Talk:Nvidia

First sentence

On February 6, 2009, a Wikipedian changed the opening sentence from "The multinational corporation Nvidia (Nasdaq: NVDA, /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/), specializes in the manufacture of ... " to read: "Nvidia (Nasdaq: NVDA, /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/) is a multinational corporation specializing in the manufacture of ...". The previous version gave context and established notability in accordance with the guideline WP:LEAD. It provided a definition of the subject-matter and made the subject-matter the grammatical subject of the opening sentence -- once again complying with WP:LEAD. Why then abandon this well-structured sentence for a bland and plodding version which has doubled the number of verbs and given undue prominence to Nvidia's corporate identity at the expense of the reason for its notability: its products? -- Can we establish, on good and clear policy grounds, a consensus on an optimal introductory sentence? -- Pedant17 (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree with the change. The previous construction is too passive, and makes it questionable as to whether the subject is Nvidia or the manufacturing of graphics hardware. Here is the guideline: As a general rule, the first appearance of the page title should be as early as possible in the first sentence. (WP:BOLDTITLE) Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The version reading: "The multinational corporation Nvidia ... specializes in the manufacture of ... " has nothing passive about it: it expresses the subject and uses that subject actively. No question arises as to whether the the article deals with he subject "Nvidia" or with specialization or even manufacturing -- the heading and the bolding take care of that. We can satisfy the edicts of WP:BOLDTITLE on the positioning of the page-title by using a construction such as "Nvidia, a multinational corporation, specializes in the manufacture of ..." -- Leaving aside all personal opinions, I ask once again: can we establish, firmly based on the grounds of Wikipedia policies, a consensus on an optimal introductory sentence? -- Pedant17 (talk) 01:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Several weeks later ... for want of a response, I propose to enhance the opening sentence to use the "Nvidia, a multinational corporation, specializes in the manufacture of ..." format. -- Pedant17 (talk) 04:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing GeForce FX in chronology

Though somewhat amusing to see this, I want to raise the issue that between the "Market leadership" section that ends with the GF4 and the "GeForce 6 and later" section, there is no mention whatsoever of the FX (5000) series, which was one of nvidia's low points. Previous discussions above seem to indicate that there was content about the FX at one point, but this may have been removed. Please keep in mind that articles need to be NPOV and you cannot cherry-pick facts to include or exclude. The company's successes and failures both need to appear in the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

A section was indeed removed:[1]. This has been restored and edited a bit for NPOV. While it does need more sources, so does the rest of the history. Either remove the whole thing or leave this subsection in place. Otherwise, the article is biased because it only includes positive highlights from the company's product history. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Proper pronunciation of NVIDIA??

I'll ask one more time, very, very seriously: Can anyone cite a reliable written source which definitively says how the NVIDIA muckamucks intend for "NVIDIA" to be pronounced? For some time now, the article said /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/, but someone changed it just now to say /ɛnˈvɪ.di.ə/.

As I said several months ago (see Talk:Nvidia#The way it's meant to be pronounced? above), I am, personally, absolutely convinced beyond any doubt that NVIDIA's own pronunciation of its name (based on the audio of the animated logo at the start of a recent game) is /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/ ("inn-VID-ee-uh", with the first two vowels being identical). I know some other people seem equally absolutely convinced beyond any doubt that the correct pronunciation is /ɛnˈvɪ.di.ə/ ("en-VID-ee-uh"), and the only explanation I can come up with for this discrepancy is that those people's speech may have the "pin-pen merger" (please go read that if you aren't familiar with the term) — whereas my own speech does not have the pin-pen merger, and I therefore "hear" the pronunciation differently from some other people. Or, perhaps the person whose voice was recorded for the NVIDIA animated logo happens to speak a regional dialect with the pin-pen merger, and none of the NVIDIA execs have noticed or cared.

My first impulse, just now, was to simply revert the latest edit and put the text back the way it was before (/ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/). My second impulse was to leave it as it now is, but put a {{fact}} tag on the pronunciation until someone can supply a reliable source. But if no one can come up with a source, I believe it's better not to give any pronunciation until/unless it can be reliably sourced. Richwales (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the pronounciation but do wish to give you options on resolving this=

