This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Computing 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 Wikipedia. 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance). Computer graphics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics on Wikipedia. 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Quadro always has capabilities a few generations ahead of the consumer market.

The entire tone of the article is an overly slanted bias toward Nvidia's (purported) business-motivation behind the Quadro productline. While I won't deny the superior profit-margins on professional graphics card (vs consumer), there really is little technical content in much of the whole article. A lot of one-sided comments about preventing CAD-tool users from using commodity Geforce card, and forcing them to buy Quadro-level boards.

Regardless of how the Quadro originated (whether it really was just a money-grab attempt to go after the PC/3D workstation market that 3DLabs used to own), today, the fact is geforce cards perform significantly worse in professional 3D/apps; slower and often render with visual artifacts/errors. Whereas a Quadro card will underperform (vs a same-generation Geforce) in desktop 3D/gaming apps, quite significantly in some games (to the point of being slower than a previous-generation Geforce.) Whether it's all due to driver/firmware differences, or toggling different-hardware paths, or some combination thereof, I think the article needs to cover this aspect better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.57.184 (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you say they perform "significantly better", do they perform 600% better? Because the price difference between an FX3700 and a 8800GT is about that. If this article looks like it's saying that nvidia is "preventing CAD-tool users from using commodity Geforce card, and forcing them to buy Quadro-level boards", well that's because it's obviously the truth. 80.47.96.246 (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro_nvs_notebook_techspecs.html , the 140M only has a 64-bit interface. Klinky 17:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about filling this info in (ha ha!). Anyway, thoughts on this?

There was also a Quadro NVS card (with no number after it), if anyone can find details of it please update the page - Rythie 11:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the NV45 chipset.

This is a NV40 with integrated the HSI bridge.

Sorry for my bad english.

Bye.

I was thinking somebody could make a table of Quadro GO Graphics cards (for laptops). There is virtually no information on these.

I bought on ebay what is supposed to be a NVS 280, at least that's what the Windows Vista Beta 2 Nvidia Driver reports. But, with linux, lscpi gives "VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation NV37GL [Quadro FX 330 ] (rev a2)" So, is it possible that a NV37GL is used with a NVS 280, or did I get a slightly-better-than-expected card?

No the NVS 280 is a NV34GL for sure, i have had one. (same chip as gf fx 5200)

I've revised the history, the bad old info was a result of misinterpreting the following URL's which were used as reference in support of the false history, I'll describe here what these actually are.

http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_20010612_6668.html

http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_20010816_5612.html

The first link is part of a settlement and note that it is a Quadro 2 (second generation) it is the sugar coated version of one outcome of the lawsuit settlement.

The second link is basically a driver announcement, there was a lot of effort to get a standard ABI on Linux and Precision Insight were paid to implement the DRI framework (VA Linux were involved), and this is the outcome, it is only tangentially related to Quadro products and was later than the Quadro's arrival. SGI did ship a linux 'workstation' with this announcement, it was a fancy PC, nothing very differentiated from off the shelf PCs.

For future reference, VPro was the Odyssey on the desktop (Buzz chip), but the same name was used to market graphics cards that were vanilla NVIDIA reference designs on PC products and probably other products.

Last part of history on the SGI stuff is in there simply because of the material it replaced. It could stand to be removed.

Interesting. I stand corrected, though I'd like to know about this lawsuit. Where can I find more information? Dm-jp (talk) 00:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.254 (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

The beginning sounds a bit too much like an ad...

Fix? --Coolbho3000 15:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I added the 'inappropriate tone' tag, it's way too much like an advert. Tempshill 16:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add the Quadro plex someone, maybe make it a new article.--Coolbho3000 22:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if it is used for gameing will it be better then geforce?

Yes, there should be a section of the article discussing this, if a knowledgeable person would care to add it. What would happen if I tried to play advanced games using a Quadro? Would it even work? Tempshill 16:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section is absolutely vital. Quadro FX is some sort of an enigma as most people dont know much about it. Also, gamers frequently ask the question as to whether it should perform better in games than their Gaming counterparts. --59.93.200.144 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Bodhi[reply]

Yes of course it works; and the DirectX benchmarks are be the same within a couple of percent as for the equivalent GeForce. However, GL benchmarks are higher. Bodhi: mainly I see gamers asserting that it will suck, not that it will work better! --Nantonos 23:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't sound applicable for the page on the Quadro line of graphics cards. It's already listed in the table that some of the Quadro cards use GeForce chips. I'm tempted to revert the page. Alex 18:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nVidia lists the max wattage for the 350M as 15watts, vs 10 for the NVS 120M http://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_11761.html http://www.nvidia.com/page/pg_20060203980805.html

