Talk:Nvidia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.2.175.189 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 16 July 2003‎

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)

This article reads way too much like it was written for a tech website catering to the Mountain-Dew-drinking, l33t h4xor crowd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.198.234 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 14 June 2006‎

ati leads the pack? hardly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.229.228.244 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 17 July 2006‎

This page sounds like a giant add for Nvidia. 173.171.164.107 (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Disputed

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.

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)

Naming conventions

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?

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.82.141 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 16 April 2005‎

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)

what is the proper way to pronounce nvidia?

anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2005‎ 69.42.5.52 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 1 June

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.92.64.247 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 29 May 2006‎

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XPav (talk • contribs) 00:52, 4 June 2005

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

If you see misspellings you should fix them. 71.228.50.48 (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Possible Origin of name

In the Latin lists of the Seven Deadly Sins, envy is referred to as invidia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.80.136 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 20 September 2005‎

Same in italian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.26.194.146 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 10 February 2006‎

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. 216.228.112.21 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

xbox360

'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)

Language

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 ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.182.216 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 December 2005‎

NF3 mobile

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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.35.19 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 21 December 2005

I see no reason why not to. 71.228.50.48 (talk) 05:46, 29 September 2008 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bourgeoisdude (talk • contribs) 02:18, 25 February 2006‎

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)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This should be NVidia instead of NVIDIA to conform to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Due to technical limitations, the initial letter must be capitalizad even though it should be lowercase. -- Reinyday, 00:52, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

no! NVIDIA, should even be spelled

"Nvidia" or "nVIDIA"

>x<ino

I agree that it should be "nVIDIA" and "LEGO" should be "LEGO", but according to an irritating Wikipedia consensus, only the first letter gets capitalized, hence "Lego". However, it is also standard to respect the first letter being lowercase (as in "iPod") so it must be "nVidia" to conform to the guidelines. -- Reinyday, 05:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose The first letter isn't lowercase. You are basing that on the logo, but logos can be stylized in various ways that don't neccesarily correspond to their text counterpart (e.g. the computer manufacturer Dell has a logo that is stylized to use uppercase, but they refer to themselves as Dell). NVIDIA consistently refers to themselves as NVIDIA in text, with nVidia nowhere to be found on their website. If you want to make a case to move it based on the guideline that imposes "standard" English over a company wishes, then the case should be made for Nvidia. Either that, or it should be left at NVIDIA. News sources seem to prefer Nvidia or NVIDIA, with nVidia being least common.[2] --jiy (talk) 03:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  - You are right. I was basing my change on the logo. It cannot be left as NVIDIA; this violates the Wikipedia Manual of Style. -- Reinyday, 18:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Support rename to "nVidia", even though initial lowercase "n" will be capitalized. David Kernow 11:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose Recently, NVIDIA has changed the logo and with it also the way its name have to be written. It was changed from nVidia to NVIDIA. ILorbb 11:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"--jiy" is tottally right! That name "nVidia" is based on the logo, which the logo is spelled/designed: nVIDIA. Putting an article on full caps lock, isn't really right!

Anyway, I greatly support nVidia

>x<ino 14:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't get how you think I'm totally right yet support nVidia (unless you meant Nvidia and made a typo?). My point was that the all-caps NVIDIA is clearly the official, "legal" name of the company, as evidenced by all documents on their website. The only reason that lowecasing of the n (whether nVidia or nVIDIA) is somewhat popular and percieved to be correct stems from the interpretation of the logo. But logos aren't neccesarily what we should be basing this on -- we don't write about Dell in all caps and try to find an obscure unicode character that resembles the tilted E.--jiy (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, because using a full caps for an article name isn't really official! "NVIDIA"
Using a small caps for the first letter and rest of the letters full caps is just stupido! "nVIDIA". But this name is just the logo's design
Using small caps for the first and rest of the letters, but leaving the second letter caps is just plan crazy! "nVidia"

So I say, the name should be Nvidia. Prouncing the name is spelled "nVidia". While spelling it without prouncing the name is "Nvidia". But spelling it just like the logo is "nVIDIA".
So the real damn name is "Nvidia"

>x<ino 17:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose The preferred clear-text capitalization scheme according to the company itself is clearly NVIDIA as evidenced by numerous press-releases and self-references on their website. I trust the company's PR department has a better grasp of their own desires than does anyone else. Rename the article to Nvidia if need be for the sake of conforming to wikipedia style guidelines, but for no other reason -- and if so done, the article should state that Nvidia was chosen over NVIDIA because of technical limitations.

--Jorge1000xl 15:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This should not have been moved Nightstallion. If we look only at votes, including the nominator and closer, then it's a tie. I don't see how WP:MOS justifies moving to nVidia, either, specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks). It says "Trademarks which officially begin with a lowercase letter raise several problems because they break the normal capitalization rules of English that trademarks..." NVIDIA is not a trademark which officially begins with a lowercase letter. Their corporate website clearly indicates that the official trademark is fully capitalized. WP:MOS also says "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment." Perhaps that's a line of reasoning people want to follow. But we should not be applying it to an unofficial name, nVIDIA derived from the logo to reach nVidia. If it is to be applied, it should be applied to the official name NVIDIA, which yields Nvidia. If people want to argue for Nvidia I think it should be made a seperate vote. -- jiy (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I found it out!

This name is correct!, this article's name doesn't need renaming! If you actually visit NVIDIA'S site, you will see, that the name NIVIDIA, is in full caps lock when writing in text, but nVIDIA is written for the logo!

  March 30, 2006
NVIDIA Professional Solutions Capture Mobile Workstation Graphics Leadership

NVIDIA GeForce 7300 LE Available Now!
Bringing GeForce 7 Series GPUs to the Mainstream.

Now does this answer all your cheap questions and debate!?

The name NVIDIA is ok. It doesn't need renaming:P

>x<ino 15:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

I'm more accustomed to NVIDIA or nVIDIA. Wikipedia's style guide, albeit a dominant force, made cause incorrect assumptions and references for readers, whom should know that the correct, corporately accepted name is NVIDIA, or nVIDIa, as seen in its official logo. Gunbolt 00:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

While the title of their site does indeed say "nVidia", numerous items of text on the pages use "NVIDIA" contantly. - hitman012 00:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

NVIDIA Corp. had recently undergone a rebranding exercise during which their logo was changed to the new one as listed on this page and this was to emphasize the writing of "NVIDIA" in all caps. You see, according to the new logo, it's NVIDIA. rohith 06:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Conversation conclusion

The result of the discussion was to keep page at NVIDIA

Main arguments:

Majority of the people who took part in the discussion was of the view that since the company emphasizes the name NVIDIA, and not nVidia or NVidia or nVIDIA, the page need not be moved.
This article comes under the purview of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (companies), and not Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)

The discussion above 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.

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)

The article name is Nvidia and the names Nvidia and nVidia are seen in its contents, although the website consistently uses NVIDIA. I think the name in the article should be changed accordingly. --Goodrone (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

See the various discussions on this page and WP:TM for the reasons for its current naming. Keith D (talk) 00:45, 27 May 2012 (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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by War of art (talk • contribs) 06:57, 27 October 2006‎

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)