If you dont like editors using what they hear on commercials as a source then I suggest you bring this issue to either Wikipedia:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard and/or Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard as it seems concensus has been reached here and no one feels the need to discuss this anymore. But make sure if you do either one that you announce that you have done so here and to any editor's talk pages that would reasonably be interested in debating this from a viewpoint other than yours, such as those editors who commented in the two previous talk sections when this was brought up. To bring this to those noticeboards without informing the "other side" would not be seen as acting in good faith. It does seem that concensus has been reached that it is acceptable as the "en" at the front. In the case of a lack of sources concensus trumps the idea of removing unsourced material so I suggest that the article remain with the majority opinion and it is not removed nor changed until a further concensus is reached or reliable sources are found, removing or changing concensus approved material (sourced or otherwise) can be seen and labeled as vandalism. As a side note- written sources are not the only acceptable sources in Wikipedia, a commercial, properly cited, is acceptable. If someone emails the company and recieves an email back with the company's pronounciation that too is acceptable as a source. 148.78.249.33 (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally prefer /nəˈvɛdjə/. Bythepowerofscience (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Using advertising from a company is not a reliable source for how something should be pronounced, an example of this is Nissan where in some regions it is pronounced Nis and some say Ne. The marketing material reflects this. Dog777 (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

It's "en-VID-eeyah" according to their official logo guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chai T. Rex (talk • contribs) 06:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Moving Nvidia to NVIDIA

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was do not move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Nvidia → NVIDIA — Seriously, NVIDIA is the name of this company, not Nvidia --Harbinary (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#General rules, the clear (if not permanent) consensus and convincing support rationales at Talk:Nvidia#Requested move 2, and the Google archive search linked there. --an odd name 19:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. This has been discussed a couple of times before and my opinion stays the same, "NVIDIA" violations MOSTM and shouldn't be used. TJ Spyke 20:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• No - per MOSTM. --Admrboltz (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose if anything it would be nVidia. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 19:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Protection

Request protection for this page since Baseball Bugs is vandalising it.

If you want a page protected, take it to WP:RFPP. If you want to get blocked for personal attacks, keep calling me a vandal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

American/Taiwanese multinational corporation

How is nVidia American/Taiwanese?? --Aizuku (talk) 07:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Naming Conventions

I've looked through the history of this dispute, and the issue has been decided incorrectly in the past. Reliance on the MOS for trademark purposes is misplaced. As someone previously said, this article is about the company, not the trademark. The company's name, as filed with the Secretary of State, their own press releases and materials, and the overwhelming majority of new articles by professional journalists, is NVIDIA Corporation. It is not Nvidia or nVidia or any other variation. Another voter stated that Wikipedia should not be held to a company's typographical whims. This is also correct. We do not place articles according to the stylings used in the corporate logo (the mark around which a trademark is based)--but we do not alter the case of letters in official company names, either. We do not keep Microsoft at MicroSoft. We do not keep AMD at Amd, or BP at Bp, or WEGA at Wega (the letters don't stand for anything).

Considering the issue as a trademark one is simply incorrect. The matter is of placing the article at the proper place, following the proper spelling of the name. Time Magazine is indeed "Time Magazine"--as the unit of Time, Inc. Initialisms pronounced as a word for companies, where the individual letters no longer mean anything, are still kept in all caps, which is inconsistent with NVIDIA's treatment here. The issue is pretty straightforward: the company's name is fully capitalized, irrespective of trademark (wherein it is actually mixed-case), just like PNY (not Pny) and WESCO (not Wesco). It should be treated as such on Wikipedia. -- Dharadvani (talk) 23:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Manual of Style defines "tradmarks" as including "words and short phrases used by organizations to identify themselves and their products and services". The usage of the term "trademark" by 'NVIDIA® Corporation ("NVIDIA")' matches this: the company claims a plethora of trademarks, with varying upper and lower case, including: "NVIDIA, the NVIDIA logo, [...] nView" (but not "nVidia" or "nVIDIA") - see the "Trademark Information" legal notice at http://www.nvidia.com/object/legal_info.html retrieved on 2010-05-30. All in all. we can regard "NVIDIA" as a trademark - thus the Wikipedia rules on tradmarks apply, and we should generally use the standard English form "Nvidia" per previous discussion on this talk-page (most recently summarized at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nvidia#Moving_Nvidia_to_NVIDIA ). - Comparisons with initialisms like "IBM" hold less weight when dealing with a semi-initialism: we don't pronounce the name as "en-vee-eye-dee-eye-eh". Compare "pronounced not spelled" initialisms used as brands and as corporate names by (for example) Esso (for SO = Standard Oil), Sun Microsystems (from Stanford University Network), Nabisco (from National Biscuit Company), Sony (branded "SONY"), Fiat (not F.I.A.T.), etc. - Pedant17 (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The name of a company is not a trademark. A trademark is a mark used in identification on stylized marks--the printed images on products, packaging, letterhead and so forth, registered by the USPTO and having nothing to do with the formal name of the corporation. The name of the company is NVIDIA Corporation, as can be verified by filings with the Secretary of State. That has nothing to do with registered trademarks, which are handled by the USPTO. Your examples, including Esso and Nabisco, are not pertinent, because the corporate names were formally changed. Again, see WESCO--an article properly rendering the company name on Wikipedia, and WEGA--another such article, pronounced as a word, and abbreviating nothing. Sony, moreover, is not registered as a corporation under the name SONY, so that example fails as well. The logo typeface is not at issue; the only issue is the company's actual name, and since no one outside of Wikipedia uses "Nvidia", noting that technology journals properly render the name as NVIDIA within their articles, it is inaccurate to do so here.

