Talk:GeForce 9 series

Proposed merger of all GeForce pages, remove boatloads of trivia

Wikipedia is not the place to list random trivia like the exact clock speed of each CPU, unless it has particular historical significance (e.g. a clock speed or memory bus width that had never been achieved before). There is a whole series of these GeForce articles which are mainly non-encyclopedic trivia. I propose to merge them all into one page, with a subsection for each “series” noting its technical developments, and eliminating the tables of trivial data.

This merger should at least include:

• GeForce 9 Series
• GeForce 8 Series
• GeForce 100 Series
• GeForce 200 Series
• GeForce 400 Series
• GeForce 500 Series
• GeForce 600 Series

Kerfuffler (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

G92 Not better than Geforce 8800 Ultra??

This is taken from one of the source articles, digitimes.

"Nvidia's G92 mid-range graphics chip is provisionally set to launch on November 12 this year, while the launch date of the entry-level G98 still remains unknown, according to sources at graphics card makers.

Nvidia plans to replace the GeForce 8800GTS series with the G92, while the G98 will replace entry-level products in the GeForce 8 series, noted the sources."''

G92 replaces GTS? Have i missed something here? Mid-Range?

90.241.17.164 17:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

G92 is the GPU codename, it's on several new revisions of D8P and D8E geforce 8 cards and the 9600GS and 9800GX2, but the main card it's associated with is the D8P or 8800GT; so really they're saying the 8800GT is replacing the 8800GTS. 8800GTX, GTS and ultra had G80 chips and have already passed their end of life.--KX36 (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

GeForce 9 Series

The GeForce 8 series lineup hasn't even begun to finish...perhaps I was a tad early with the GeForce 8 article, granted, but...wow, GeForce 9??? I think it is a bit too early even to bother with it at this point...anyone else's thoughts? Bourgeoisdude 00:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

New GPU models in each series are always introduced continuously. You started the article on Geforce 8 in February 2006, or 9 months before the product introduction, with one link to a rumor.[1] Shawnc 04:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This whole article is complete FUD, only sources are inquirer and fudzilla providing the crap and a Q4 2007 release date which makes no sense at all. I agree with Bourgeoisdude, the arrival of a Geforce 8 card was expected as the Geforce 7 was nearing the end of the cycle, but not all 8 series cards have been released yet and we already have have a GeForce 9???. These "sources" aren't even plausible . If we are going to leave a rumour up at least don't keep too many specifics.--Sat84 12:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

well i always like to talk about future tech(except fazors etc) its a good idea,and i am already waiting for reports about g80 or rv800

Yea, I agree with the dude above. And it's not like what we have on this article is completely false or anything, we have brought together all the information we are told at this time from different sites and so far this is all we know. The Q4 2007 estimate is a pretty good one, even though it will likely be pushed back a bit, because it is from industry insiders- its not like we just made it up. KittenKiller

Before I edited it there was a lot of nonsense now it's sorta ok. We may not have made it up but these sources are pretty dubious but I left Q4 2007 up there anyway, otherwise it was nothing--Sat84 08:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The enquirer got it wrong, this page is refering to the newly announced Geforce 8900 series

Umm guys Nvidia and ATI release a new graphis card every year. Uber555 20:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically the average time of release of a new generation between flagships is about 14-16 months. However I have reason to believe that the GeForce 8 series is here to stay for at least another 10 months because...

• ATI/AMD just released its new video card to compete with NVIDIA. Astoundingly, this is nearly a six month lead for NVIDIA. Therefore, the rush for a new generation, unless NVIDIA wants to be like Intel, isn't necessary. Also note that the HD 2900XT is designed to compete against the 8800GTS, not the 8800GTX.
• Thanks to Microsoft totally rewriting DirectX, it'll be a while before game designers adopt D3D 10 as a standard (because that requires the most of the PC gamer market to use Vista if they want to stay profitable). Since there's very few games that use D3D 10, and use it well, there's no need to make a new chip.

To be honest though, I don't think this article should exist anymore than a placeholder, which is a waste of space. I can trust the Inquirer's info about as much as I trust the tabloids on Men in Black.

-- XenoL-Type 04:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Native GPGPU? NATIVE GPGPU!?!?! Are you serious??? Those specs are complete garbage. There are literally dozens of such BS specs floating around the internet. At least the Inquirer dosn't make up pretend specs. Remove that crap please. If someone dosn't remove this im going to make a new account and do it myself.

I tagged the article having unreferenced sources, although some of that seems plausible, such as 1TFLOPS (G80 is 518 GFLOPS), 1 billion transistors (G80 is >600 Million), etc.

