Difference between revisions of "Talk:NVIDIA"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Rebranded cards and driver versions: re)
 
(124 intermediate revisions by 28 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
== NVidia Quadro NVS Series (Notebooks) work with nvidia package ==
+
== TV-Out ==
  
All cards up from Quadro NVS 130M the NVidia Quadro NVS Series (Notebooks) work with the NVidia package (Linux Display Driver - x86 310.44 2.4.20, the nvidia package in pacman, https://www.archlinux.org/packages/?name=nvidia , as confirmed by the nvidia website: http://www.nvidia.de/Download/Find.aspx?lang=en&QNF=1 )
+
NVoption Online Version - great tool to make tv-out easy and fast
 +
 
 +
[I'm using gmplayer with gl and twinview]
 +
[http://www.sorgonet.com/linux/nv-online/]http://www.sorgonet.com/linux/nv-online/ {{Unsigned|01:23, 23 March 2006‎|Suw}}
 +
 
 +
:A user found this useful to get TV-Out working with an old Geforce 2 MX: {{AUR|nvtv}} -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 13:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 +
 
 +
== '/dev/nvidia0' Input/Output error... suggested fixes ==
 +
 
 +
Can anyone verify that the BIOS related suggestions work and are not coincidentally set (either automatically when changing the IRQ or turning off ACPI) while troubleshooting?  I have found little information that confirms any of the suggestions would work.  The file permissions thing seems to be completely unfounded and never works (as noted in the article) that I could find.  It would probably be a good idea if we cleaned out items that have not been verified to work.  For my setup I was having this error and none of the items in the wiki nor the many file permission search results worked. -- [[User:Clickthem|click, them so hard]] 19:16, 4 March 2012 (EST)
 +
:I've added an Accuracy template, please next time add it yourself so that discussions like this are more visible. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 05:40, 6 March 2012 (EST)
  
The 130M was issued in 2007, the 140M was build into the popular ThinkPad T61, so there will be quite a lot of people who have one of those.
+
== Run a test ==
  
All other cards in this series (110M and 120M) work with the nvidia-304xx package from the official repositories.
+
There is confusing paragraph saying ''You can run a test to see if the Xorg server will function correctly without a configuration file.''. IMHO, it should be clarified what kind of test the author has in mind, an exact command would be helpful. Currently, this suggestion is simply confusing, especially to less experienced users. --[[User:Mloskot|Mloskot]] ([[User talk:Mloskot|talk]]) 19:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  
== (U)EFI support ==
+
: It's strange. I agree. The link goes to the section for running X. After a beat, I realized you simply try to launch X. And in my case the screen was black. So the "test" failed. A better instruction might say to try launching launching X, and then provide the link which describes all the ways this is done--depending on your configuration. [[User:Xtian|Xtian]] ([[User talk:Xtian|talk]]) 22:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
  
I was told in [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=136807 this thread] that the proprietary nvidia drivers do not work with EFI (by what appeared to be a senior community member), and repeated attempts to install the drivers on a UEFI system have met with little success. As a result, I am placing the warning back. Apologies if this isn't in keeping with wiki etiquette!
+
== nvidia-xconfig ==
  
--[[User:Rsmb|Rsmb]] ([[User talk:Rsmb|talk]]) 02:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
+
Several of the commands which are suggested to be run with nvidia-xconfig (such as nvidia-xconfig --twinview) don't work with the current nvidia packages in the repository. I just went through setting mine up so I intend to clean up the ones that I can from my experience. Some don't seem to have a 1:1 replacement (there is a --dynamic-twinview argument now; is that the same as --twinview was?). [[User:Techprophet|Teh]] ([[User talk:Techprophet|talk]]) 13:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
  
:I had success using the nvidia driver on a efi system by adding 'nomodeset' to the kernel parameters. This prevents kms from loading, which causes a blank screen and is probably the source of the problems most users are seeing. X afterwards works just fine. I was able to play Doom 3 with a high fps rate :)
+
While it shouldn't be necessary to use xconfig to get nvidia working on X, creating a 20-nvidia.conf file is an integral step to fix screen tearing for people that suffer from that issue. Perhaps this section should have this explained and include a link to the nvidia troubleshooting article which contains the section about fixing screen tearing? --[[User:TheChickenMan|TheChickenMan]] ([[User talk:TheChickenMan|talk]]) 21:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
[[User:Davvil|Davvil]] ([[User talk:Davvil|talk]]) 10:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 
  
:I have also had no problems with the current proprietary drivers after I blacklisted the i915 module on an ASRock Z68 PRO3 GEN3 mobo and a Zotac 9600 GT 512MB video card.
+
:Troubleshooting sections link to the main documentation, not vice versa. Otherwise there would be no point in having separate troubleshooting sections. -- [[User:Lahwaacz|Lahwaacz]] ([[User talk:Lahwaacz|talk]]) 22:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
[[User:Polychoron|Polychoron]] ([[User talk:Polychoron|talk]]) 03:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 
  
