Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:35, 26 September 2022

Computing Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computer graphics Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

RTX 4080 12GB SKU controversy

There is no controversy, stop trying to manufacture fake one. 42.190.191.119 (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

please do not abuse your power to edit and remove content. if you can provide sources that rebuttal the claims of a controversy we will gladly listen but until then please do not attack the people trying to make sure this site is as truthful and neutral as possible. Td 19:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080/images/front.jpg https://www.techpowerup.com/review/nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080/images/gpu.jpg

GP104 was sold as 1080 class product, not the first time and won't be the last time 104 class GPU will be sold as 80 class card, again stop trying to manufacture fake controversy, AMD shill trolls that are extremely jealous of Nvidia's success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.190.172.10 (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

So I've seen plenty of tech sites reporting with opinion pieces and user comments on those upset with the pricing. I think there's a legitimate-enough claim there to be worth covering, assuming the sources cited are improved (plenty of better options from legitimate tech publications rather than youtube/reddit). That is also assuming others feel it is useful for the article to have a section on discourse surrounding the product in the first place.

My problem though is then going on to mention the reduction in CUDA core count, which ignores the massive clock speed increase over the 30 series (~900 MHz, while clocks were mostly stagnant from 10 -> 20 -> 30 series), and the reduced bus width, which ignores the massive L2 memory cache increase of literally 16x. My point being that these products are not yet released and it's pedantic and extremely speculative to point out spec changes that may not really affect the end product in any meaningful way. At the very least provide a more neutral "some sources believe that the reduced memory bus width is not in line with the card's branding." --Bobrocks95 (talk) 22:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with that it's still speculation at the moment whether all of this will matter once benchmarks get released, if it gets shown that it really doesn't matter that these certain specs matter in framerate then it should definitely be either reduced in how bad it was actually or just put as a footnote that this controversy at least happened TurboSonic (talk) 02:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

We don't interpret or weigh the value of coverage in reliable secondary sources, if it exists it exists. If there are contrary opinions they can be given commensurate coverage in due proportion. If in the long run it is just a footnote that is fine, but it's not our place to decide it is merely a footnote because we feel in retrospect that it was misguided. —DIYeditor (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

If valid sources are discussing the bus width, core count, etc. as an argument for the series being improperly branded (and thus overpriced) in their opinion, sure. It makes sense that the coverage would be even for Misplaced Pages- this is something being talked about pretty widely after all, even though it is speculative. The section definitely needs cleanup and proper citation though. Bobrocks95 (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're comparing the 30 series with the 40 series. The entire issue is within the series itself. And a massive reduction in the CUDA core count cannot be offset with higher frequencies of the 12GB SKU. We are just a few weeks away from reviews, so if the 12GB and 16GB SKUs have performance within 3% of each other, then this whole paragraph could be removed. As of now, it has caused a massive amount of negative press and comments. The title of this discussion is extremely derogatory BTW. I added the paragraph and I've been using NVIDIA GPUs since Riva TNT2. I wanted to be as unbiased as possible and added enough information to confirm the issue. If you hate the wording, you're free to change it but I see no issues with it whatsoever. It's just facts, nothing else. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 09:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I also agree that Bobrocks95's eliciting 30-series specs was almost completely irrelevant. Core clocks between 3070 Ti and 3080 were quite close together, and so are the 4070 12GB and 4080 16GB. The fact that numbers have increased proportionately over last gen is only more ammunition in favor of the controversy here. Just really bizarre logic. A metal shard (talk) 10:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

• Start-Class Computing articles
• Low-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• Start-Class computer graphics articles
• Low-importance computer graphics articles
• WikiProject Computer graphics articles