Talk:GeForce 800M series

Proposed Grammar Edit

I propose an edit to the final sentence of the final paragraph of the introductory section. I believe that the sentence "Nvidia expects three major things from the Maxwell architecture: improved graphics capabilities, simplified programming as well as better energy-efficiency compared to the GeForce 700 Series and GeForce 600 Series" could be improved by instead saying "Nvidia expects three major things from the Maxwell architecture: improved graphics capabilities, simplified programming, and better energy-efficiency compared to the GeForce 700 Series and GeForce 600 Series" as well as adding a period to the end of the sentence. If nobody objects before Noon, Pacific time on February 29th 2021, then I will consider this as accepted, and proceed to make the edit. Imachrismoose (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Edit war

• Kevinxucs (talk · contribs)
• 210.195.81.131 (talk · contribs)

The information about an ARM CPU shoud be discussed on this talk page rather than just reverting each other constantly. Per the three-revert-rule I should block you both already. If either of you makes another edit regarding this information (or the ref for Project Denver) I will block that person. You can both edit the article with other, unrelated info. Discuss the reasons for/against including the information here, on the talk page. Once an agreement has been reached, then the article can be updated to reflect that. James086^Talk 14:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

TSMC not cited as the problem in source link

This is for a dubious tag I placed about claims of problems at TSMC. The claims in the article are unsourced.

The source link only mentions TSMC once in the entire article, stating "Traditionally we’d see a new manufacturing node ready from TSMC to align with the new architecture". While this does assure that it is TSMC manufacturing for Nvidia, it does not specify any problem at TSMC. In fact, it rather does the opposite, suggesting that usually at least the manufacturer is already ready (so, one might assume that the problem really is Nvidia's). I don't want to get into the details of that, because I think you could find claims both directions — the gist of it as I understand it is that the problem Nvidia has is that the cost is too prohibitive for them to be first in line over at TSMC: Nvidia themselves have said as much, producing slides demonstrating the lack of price performance at 20nm. 108.45.79.90 (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I added that, and you're right it isn't sourced. I have read that it was due to the delays from TSMC, but all the articles I can find supporting that are speculating that it's TSMC's delays rather than basing it on a statement from Nvidia or the like. Since I can't find a reliable source, I removed it from the article. Good catch. James086^Talk 12:55, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be no products here yet?

Does it say 850? If not then it's not an 800 Series. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Nvidia is messing with model numbers. Maybe this page should be changed to GeForce Maxwell based cards. The article is incorrect the only Maxwell part is the 750 Ti, the 750 is not a Maxwell GPU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danjw1 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

800 numbering cancelled?

There's sources indicating that NVIDIA could skip the numbering series and call this generation GeForce 900. For now it's only a rumor and it's unclear what the scheme would be, so let's keep an eye on it until this is settled. --uKER (talk) 23:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

--somebody has updated the page to say nvidia has officially announced this, but their citation only points to yet another rumor page. probably needs to be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.245.108.36 (talk) 17:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on GeForce 800M series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020092055/http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110119204601_Nvidia_Maxwell_Graphics_Processors_to_Have_Integrated_ARM_General_Purpose_Cores.html to http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20110119204601_Nvidia_Maxwell_Graphics_Processors_to_Have_Integrated_ARM_General_Purpose_Cores.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130629025423/http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphics/display/20130412175120_Nvidia_Next_Generation_Maxwell_Architecture_Will_Break_New_Grounds.html to http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/graphics/display/20130412175120_Nvidia_Next_Generation_Maxwell_Architecture_Will_Break_New_Grounds.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)