard because that standard will support features that were not invented when those GPU series were built. Nvidia's blog was technically true but quite misleading. While those GPUs will run Direct3D 12, they will run that API at a reduced feature level according to the article I cited. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Transistor Count[edit]

why no transistor count? radeon's HD 7000 series shows transistor count (was comparing the Geforce 750 gtx ti to the Radeon HD7750 but couldn't find the transistor count) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadout mapes (talkcontribs) 00:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GeForce 700 series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:48, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Missing iGPU[edit]

Where is the GeForce GTX 775M? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:57, 21 November 2016 (UTC)