Also, the core/mem speed may need to be adjusted for the 350M. Dell lists it as 450/350. I will verify when my order arrives. Any information that would convince me that I didn't waste my money on the 350M vs the 120M would be appreciated :)

I was wondering the naming convention of FX, MXR, EX is their a specific meaning? I know PCX is a family of GPUs, but not exactly sure because I couldn't find technical documentation as seen in here. Does SDI here mean Serial Digital Interface ???＠＠??? --Ramu50 (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this page moved? The proper conventions for the company name is NVIDIA, at least from my impressions. I will look into this further, and possibly move the page back. Alex (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To respond as I mentioned bellow this goes against the WP:MOSTM. Also, can you specifically mention what convention stats that we should use the formatting that a company uses or that we are supsose to capitialise a name is a company does and where it is mentioned? I ask this because the only convention for comapnies that I know of the WP:NCCORP does not mention anything like that and that is nothing there that would contrdict that MOSTM which clerly supports the current name. --76.66.188.201 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it's stylized as nVidia or nvidia. RhebucksOnRyzen (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why it's so hard to find maximum operating temperatures for these mobile GPU's. They aren't listed in Nvidia's tech sheets. Anyone have the information? 97.85.185.160 (talk) 00:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know how the NVS3100M fits in? Lenovo sells them in the T410s but i am having trouble finding any real info about them.

PeterK2003 (talk) 19:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I think that we should add the new m5000m m4000m m3000m m2000m laptop series, don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill123456 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C53F:B9E8:CC8B:DE24:31FA:BFF7 (talk) 20:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

| Supported NVIDIA GPU Products reports dual DVI-I PCIe device 029b which I have is a "Quadro FX 1500M". Linux lspci identifies 029b as 'NV40GL (Quadro FX 3400/4400) (rev a2)'. Linux hwinfo --gfxcard identifies the 029b as 'Quadro FX 3400'. Neither Linux reports have a table match apparent. Mrmazda (talk) 21:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Nvidia webpage in some days — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.90.230.81 (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See slides in German message

https://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Profi-Flaggschiff-fuer-7000-Euro-Nvidia-Quadro-GP100-mit-16-GByte-HBM2-und-NVLink-3617609.html

New Quadro GP100 is not in Table, others done — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C53F:B9E8:5950:4C98:B5E8:505C (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A large part of the article reads like it was copied from a Chinese to English translation. Badly.

1) Only 128/256MB versions appear to exist. http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro_nvs_notebook_techspecs.html, https://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-Quadro-NVS-140M.4216.0.html.

2) Using TechPowerUp (same site as that given), my NVS 140M has a memory clock of 600MHz, not 700MHz. This clock can be altered by the OEM, so it's not clear what to put here. https://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-Quadro-NVS-140M.4216.0.html

3) It is reported as using GDDR3. It can also be GDDR2. https://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-Quadro-NVS-140M.4216.0.html

4) Memory bandwidth is reported as 9.6 GB/s, not 9.66 GB/s. (fixed, current cite states 9.6).

5) The graphics chip is reporting itself as PCIe 1.1x16, not PCIe 2.0x16. The nVidia site above just says "PCI Express x16 " http://www.nvidia.com/object/quadro_nvs_notebook_techspecs.html. Notebookcheck also simply lists "PCI-e x16." https://www.notebookcheck.net/NVIDIA-Quadro-NVS-140M.4216.0.html. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.74.25 (talk) 17:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quadro GV100 in pipe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C53F:B9E8:BD73:3CC1:F9E2:E41F (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only info I can find is Device ID: 10DE 1BB9 08321028

OpenGL 4.6 Fermi + Vulkan 1.0 Kepler +

Vulkan 1.1 also Kepler with Version 389+

See https://developer.nvidia.com/opengl-driver

See https://developer.nvidia.com/vulkan-driver

New Turing Cards in News — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.214.190.227 (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a Quadro M1200 in my laptop that I was trying to collect the information for to add to the info listed here. GPU-z shows the "boost clock" in place of where it used to show the shader clock. From reading around different places it looks like Maxwell based cards have the shader clock at the same speed as the core, so that should be left out, but there's no place to put the boost clock on the charts. DracoDan82 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I've made a partial revision to the GPU list table by adding recent models, but there's quite a few parts that are still incomplete or missing. However, I then discovered that there are another set of tables on List of Nvidia graphics processing units, being grouped by generations/architectures rather than bus type, and has a bit more information like fabrication process, fillrates, and cache size, while at the same time missing some others, as well as the equivalent GeForce models (although the latter is pretty speculative and merely based on the chip/core configurations). As such, I think it'd be better to use one table set from that article, but I want to see what others think on the way of implementing it between

• turning the tables into templates and transclude them on both this and List of... articles, or
• removing the tables altogether and direct readers to List of... instead.

NotCory (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]