The page is not located at the company's name, and it is both wrong and confusing. Pronunciation of a name has nothing to do with how it is written, and altering the case of a proper name because of some misguided use on inapplicable trademark styles is indefensible. --Dharadvani (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. As a former NVIDIA employee, seeing this page title has always driven me nuts. "NVIDIA" was even used internally, and all internal marketing (and non-marketing) guidance declared it the proper capitalization of the name. --67.185.151.148 (talk) 04:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I would have to oppose renaming at this time, citing MOS:TM#General_rules bullet number 3:

“

• Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules, even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official":
  • avoid: REALTOR®, TIME, KISS
  • instead, use: Realtor, Time, Kiss

”

See the older discussion link Pedant17 provided as well as another recent example here. Airplaneman ✈ 04:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Except you're applying English text formatting to non-English text. The Realtor, Time, and Kiss examples are all English words outside their trademarked context. Why does every use of NVIDIA then use the all-cap form in the article? Why is EVGA Corporation not "Evga Corporation"? Why does that very page link to the NVIDIA page in all caps? Or why is it ATI Technologies instead of Ati? Why is the iPod article display it's title with a lower 'i'? Why eBay? I can find more places on Wikipedia where the cited rule is broken rather than followed. For the three examples in the MOS you cite, the articles themselves follow a standard-English captalization throughout the article. It seems for this article we're all admitting that NVIDIA is the proper form, except for the title.

I think Dharadvani makes the best point. Nobody uses Nvidia. Not the press, not NVIDIA themselves, nobody. Except for the Wikipedia article's title. (not even the article content!) Why is that so special? To me Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules is a far better policy to be following here. Also, I think there's an interesting argument made earlier in this page questioning whether the trademark rule should even apply since not only is NVIDIA a trademarked form, but it's also the legal form of the name in the view of the California state government, in terms of official filings to the SEC, etc, etc. Would removing the little (R) after the name mean it no longer falls under MOS:TM? --67.185.151.148 (talk) 04:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

A brief Google News search for "nvidia" turns up about 90% of press sources referring to it as "Nvidia". ATI and EVGA are written as a series of capital letters (by Wikipedia and by the press) because they're pronounced as a series of capital letters; Nvidia is not. For iPods and eBay, Wikipedia is just echoing the style guide adopted by the reliable sources it uses; the first-letter-lowercase guideline at WP:MOS overrules the "general rule" about normal English capitalisation.

If you think policy should be changed, I'd suggest raising it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (trademarks). --McGeddon (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

On the current Google News page, 14 of 20 articles identify it as 'NVIDIA'--this varies by source, but all finance-related pages stick with the company's name as formally registered. I don't know how to say it more clearly than this: a trademark style guide has zero bearing on an entity's formal name. A trademark is a stylized rendering to identify source--it is often a stylized version of the entity's name, but in no case is that actual name rendered improperly. eBay and iPod are clear violations of the trademark MOS with no rationale. The reality is simple: the company's name is NVIDIA. Trademark MOS is irrelevant (the typical trademark style is nVIDiA anyway). --Dharadvani (talk) 08:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Open up a requested move if you'd like so more people can weigh in on this matter. You could also bring this issue up at Talk:iPod and Talk:eBay. I've given my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Airplaneman ✈ 01:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nook Color states '[...] (styled "nook color" or "NOOKcolor") [...]'. Perhaps a similar approach could be used here. --trevj (talk) 12:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation (again)

See earlier discussions of whether NVIDIA is pronounced /ɪnˈvɪ.di.ə/ or /ɛnˈvɪ.di.ə/. Until someone can produce a high-quality, unambiguous source to settle this issue, I believe the pronunciation needs to be marked with a {{fact}} tag. Richwales (talk · contribs) 02:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's "en-VID-eeyah" according to their official logo guidelines. Chai T. Rex (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

www.nvidiasettlement.com

Apparently there is a multi-million class action settlement, not mentioned on wikipedia. Link:[2]

69.203.111.61 (talk) 00:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

^ If I could bump this somehow I would, I believe this lawsuit is (was) relevant and should be included in this article. Dninyo (talk) 05:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Why I am not able to open the Nvidia web site?

