Misplaced Pages

Talk:GeForce 40 series: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:48, 31 October 2022 editArtem S. Tashkinov (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,063 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 04:12, 31 October 2022 edit undoLocke Cole (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers18,922 edits Products: fix links, replyNext edit →
Line 77: Line 77:
I've got an idea. We have so many data points and so few products it makes sense to reorient the table and swap the products with their characteristics, e.g. transpose columns and rows. It will make the table 10 times more narrow but a lot longer which will aid reading and understanding. Also all the product names can be shown vertically. ] (]) 03:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC) I've got an idea. We have so many data points and so few products it makes sense to reorient the table and swap the products with their characteristics, e.g. transpose columns and rows. It will make the table 10 times more narrow but a lot longer which will aid reading and understanding. Also all the product names can be shown vertically. ] (]) 03:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


I'm talking e.g. something akin to the this . I'm talking e.g. something akin to the this ].
Casting {{ping|AzureNeptune}}, {{ping|Purplneon486}}, {{ping|TurboSonic}}, {{ping|Rando717}}, {{ping|Alexysun}}. ] (]) 07:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Casting {{ping|AzureNeptune}}, {{ping|Purplneon486}}, {{ping|TurboSonic}}, {{ping|Rando717}}, {{ping|Alexysun}}. ] (]) 07:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


:''I stopped editing this article, ever since my last edit (when I moved price col and notes out of the way) was reverted with 0 explanations (so I can avoid making same mistake twice).'' :''I stopped editing this article, ever since my last edit (when I moved price col and notes out of the way) was reverted with 0 explanations (so I can avoid making same mistake twice).''
:But I do have one concern about vertical sorting.What happens when rest of the series is released eventually? :But I do have one concern about vertical sorting.What happens when rest of the series is released eventually?
:I assume it's gonna look something like this ]? If so are we saving any space at all? ] (]) 08:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC) :I assume it's gonna look something like this ]? If so are we saving any space at all? ] (]) 08:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


:: This looks fine actually. Besides, like I've already said, product names can be listed vertically. This table looks a lot better than what the English[REDACTED] has. ] (]) 01:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC) :: This looks fine actually. Besides, like I've already said, product names can be listed vertically. This table looks a lot better than what the English[REDACTED] has. ] (]) 01:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:: Casting {{ping|UKER}} as well. ] (]) 01:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC) :: Casting {{ping|UKER}} as well. ] (]) 01:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
:It looks better to me, and solves having to have vertical/sideways text to avoid having wide columns for small data points. I suspect it looks better on mobile devices too. —] • ] • ] 04:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:12, 31 October 2022

WikiProject iconComputing Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconComputer graphics Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
LowThis 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)
The section has been largely rewritten (not by me) and it now seemingly addresses all the concerns voiced in this discussion. Anyways it's WP, so you're welcome to contribute. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 18:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Products table: Launch next to Launch MSRP (rework proposition)

Maybe it's just me, but launch next to launch MSRP looks strange to read (first world problems, right?).

Launch Launch
MSRP
(USD)

How about:

A) We merge launch parts? B) Remove launch from MSRP and leave launch date (or (C) change it to release date)? D) Merge both into a single column? E) Change MSRP to price or move MSRP column behind TDP?

Examples:

A: Launch B: Launch
date
MSRP
(USD)
C: Release
date
MSRP
(USD)
D: Launch date
and MSRP
E: Launch Price
(USD)
Date MSRP
(USD)

Rando717 (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

1. IMO this should be two columns anyways, not just one because otherwise you won't be able to sort by price :-)
2. The launch price being at the end makes a lot more sense, why? E.g. the GeForce 20 series cards were not available at MSRP for almost two years due to the crypto craze. No one cared about the launch prices.

To be honest, I'd move both the launch date and price to the very end/right. Why? Because mobile users have very narrow screens and these two pieces of info are hardly important. Misplaced Pages normally lists products which are/were available at retail/etail, which means the launch date is not too important and launch prices are only relevant for US consumers. The rest of the world lives by different rules. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

1a. My initial so called issue was with repeating Launch word and merge suggestion came from Amd tables.On Amd's side modelname and code name columns are merged, also date and price, so 4 columns cut down to 2 (in width).
1b. As for sorting by price, mostly (but not always) products are sorted from entry-level to high-end (or vice versa) and price usually follows it.Only dates are not sorted, but you can still sort by dates or go back to by model/price. :-)
2. I agree with you, I am from Europe and for me MSRP doesn't have much of a meaning (but it's not the reason why i would move it), IMO something like TDP or memory size are more important than code name, date and price (or even transistors/die size).
At the same time those five are the first columns that show.
Also when looking at list of gpus, prices are on the right.Even looking back at the 20 series (since you mentioned it), price was on the right side, but somebody decided to move it left and create this 3rows/3colums "mess" (IMO).
3. As for moving date to the end(right), I disagree and only because of one reason.When we look at gpu, cpu, chipset tables...release (launch) date is always first (actually second) column behind modelname.It feels like unwritten rule or something.
Based on that moving the date to the right would look off (IMO).I am aware that you shouldn't copy style from other articles or force same style across articles.But it's second column always...so I don't know. :-) Rando717 (talk) 12:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Products

I've got an idea. We have so many data points and so few products it makes sense to reorient the table and swap the products with their characteristics, e.g. transpose columns and rows. It will make the table 10 times more narrow but a lot longer which will aid reading and understanding. Also all the product names can be shown vertically. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 03:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm talking e.g. something akin to the this GeForce 40 Ru Misplaced Pages. Casting @AzureNeptune:, @Purplneon486:, @TurboSonic:, @Rando717:, @Alexysun:. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I stopped editing this article, ever since my last edit (when I moved price col and notes out of the way) was reverted with 0 explanations (so I can avoid making same mistake twice).
But I do have one concern about vertical sorting.What happens when rest of the series is released eventually?
I assume it's gonna look something like this GeForce 30 Ru Misplaced Pages? If so are we saving any space at all? Rando717 (talk) 08:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
This looks fine actually. Besides, like I've already said, product names can be listed vertically. This table looks a lot better than what the English[REDACTED] has. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Casting @UKER: as well. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
It looks better to me, and solves having to have vertical/sideways text to avoid having wide columns for small data points. I suspect it looks better on mobile devices too. —Locke Coletc 04:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Categories:
Talk:GeForce 40 series: Difference between revisions Add topic