Talk:GeForce 300 series

No mention of Nvidia CEO snafu

At a recent convention the Nvidia CEO claimed to have a working copy of a GT300 video card. Pictures of the card proved it was fake. Nvidia eventually admitted this and suggested the card was a mock-up. However, with no real benchmarks or details surfacing about the card, it remains to be seen if Nvidia really has anything. Why is this not mentioned in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annoyed with fanboys (talk • contribs)

While embarrassing, it's hardly note worthy. 74.178.246.47 (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It is EXTREMELY noteworthy. The CEO of the company told a boldfaced lie, that a non-working mock-up was a real working card, and arrogantly expected that his own consumers at a major electronics show would be too stupid to figure it out. Any rational, honest person who is sufficiently well informed on these matters can see that this situation damaged Nvidia's credibility.Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

That's nice. I don't think anyone cares is the thing. Hence not notable. But if you see a lot of notable publications running stories about it then you can add it to the article yourself, no discussion required. 74.178.246.47 (talk) 02:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to believe Nvidia, but the fact is they barely were able to get DX10 working in their own cards and skipped DX10.1 entirely. When the CEO comes out and says they've mastered DX11 technology and hands out a fake card saying its a prototype, its a sure sign Nvidia has nothing. Further, Nvidia's partners, EVGA and BFG are really starting to suffer. XFX has already started supporting ATI. Things are not looking good.Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 04:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Speculation

Um, this page does not appear to be well-written or accurate at all. The GeForce 300 series will be manufactured using a 40nm TSMC process according to NVIDIA. The 'details' on this page have not actually been released by NVIDIA as far as I know so they are just speculation. 67.41.25.70 (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect "AnnoyedWithFanboys" is actually Charlie Demerjian, a well known Nvidia hater who is often wrong and occasionally right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.108.240 (talk) 19:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that your speculation is baseless. This game is fun. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 03:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing good comes of gathering information about something and discounting everything one does not want to hear. Not only am I not Charlie, but I prefer Nvidia. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer Nvidia to ATI. That is why I'm a bit bent out of shape about what is happening with Nvidia (the Geforce 300 series in particular). My experience with ATI products has been that, while they are innovative, they are cheaply made, tend to overheat, and have very bad driver support. If Nvidia's CEO keeps up his behavior, ATI will be the only serious player in the video game card market. I do not want that to happen, but everything I see leads me to believe that (whether I like it or not) THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. Nvidia needs new leadership in the worst possible way. Otherwise, pretty soon the market will be saturated with overpriced DX11 ATI 5 series cards that run so hot they explode into a fire ball and have no drivers. Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

300/400 mismatch

The page is titled GeForce 300 Series and have several references to GeForce 400 Series. Only the last few days have come up with unofficial data from official sources (nVidia's Twitter, Facebook) about the 400 series, which is based on the mentioned Fermi core. 300/400 should be separated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.3.226 (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge with GeForce 200 Series?

Should this article (GeForce 300 Series) be merged into GeForce 200 Series, similar as GeForce 100 Series is redirecting to GeForce 9 Series? Pizzahut2 (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really worried either way, but IMO it should wait until the dust settles a little bit. Currently there's just the 310, so who knows what's going to end up being in the 300 series ... AntiStatic (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The correct thing to do was to move this article to GeForce 400 Series, but now it should probably just be merged with the 200 series article. I don't see any particular need to wait. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 18:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My worries with the wooden screws

I heard they are making the new cards out of wood or atleast the screws, but i learned in science class wood sets on fire when too hot, and my computer gets hot. what should i do ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.49.87 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You should troll somewhere else. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Having a video card catch on fire is actually a product feature and makes it more exciting. So, you have nothing to worry about (as long as you have home-owner's insurance). Annoyed with fanboys (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Wooden screws - don't be stupid!

There is little difference between some so-called GeForce 300 cards and the previous generation 200 cards. These are NVidias naming systems, and they are almost meaningless hyped up sales pitches. GPU's should be ordered by the core designs such as G80, G80b, G92, G200, G215... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.20.156 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)