By mistake I bought a Dell Vostro 3500 which it's graphic card is Geforce 310M. I am trying to upgrade my graphic card to open and use Google earth but something don't let me download a driver from Nvidia.com or Dell.com.

What's wrong to using Google Earth? any suggestion?46.100.50.123 (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

NVidia Online Store??

When has the Store been launched? No info! When has NVidia started selling software + games? Add info!! Naki (talk) 20:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation — YouTube video

Someone added a reference to this YouTube video of the NVidia logo, with a female voice whispering "NVidia", as a source for the claim that it's pronounced /ɛnˈvɪdi.ə/. However, the voice very clearly (to me, at least) says /ɪnˈvɪdi.ə/ — the vowels in the first two syllables are obviously identical, and it doesn't make any sense at all to me how anyone can possibly hear this sound sample and think it's saying /ɛnˈvɪdi.ə/. I know it would be WP:OR and unusable as a source here, but I'm strongly tempted to run this woman saying "NVidia" through a spectrum analyser program in order to show all of you that I'm not just hallucinating. The material on the pin-pen merger (which, for what it's worth, is not a characteristic of my own speech) may be relevant here. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:IPA for English#Pronunciation of Nvidia, on the theory that the people working there have been dealing with lots of different angles of the dialect-vs.-transcription issue (and, therefore, may hopefully have useful thoughts to offer on this question). Richwales (talk · contribs) 05:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's "en-VID-eeyah" according to their official logo guidelines. Chai T. Rex (talk) 06:14, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Full-Article Cleanup

I've skimmed through this talk page, and it seems like the biggest issue here is that there is just too much information for the average user to digest. For this reason, I have decided to embark on a full-blown consolidation edit. It will certainly take multiple edits and revisions, so if anyone is still interested in truly cleaning up this article, I would like to invite you to help me. Alright, time to dive in... Scrat (talk) 22:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Initial restructure and consolidation finished. After getting into the finer points of this article, I've discovered that many of the phrases and wordings used are not fully objective. I have likely removed most of them, but another revision will have to weed the rest out. Also, the long list of dates with very little coherence needs to be rethought. In short, lots of work needs to be done as of yet, but now the article is at least relatively short and easier to digest. Scrat (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I have both found myself and been shown that some of my previous revisions were a bit too harsh. I agree completely with this view, and as a result I have added back in what I hope to be the most important information about NVIDIA. We still need to add a certain flow to this article, as the list of dates is still a bit staggering. If you disagree and think that the article was better the way it was or should be longer, please say so; I don't want to be the only one working on an article for a multi-million dollar corporation without some sort of opinion or guidance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scrat9518 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed refresh

I am an NVIDIA employee and would like to propose changes that would correct out-of-date and incorrect information in this entry. I’m familiar with the Wikipedia guidelines, and want to ensure any changes proposed are accepted by the community. Below are a series of suggested updates on which I’d like your feedback and consideration.

I’d like to start with the introduction, which was flagged at the top of the entry as an inadequate summary. Explanations follow in brackets.

NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA); /ɪnˈvɪdi.ə/ in-VID-ee-ə)(1) is an American global technology company based in Santa Clara, California. [ Shortening for clarity. ]

The company invented the graphics processor unit (GPU) in 1999.(2) [ Highlighting a key milestone in the company’s history. ]

Today, GPUs are used in computers ranging from smartphones to game consoles to engineering workstations. [ Removing redundancy in current entry. Also, NVIDIA is in the process of exiting the chipset business. ]

Researchers and scientists use GPUs for high-performance applications and in supercomputing sites.(3,4) [ Adding key business segments. ]

NVIDIA offers four brands of processors: GeForce®, Quadro®, Tesla™, and Tegra®. [ Summarizing main product brands. ]

Its competitors include Intel, AMD and Qualcomm. [ More accurately describing the competitive landscape. ]

Founded in 1993 by Jen-Hsun Huang, Chris Malachowsky and Curtis Priem, NVIDIA expanded from its roots in PC graphics into professional graphics and high-performance computing. [ Describing the company’s evolution. ]