-- XenoL-Type 15:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the rant... I'm the person who added the 1 TFLOP part originally. The webcast that this was announced during was available on NVidia's website the last time I checked (i'm not sure if it's still available).

Alright, I cleaned up the article. Should only contain information that numerous credible sites keep saying (so far, the G92 codename, the 1TFLOPS rating and 65nm process). While it's highly likely that the G92 will be GeForce 9, it shouldn't be considered a fact since it hasn't been mentioned. Besides, all those sites don't even acknowledge the G92 as "GeForce 9". And also, to make one thing clear do not use the specifications from http://www.xbitlabs.com/discussion/3953.html. The posting is very informal, and sounds like something fabricated based on Moore's law and the R700 rumored specs, plus it lacks a source. Remember, if you are going to post something, rumor or fact, REFERENCE IT. -- XenoL-Type 19:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clean up. :) I do read the Inquirer sometimes, but I admit that it was a GOOD idea to remove Inquirer references. Few people trust them and there are some serious Wiki vs. Inquirer tensions going around right now. Something to do with some model...

Reverted page, sites are reliable as you have no right to say they are not because you think they aren't. Next time discuss first before you change something.

Most of the sites are reliable, but the information is not. First of the Inquirer is a tabloid. If you look at the article, it states no sources, says no place where it got its information, and all of its information is just assumptions based on past history. Second of all, the "leaked specs" for the G92 are in the same boat, no sources stated, no mentioning of where it was taken from, and of course, a good number of points are just speculative assumptions based on history. Also doing a Google run, any site that claimed they had the leaked specs all went back to X-bit labs. Whether or not these specs are true isn't what matters on an encyclopedia, but rather that it can be proven. I still don't even know if this article should be called "GeForce 9" because nobody has said anything about a GeForce 9, let alone NVIDIA in any official announcement stated they have chip called G92. I'm reverting back the article the way it was, you can change it when you understand how this site works.

I don't want to start e-drama here, but a random guy posting a discussion topic on X-bit labs doesn't count as an actual article posted by the X-bit lab's staff. This line pretty much gives it away as BS: "I have some info form NVIDIA insider about the upcoming G92 graphics processors". Read up on what a disclosure policy, or, from Disclosure: "In Company law (known as "corporate law" in the United States), disclosure refers to giving out information about public or limited companies or their officers, which might be kept secret if the company was a private company or a partnership.", I seriously doubt that anyone in their right mind working for a respectable company would risk their job just to leak some specs. -- XenoL-Type 4:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC) (last edit at 4:24)

It won't last though, for some inexplicable reason people keep adding random unverified specifications on and using dodgy tech tabloids to verify them occasionally. I mean some of it looks taken off the X360 GPU like the eDRAM die for "free AA". Im gonna have to watch this article more closely. I knew there was BS on it but not to that extent. Good job on cleaning it up--Sat84 13:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there some reason that the GeForce 9100 (NOT 9100M) isn't included in this page? Computers with the 9100 were sold as recently as August 2009 and it would be nice to find SOME specs for them SOMEWHERE online so that those of us seeking replacements would know what we could swap in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.189.77 (talk) 21:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

TheInquirer speculations

Please note that TheInquirer (or any other publication for that matter) never refers to any sources, and is pure speculation. Given TheInquirer's track record of predicting upcoming hardware, there's little chance any of the G92/G98/GeForece 9-series details are true. There's no point contributing to this page until Nvidia releases the official details, in which case the entire page will have to be re-written anyway. --Ghaib 13:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And you believe that reports from VR-Zone and any other sites (Beyond3D for example) also from "undisclosed sources" should be given more credibility than Inq's reports just the Inq is "given TheInquirer's track record of predicting upcoming hardware"? If you're concerned about the credibility of the source, than all reports who did not reveal sources should be removed (Including Beyond3D articles), and so far, I DO NOT see sites given out sources, but only one reference to the GM on analyst meeting, touting 1 TFLOPS performance for G92 only. If that's what you say, then this article is basically crystal ball, and the result, AfD, am I right? Oh, By The Way, if no published third-party sources were given in this article, this article is also qualified for AfD (Am I seeing a second nomination?). --220.246.210.29 12:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

PC Powerplay Australia 9800 Column

The column outlines that NVIDIA Claims as follows;

Three times the performance of the current 8800 series cards

• DX 10.1 Support
• Will contain 1gb of GDDR4 memory
• Made on a 65 nm process
• May require a PCI-E 2.0 Expansion Slot
• May be out by Christmas 2007

The article is on the 72nd page of issue 143, October 2007.

