Template talk:Infobox graphics processing unit

fab & process
Why is there: ? I have the feeling these are two variables for the same thing... Wikiinger (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "process       = GPU family's fabrication process"
 * "fab           = Fabrication"

product categories
I notice there are only entry through enthusiast product categories. I am thinking to add "Workstation" and "Data Center" (or maybe "Compute") product categories. This would help as there has cards like the Tesla/Radeon Instinct lines which do not fall into the current categories but are definitely GPU products. Thoughts (,, or )? Dbsseven (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am against introducing more marketing buzzwords into the Wikipedia. But I am sure, I will loose one. User:ScotXW t@lk 16:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree about marketing buzzwords. But products that don't have video outputs (Radeon Instinct, Nvidia Tesla) are definitely not in the same category as enthusiast video cards. (I think a similar argument could be make for workstation cards.) Dbsseven (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the 'entry through enthusisast' product categories are mainly used for the mainstream/gaming GPU lineups, so I don't think Quadros/Teslas/Radeon Instinct/FirePros fit into this discussion. Those GPUs should remain on their own respective pages, rather than finding their way onto the "mainstream" GPU pages. The only current exception is for the Volta architecture, since that's sort of a successor to Pascal and contains compute/workstation-oriented GPUs. Anyway, the main point of contention as you noted, is for the Titan cards (excl. Titan V). Personally I think it is suitable to class them as "enthusiast", because whilst NVIDIA may market them as compute-oriented, most of the time they're just heavily-overpriced higher code-name GPUs. For example the Titan X (Pascal) was just a $1200 1080 Ti. The newer Titan Xp is just a $1200 fully unlocked GP102 die. Whilst NVIDIA has shied away from marketing them as "gaming" cards, there's really nothing to distinguish them from normal Pascal cards that would make them more compute/workstation-focused, unlike Quadros/Teslas, which definitely have large differences to the GeForce lineup. At least the Kepler Titans had one-third double precision, so you could possibly argue they were compute-focused. If you really wanted to assign them a different category, I think "Prosumer" might work best, because Quadros are more workstation, and Teslas are more datacenter. The Titans are sorta consumer whilst also being workstation/datacenter, and the "prosumer" classification fits this niche I think. Anyway, just my two cents. Cautilus (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I see your points, and appreciate your thoughts. I like the "prosumer" suggestion a lot. I should note, this same infobox is used both on the the mainstream/gaming product pages (ie. GeForce 10 series), and the microarchitecture page (ie. Pascal (microarchitecture)) which should include Pro/Compute products. So that was the root of my point about workstation/server products.


 * Also, I do think we should be careful how we categorize products, and using sources rather than deciding for ourselves. I believe your note that 'NVIDIA has shied away from marketing them as "gaming" cards' is exactly why they should be recategorized. How a product is marketed/targeted is verifiable in reliable sources, and I believe better than inferring based on the same chip SKU. (In the same way, may Quadro products have the same silicon as gaming products, but are branded/marketed and categorized separately.) In particular, I recall a number of sources noting the relevance of "GeForce" being removed from the Titan X Pascal branding and shifting the product to explicitly a prosumer market. (And Titan X Pascal came out before the 1080 Ti, and introduced an emphasis on INT8 to compute products. So the 1080 Ti is really just a smaller memory, cut-price compute product rebadged for gaming.) Dbsseven (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox subheadings
I think that the "architecture" field should be repurposed as a subheading for the first section of the main infobox - that section currently doesn't have a subheading (but the sections below it all do), all of the fields within it describe the chip architecture, and (even though there is a separate "cards" section below) it looks strange to have an image of a representative card directly above e.g. "manufacturer: TSMC" - TSMC didn't make that fan. Or those capacitors. Just the chip on the inside! One cookie (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)