Most recently, the company moved into mobile computing, where its system-on-a-chip powers a number of smartphones and tablets.(5,6,7) [ Adding key business segment. ]

Suggested opening without explanations:

NVIDIA (NASDAQ: NVDA); /ɪnˈvɪdi.ə/ in-VID-ee-ə)(1) is an American global technology company based in Santa Clara, California. The company invented the graphics processor unit (GPU) in 1999.(2) Today, GPUs are used in computers ranging from smartphones to game consoles to engineering workstations. Researchers and scientists use GPUs for high-performance applications and in supercomputing sites.(3,4) NVIDIA offers four brands of processors: GeForce®, Quadro®, Tesla™, and Tegra®. Its competitors include Intel, AMD and Qualcomm.

Founded in 1993 by Jen-Hsun Huang, Chris Malachowsky and Curtis Priem, NVIDIA expanded from its roots in PC graphics into professional graphics and high-performance computing. Most recently, the company moved into mobile computing, where its system-on-a-chip powers a number of smartphones and tablets.(5,6,7)

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-6EFBlybD8

2. http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_20020111_5424.html

3. http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/08/04/j-p-morgan-shows-benefits-from-chip-change/?mod=google_news_blog

4. http://www.top500.org/

5. http://www.slashgear.com/2011-the-year-of-nvidia-dominating-android-superphones-and-tablets-03168784/

6. http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-supertablets.html

7. http://www.nvidia.com/object/tegra-superphones.html

Nvidiaemployee (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Refresh begun

A number of the updates in the above "Proposed Refresh" have been made, as well as some additional edits to provide a general overview. I will continue to adjust and expand on this refresh with that goal in mind.

Nvcoms (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Supercomputer resource, with AMD

U.S. Plans Supercomputer Push by BY Shara Tibken in the WSJ October 12, 2011. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Invented the GPU in 1999?

That's an extremely misleading statement. And I don't think it's true. Nvidia may have coined the term, or have defined what requirements have to be fulfilled to call a hardware unit a GPU. I don't know. But it is very easy to show that there were graphics processing hardware units before 1999. Citing Nvidia's own press release as the only proof seems odd to me. --84.177.29.249 (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

100% agree, and I'm going to remove it. Even if it were true (and I think most people would agree that it requires you be very specific about the definition of GPU), it's not properly sourced. --98.254.202.225 (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Marketing?

This article sounds like marketing collateral rather than an encyclopedia entry. Am I the only one noticing this? Kortoso (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

No you are not the only one to think this. But it is an endemic problem here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:75:F61:262:E477:A451:495F:56FC (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Too much emphasis on the lack of open source drivers

Speaking as a Linux user myself, I think there's entirely way too much emphasis on Nvidia's lack of support for open source drivers. The vast majority of users simply aren't going to care about this. If the section is supposed to be about the drivers, then the fact that (binary) Linux drivers exist should be pointed out. Optionally, one could point out that community-driven open source drivers also exist. If the section is supposed to be about Nvidia's support of Linux, the controversy can simply be summed up with a single sentence, such as: "Nvidia provides a binary driver for Linux, along with an obfuscated open source driver, which was the basis for the community-driven nouveau driver." If the section is meant to discuss Nvidia's drivers, in general, then I fail to see why it's so obsessed with this minor Linux controversy (except for the fact that most Wikipedians are probably also open source / Linux advocates). Seriously. I don't think we need to spend so much time on this, when it's only of interest to an extremely vocal minority (even if some of us happen to belong to said minority).

I wouldn't care so much, except that I've noticed a *lot* of people using Wikipedia as their soapbox. Wikipedia isn't the place for that. This is why I often try to avoid editing any articles in which I have a strong personal interest; it clouds your objectivity.