EngineFlux

Unless you can come up with a link to a page other than a wikipedia that contains the word EngineFlux, or can put forward a damn good reason why it should be mentioned, stop putting it back in. As of now, it's not even a RUMOR. 58.111.196.91 04:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Without a reference it will be deleted. This is consensus and it will stay until referenced content can be added. If the sock puppeteer editor from Chicago continues to vandalize the article they should be reported immediately to WP:AIV or WP:ANI and an administrator will block them. 142.167.69.56 23:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

engineflux was real. the two morons above should be banned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.67.166.146 (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

“Real” is not the question; “verified” is. Also, personal attacks are not appropriate. Kerfuffler (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Scrap the whole page?

This page is very G92-centric, but it now seems that G92 is not going to be the GeForce 9 series (it may in fact just be a cut-down, shrunk, slightly tweaked G80). Although FiringSquad forums are hardly a reliable source, there's some details at: http://forums.firingsquad.com/firingsquad/board/message?board.id=hardware&message.id=110268 So, I've ripped out the first line and the photo of the 8800 GT, since they don't seem to be relevant to a GeForce 9 article. The remaining speculation was, at the time, mentioned for the G92, though I'm leaving it in as it *may* be relevant to whatever the actual 9-series GPUs are. AntiStatic 06:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It is absurd. The only verifiable information on the article page doesn't even identify these products as "GeForce 9 Series". This should be merged back into the Nvidia article if and when there is an indication from Nvidia on whatever the GeForce 9 series is. The editors who wanted to cut and paste unverified speculation aren't helping Wikipedia. patsw 01:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be silly to scrap the page, as there will be a GeForce 9-series in the future, and then this whole article can be re-writtenAcasperw 10:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

(1) What is the objection to a merge? (2) The Wikipedia doesn't have "this article will have verified content in the future" articles. 18:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsw (talk • contribs)

Content merged into GeForce#Next generation. Update when NVIDIA discloses information on GeForce 9. 17:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patsw (talk • contribs)

G92 - Not GeForce 9 Series

Just to make this clear, the G92 card will be a 8800 GT wich will fall just behind 8800 GTS 320MB performance wise. Not a GeForce 9 Series card. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extremepilot (talk • contribs) 17:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There's been no official or varifiable release information about this yet so we can not say anything for sure or make absolute statements until there is a proper official press release. Danno81 08:35 GMT 11 October 2007

BTW, NVIDIA has been reported (ref: Fudzilla, take it with a grain of salt) to scrap the use of "Gxx" as development codenames, and change to something like this: "D8E". Which the D stands for Desktop, 8 is for the GeForce generation, i.e. Geforce 8 series, and the last letter: E stands for Enthusaist (in terms of performance, that is currently GeForce 8800 Ultra), P stands for Performance (8800 GTX in this case), M stands for Mainstraem (the product gap between 8600/8800GTS 320M, that's the anticipated "GeForce 8800 GT"), and possibly a V for Value (for GF 8 series, 8400/8500) though the final (and real) "D8E", "D8P" and "D8V" will be the successor of 8800 Ultra/8800 GTX/8500 respectively. However, these are just rumours, maybe NVIDIA still uses the "Gxx" codenaming convention which the the first member is of the best performance, targeting the higher-end segments (think of G96/G98/G100/G110 etc.)... --202.40.157.165 04:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Date?

The article now says it will be released in March and February, so which is it? 71.84.195.131 (talk) 15:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Quarter 1 could mean either. I would be inclined to say that the latter of the two. The Feb. 21st release date and march should be changed to 1st quarter 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.43.60.10 (talk) 03:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

How DX10.1 rumor got its start

Dailytech used them as a source in this article but somehow typed DX10.1 instead of DX10 as in the source. http://www.dailytech.com/NVIDIA+Details+GeForce+9600+GT/article10218.htm

then other websites started to quote dailytech: http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/01/04/geforce.9800.gx2.9600.gt/

then they started to quote themselves: http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/02/08/geforce.9300m.9500m.slip/

There are webistes with actual card review stating that its only DX10: http://www.pconline.com.cn/diy/graphics/reviews/0801/1205247_1.html

I am sick of changing it back again and again, so please stop changing DX10 to DX10.1 unless real new information proves otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baboo (talk • contribs) 07:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

9800 GTX specs?

About the 9800 GTX, I don't know if thats the real information or not, and we haven't heard an official announcement from NVIDIA yet. I suggest you remove that information. I've been hearing several stories about the specs, and plus those aren't very reliable sources that has been posted in this article.