If nobody has any objections, I'll probably go ahead and rewrite the section, highlighting the existence of multiplatform, binary drivers, with community-driven open source drivers available for Linux. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if its needed. Fact is, AMD's so-proud opensource driver is very inefficient and AMD stated themself that they are providing inadequate amount of effort basing it on current(but not TARGETED) market value. That is, AMD is NOT interested in good opensource driver. Intel, on the other hand, just misses OpenGL4 support and their opendriver offers enormous performance. However the hardware is seriously lacking. So, currently, you have very famous situation - "Open, efficient, good hardware - pick two of three".77.11.56.164 (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you ever get around to fixing the section? It seems that there are still a lot of meagerly supported ("communities" when the cite is about one---admittedly influential---person) weasel / OR / POV phrases in that section. I don't understand how such bad reference support gets past a B-review. --Nczempin (talk) 00:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE, stop using this article as a soap box. Some of the "information' being posted in the damn summary is speculation on the part of a blog. Nvidia has not admitted some of the charges leveled against it, and, even if it had, mentions of its "restrictions" on Linux drivers in a specific x.org driver update do not belong in the main summary. Seriously, how many times do you read an encyclopedia article about Ford and see the first sentence discussing mechanics' opinions regarding the existence of a blinker issue in a 92 Torus? This stuff belongs in a forum flame war, not in a source of general information. --User:69.244.183.29 00:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Missing RIVA series?

Is it just me, or should the RIVA series of video cards be included in this article? Most notably, the RIVA 128 (Nvidia's first commercial success) is missing from the "Major releases and acquisitions" section. Similarly, the "Product families" section is missing the RIVA series (I can see the NV1 being omitted, as it was manufactured and released by Thompson; on the other hand, the RIVA series could've broken Nvidia after the NV1's failure if it had been a flop as well). -- Dok Jones 14:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Documentation

Recently NVIDIA published documentation of Device Control Block (DCB) layout in NVIDIA VBIOS. I cannot update the article due to COI but it might be good to update the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.78.148 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

COI doesn't mean that no one who e. g. works at Nvidia can contribute to articles. If all the statements are factual and supported by reliable secondary sources, no one will bat an eyelid if you happen to work in the Nvidia universe.--Nczempin (talk) 00:51, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Notability of "Nvidia imposes artificial restrictions" in lead section

An (alleged; it could also be genuinely different people, with coincidental similar behaviour and insistence on keeping this sentence in the lead) IP-hopping editor keeps adding in this bit to the lead section: Nvidia drivers impose artificial restrictions, like limiting the number of monitors that can be used at the same time.. I've pointed out in my edit summary that since this statement does not appear anywhere in the article, there is no reason to put it in the lead (perhaps other than by someone with an agenda?). I've reverted this and been re-reverted. The IP has not accepted my request to take it to the talk page, so I'm doing it now. Please note the section above, where a related concern has been voiced by an editor. What should be done about this? --Nczempin (talk) 00:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Totally agree. I don't know who is making the edit, but it does NOT belong in the lead section. I almost never edit wiki articles, but I moved that sentence to the free and open source software section. I had wanted to look up some quick Nvidia info (mainly where the headquarters is), and I immediately noticed this sentence and how out of place it was. Not only is it out of place, it's not even very credible. It's a blog post and is purely conjectural. Nvidia has not commented on the issue, and there's no solid evidence Nvidia did this for anything other than technical reasons. --User:69.244.183.29 00:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

References

At what point can you update processor/card families?

For reasons I wont go into I have had access to information about all the devices that Nvidia is due to release in the first half of 2015. It is critical to me that the Osborne effect doesn't happen, so I sat on the information for the last 6 weeks, however there has been leaks about two cards due out in approx. a weeks time. The information I have, confirms the leaks however as wikipedia is a matter or record I have assumed that I should wait for official announcemnets from Nvidia before releasing the data, am I correct in this? X-mass (talk) 13:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to add such information to Wikipedia, you should cite a reliable source. If there are no sources available, because you are the only one that knows, I think that it would be seen as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia.

TL;DR: if you can't add a source, don't add it. Lonaowna (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Slogan is out-of-date

I don't think "The Way It's Meant to be Played" is their slogan any more. The first google search result for that phrase is a press release from 2002. I don't know what their current slogan is, or if they have one at all. For now I'm just removing that field from the infobox. Jfmantis (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Vibrante

Vibrante is not notable on its own and will serve better when read together with Nvidia's page. Mr RD 17:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

No merge I believe first the article should be expanded rather than merged with the Nvidia page. It is also too specialized and would get lost in the main page. If merging the DrivePX page would be more appropriate. Dbsseven (talk) 19:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge The article is way to small and would probably have more "viewership" on the main Nvidia page.Pastorma (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No merge the article should be expanded, Not merged with the Nvidia page. It provides quick clarification for anyone interested in embedded operating systems, in-vehicle operating systems, etc. It should be treated in a similiar way as the Windows (Microsoft) operating system and the Android (Google) operating System. appropriate. Jjmeza (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

No merge Operating systems are independently notable. --Frmorrison (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

No merge As per above – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 01:07, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Finances

Can someone pls check the figures decimal point writing (dot or colon), in the chapter Finances ? Sums of trillions $ (colon) leave me with quite a little doubt. Or if correct, then maybe switch to write thousand-billions without decimal point ?

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 14-137-338-V19.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Nvidia logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Omniverse

Please, someone, describe the Omniverse service! --Nashev (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nashev: Can you provide pointers to media articles about the Omniverse? If there are articles, and if they are from media sites, or other reliable sources, then some text can be added to this article. - Dyork (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to switch Deep Learning Section into a Parallel Programming/GPGPU section

Nvidia's contributions to deep learning lie in CUDAs ability to parallelize linear algebra operations. Deep learning in a nut shell is a vast series of Matrix and Vector operations, a normal CPU gets swamped by these where as a GPU has more cores and other optimizations that can run these operations in parallel at a much greater speed. The section as it currently stands confuses that contribution to GPGPU/parallel programming with contributions to deep learning. While these two ideas are clearly closely related they are separate, in much the same way that the Linux Kernel being open source enables cluster computing but one wouldn't call Linux a break through in cluster computing. It's also worth noting that alot of the sources for NVidia's "deep learning" are actually discussing GPUs for ml, and NVidia is neither the only producer or GPUs nor is CUDA the only API for GPGPU, OpenCL for instance is an API which functions in much the same way, so quite a few sources such as the Economist article fall in reference to NVidia. The other advantage to renaming this section to Parallel Programming is that it would also enable cryptocurrency and bitcoin to be added to the article which are what spike the prices of GPUs not ml. 186.222.15.100 (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Promotional Section?

Looking through this article and the product families section really stuck out to me. Is this typically allowed without proper citations? X70Tons (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The issue is that the Nvidia article is of slightly lower interest amongst Wiki users, and there are a couple of ip address users who work in very close cooperation, so close that it could be confused for sockpuppetry who add the promotional stuff and then edit war to keep it in place. But because the article is of lower interest it tends to stick. I agree though that the article has some issues, the entire thing comes off as a bit of an advertisement. I've been chipping away at the Deep Learning section which started off just shy of suggesting that Nvidia invented Hal 9000 to what it is now. 186.222.15.100 (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The part about the 2021 GTC keynote also seems promotional and not noteworthy. Yannn11 19:06, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Given that this talkpage section was created by a sockmaster's puppet who liked to question article references' reliability, I wouldn't put my opinions with that guy's expressions.

If you have concerns about the 2021 GTC keynote section, you could refactor it for a less WP:PUFFERY-like iteration.--CrystalLemonade (talk) 19:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good, did my best to make it less puffery. Yannn11 22:10, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Hardware Unboxed Section Inclusion

Does a single bit of YouTube drama really deserve its own section on a company's wiki page? I would be fine with a general controversies section that includes the aforementioned incident but in my opinion it doesn't deserve its own main section in the article. --0x004d (talk) 23:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

To clarify, I propose that we merge Nvidia#GeForce_Partner_Program and Nvidia#Hardware_Unboxed_controversy into a single Nvidia#Controversies section. --0x004d (talk) 02:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Nvidia GTC

A new article Nvidia GTC has been WP:CONSPLIT off from Nvidia#GPU Technology Conference. The new article originally was set up to redirect to this article, but someone has tried to flesh it out into its own article. The editor who did so also has declared a COI with respect to the subject matter. This was a bold split made by a new editor who probably didn't fully understand what they were doing and was unaware of WP:PROSPLIT. Perhaps some others more familiar with the subject matter can assess things and see whether a stand-alone article for the conference is warranted. FWIW, most of the content appears to be new (i.e. not copied and pasted from this article) so there might not be any attribtuion issues to deal with. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

ARM Acquisition

On December 2, 2021, the FTC sued to block the $40 billion merger. FTC alleges "vertical deal between chip supplier Nvidia and chip design provider Arm would allow combined firm to stifle competing next-generation technologies." 77.124.54.20 (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Reuters, among others, now reporting that Nvidia's ARM buy-out is being scrapped, owing to regulatory concerns, and that ARM will instead be spun-off by SoftBank. Fallout from the failed acquisition includes a "penalty" payment by Nvidia of $1.25B and apparently the resignation of SoftBank's chief executive. This will need to be addressed in the article, soon, as well as other appropriate places. https://www.reuters.com/business/softbanks-66-bln-sale-arm-nvidia-collapses-ft-2022-02-08/ --HidariMigi (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Would it be alright if I were to take it from the lede and relegate it to the body? To me it seems like a failed acquisition doesn't really need to be in the lede unless there's a greater importance to the deal's falling through that I'm missing. Alcibiades979 (talk) 08:44, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Pronunciation, Spelling, Branding

For reference: https://images.nvidia.com/aem-dam/en-zz/Solutions/about-us/NVIDIA-Partner-Network-Brand-Guidelines-May-2020.pdf Can we move the page to correctly say NVIDIA not Nvidia?