I agree. If you read the comments section of both sources, the general consensus is that the specs are made-up, or don't actually represent the 9800 GTX at all. I'm going to remove the specs for the 9800 for now, as, let's face it, why would nVidia release a next-generation "high-end" card that's worse than the current-generation 8800GTS G92? Shralla (talk) 10:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

it has been released and the specifics, although not complete, are up to date —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti (talk • contribs) 13:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

9900(GT200)?

Can someone please post the available information on the GT200, it is relevant to this article. 139.142.154.129 (talk) 18:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like somebody has added this info, though the information being leaked at the moment is dire and limited. Not sure if the GT200/9900 series uses the GDDR4, I've been hearing they are going to use GDDR5 but who knows? Guess we'll have to see more information being released first.

k, I have never edited a wikipedia article and the source i have is not confirmed. In the future i will learn how to edit articles properly, but for now i'm just going to post my source here and let the rest of you people edit the article properly. I don't want to screw the article up and then somebody has to clean it up later. http://www.megagames.com/news/html/hardware/geforce9900launchaccelerated.shtml BlueBird05 (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

9800gx2 Released

Come on guys, the card's out already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.154.115.176 (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

corrected mem access rate

I don't know why the 9800 gtx memory rate was listed at 70.4 GB/sec; the article linked by the ref said 128 GB/sec. I changed it; please revert if this is wrong. I see 2200*256/8 = 70.4 ... this is sorta confusing.

Also, maybe it would be useful to list the memory rate divided by 60 fps, the optimal monitor refresh rate, e.g. 2.13 GB/frame assuming 128GB/sec. This number might be more relevant, as most direct3d/opengl apps redraw the entire frame every time.

[2] Go to specifications, 70.4 is good ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti (talk • contribs) 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Table-lize the GeForce 9M Series

Just a suggestion, would be nice if we can make a table for the mobile 9 series just like the other series for consistency. Probably a technical summary.

Someformofhuman Speak now! 08:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It will be done.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Should the portion of the 9M section that is not in table form be removed? It seems a bit redundant to have the exact same information in both list and table form. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, yeah of course. It's redundant to repeat the same information again. That's why I said we should convert it to a table instead. Say we can do something like this like what the GeForce 8 Series has done. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/GeForce_8_Series#GeForce_8M_mobile_GPUs. Someformofhuman Speak now! 23:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:GeForce newlogo.png

The image Image:GeForce newlogo.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. --00:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

9650M GT

9650M GT is now officially stated in Nvidia. Can somebody do this addition?

http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_geforce_9650m_gt_us.html

I'll try to find more sources if there are any.

Someformofhuman Speak now! 08:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

9650M GS

I'm pretty sure 9650M GS can go as far as 1024 mb? No sources at the moment. appart from http://www.komplett.dk/k/kcp.aspx?sku=380446&sku=374380&sku=392246&sku=361594&sku=381316. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.239.169.163 (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

9300M GS info wrong

The information on the mobile chip 9300M GS seems to suffer from copy/pasted info, that hasn't been properly updated. The page referred to at www.nvidia.com lacks any evidence for the claimed clock speeds. Further nVidia's info specifically states that the chip only has 8 processing cores. This seems to be a valid source for correct info regarding the chips capabilities: http://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-GeForce-9300M-GS.9452.0.html

--Faerloev (talk) 15:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OpenGL 3 support

If no one objects, I would like to update all the GeForce 9 (and GeForce 8, and GTX) page(s) to say that the cards support OpenGL 3, as nVidia has released a driver update to include full OpenGL 3.0 functionality on GeForce 8 and higher cards. source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandell (talk • contribs) 04:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why 9400M is missing?

I think 9400M mobile chip should be added into this wiki. Each Macbook(start from early 2009) would equip one 9400M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Css2002 (talk • contribs) 12:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

9600 GSO

There's a pretty large variation in the specs of these cards. There's 96 or 48 SPs, 128, 192, or 256 bit memory buses, GDDR3 and DDR2 memory types, and speeds are all over the place. Not quite sure how to put it nicely in the table. AntiStatic (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Geforce 9 old PCI ?

there is a geforce 9, for old PCI slot? GeForce 9400 GT GeForce 9500 GT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.214.229 (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

GeForce 9500 GS Broken/Missing Link

I've removed the following link & Description as it directed to a missing page:

Many GeForce 9500 GS with black fan covers are being recalled:

https://9500replacement.msicomputer.com/emea/default.aspx Efan78 (talk) 00:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)