Most articles on Wikipedia and the vast majority of third-party sources write "Nvidia". It's already made clear in the note at the very beginning of the article that the stylized proper writing of the name is in uppercase.

There is no need for a stylization throughout the whole article.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Bumpgate?

How has one of the biggest scandals to ever happen in the personal computer space not mentioned once anywhere on Wikipedia? I remember Nvidia having underfill and solder bump problems with the G86, G92 and many chipsets, the [3]xbox 360, and laptops from Dell, Apple, and HP?

More coverage here

There was a series of memes of people brutally burning up their 8400, 8600, and 8800 gt's while trying to reflow them in an oven. Nvidia tipped it's hand with a 8-K document they sent to the SEC. They knew they have a problem. There was a class action lawsuit and multi-million dollar settlement? Evil genius fin (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

"NV101@" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect NV101@ has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § NV101@ until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

"Nv1dia" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Nv1dia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § Nv1dia until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Writing Workshop

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2023 and 15 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DT2139, Lixiaotiannnnn (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by HaEvNa (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Revision in Section “Open source in software support” for avoiding original research

Until September 23, 2013, Nvidia did not release documentation for its advanced hardware, preventing the creation of free and open-source device drivers without resorting to reverse engineering.

Instead, Nvidia furnishes proprietary GeForce graphics drivers in binary form for X.Org, along with an open-source library that interacts with the Linux, FreeBSD, or Solaris kernels and the proprietary graphics software. Nvidia had also initially offered, but later discontinued, a concealed open-source driver limited to two-dimensional hardware acceleration, which was included in the X.Org distribution.

Dissatisfaction arose in free-software communities due to the proprietary nature of Nvidia's drivers, limiting features on certain platforms. Nvidia also provided an obfuscated open-source driver, discontinued later, which only supported two-dimensional hardware acceleration.

Due to the restricted design of the drivers, Nvidia graphics cards may lack sufficient functionalities on certain platforms and architectures. This limitation arises because the company exclusively offers driver builds for x86/x64 and ARMv7-A. DT2139 (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

High-importance Computing articles

Why is this article only rated as "High importance" in the realm of computing articles? Since Intel and AMD are both rated as "Top importance", I'd suggest that this article should be rated top importance as well. Maxeto0910 (talk) 05:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

As the one who most recently modified the WikiProject Computing importance scale, this seems reasonable to me. I have changed the rating, though it may be changed back if someone objects. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 17:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

This article is going to need a lot of corrections

I just skimmed Tae Kim's new book The Nvidia Way in Kindle e-book format (the e-book version is also available for limited preview on Google Books). At some point, someone is going to have to get the hard copy version, to get the right pagination for citations, and make the following corrections:

• The discussions in the Denny's in East San Jose about founding the company took place in late 1992, not 1993.
• It was Priem's headstrong personality which prodded his co-founders into moving forward with founding the new company, in that he suddenly resigned first from Sun after Malachowsky and Huang got into a deadlock over which of them should resign first (based on their wives' feeling that the other man should resign first), which made Malachowsky and Huang feel guilty and motivated them to follow his example.
• It was Priem who then declared one day by himself at home that they had a company, although it had no name, did not formally exist, and there was no one but him until Malachowsky and Huang finished leaving their existing employers.
• Priem coined the original name for the first product as GXNV, because it was going to be the "next version" of the GX chip he had worked on at Sun, and the NV part was also inspired by the NT for "new technology" in Windows NT. Plus the pun "GX envy" was nice. Then Huang told him to drop the GX to avoid a lawsuit from Sun and that is how the NV1's name was created.
• It was Priem, not Huang, who found the word "invidia" when they were looking for words with "NV" and thereby coined the name Nvidia.
• Once they had a name, it was Huang who hired a lawyer, James Gaither at Cooley Godward, who demanded the $200 in cash in Huang's wallet on the spot to capitalize the new corporation, and then Huang went back to Priem and Malachowsky to demand $200 from each of them. So the three men founded the company as equal shareholders with a total of $600 in seed capital.

Coolcaesar (talk) 08:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)