:Blacklisting i915 also works for me
+
== Accuracy of driver selection ==
[[User:Davvil|Davvil]] ([[User talk:Davvil|talk]]) 19:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 
  
== XRandR support ==
+
[https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=189859 A thread on the forums] revealed that nvidia is more conservative in their suggestion than needed and checking their website tells you to use an older driver (nvidia-340xx) while the latest 'nvidia' one will do just fine. [https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1475567#p1475567 Gusar suggested] the removal of the second point in [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/NVIDIA#Installation the 'Installing' section]. Do we want to get rid of this potentially useful, although somewhat confusing info? -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] ([[User talk:Karol|talk]]) 02:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
As far as i understand it the recent drivers support XRANDR, which is probably much better than Xinerama/Twinview. Should we remove the Xinerame/Twinview instructions alltogether and just mention to use the standard XRandR methods for multiscreen setups?
 
  
== NVoption Online ==
+
:Well, I've [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=NVIDIA&diff=344863&oldid=344745 rewritten] the second point to make it clearer, I hope I got it correctly. However steps 2 and 3 there should probably merged into one, because they deal with the same problem, i.e. finding the correct driver to install. Maybe we could use a table? (just brainstorming). -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 03:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  
NVoption Online Version - great tool to make tv-out easy and fast
+
== Compositing ==
  
[I'm using gmplayer with gl and twinview]
+
I think it could be helpful for anyone that's still using X server to be guided on setting up compositing.
[http://www.sorgonet.com/linux/nv-online/]http://www.sorgonet.com/linux/nv-online/
 
  
== Reword ==
+
One way to update the Xorg.conf file to enable composition is to use the nvidia command line tool:
Maybe someone can put this in better words:
+
    # nvidia-xconfig --composite
Logging out, or switching to a different terminal using ctrl+alt+F<2-9>  consistently resulted in a black screen, and killing Xorg with ctrl-alt-backspace resulted in a terminal screen with only the top line visible. It turned out that  a 'vga=773' added to kernel line was the cause of this. After removing that the problem was solved. Probably something to do with KMS? B.t.w. I have only used x with 'startx', so possibly specific for that way of starting X.
 
[[User:rwd|rwd]]
 
  
:Was it with this driver or nouveau? The proprietary drivers don't have KMS. [[User:Thestinger|thestinger]] 17:42, 13 December 2010 (EST)
+
The other is to edit the file manually, as per the example below adding the Composite Option to the Extensions section of /etc/X11/xorg.conf:
  
This was with the proprietary driver.  I originally had put vga=.. because it made gave the bootup screen a  higher resolution, and because the beginners guide mentions it (https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Beginners%27_Guide#GRUB). Apart from leaving out the vga option, I discovered that setting it to the native resolution as explained on    https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/GRUB#Framebuffer_resolution  fixes the black screens as well.  Maybe a  warning for using vga= option with with proprietary drivers would be useful.[[User:rwd|rwd]]
+
    Section "Extensions"
 +
        Option        "Composite" "Enable"
 +
    EndSection
  
Well the thing is that vga= is meant for the proprietary drivers only - open source drivers already set the native resolution without a vga command. It can be removed from the beginners' guide though, since it breaks open source drivers, and if the card doesn't support the vga command, it breaks the closed source ones too. [[User:Thestinger|thestinger]] 20:13, 13 December 2010 (EST)
+
For those running KDE, to check if compositing is enabled they can run the following command, compositing information is at the end of the output:
 +
    $ qdbus org.kde.KWin /KWin supportInformation
 +
[[User:Esdaniel|Esdaniel]] ([[User talk:Esdaniel|talk]]) 06:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
  
== Nvidia 173xx ==
 
The nvidia-173xx package no longer exists (29 Oct 2011). 
 
  
Has it been replaced by nvidia-173xx-all? If so, this package hasn't been updated since Feb 2011.
+
== xorg-server 1.20 ==
 +
Seems with xorg 1.20 some nvidia packages are not supported anymore e.g. nvidia-340xx - no matiching ABI.
 +
Should we insert a warning?
 +
[[User:Ua4000|Ua4000]] ([[User talk:Ua4000|talk]]) 07:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  
Will it need to be updated to be able to use the latest xorg 1.11? 
+
== Rebranded cards and driver versions ==
  
In the meantime, please include instructions for which xorg related packages pacman should ignore.
+
Regarding [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=NVIDIA&diff=539407&oldid=530043], [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=NVIDIA&diff=545700&oldid=539407], [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=NVIDIA&diff=545790&oldid=545700], [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=NVIDIA&diff=547339&oldid=546100], and my own [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=NVIDIA&diff=547362&oldid=547339] (hit submit too soon without finishing my edit summary, sorry!):
:[http://mailman.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-dev-public/2011-October/021764.html] -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 21:14, 28 October 2011 (EDT)
 
::I commented out the info about older drivers, since they're not compatible with Xorg 1.11. Maybe if someone create the appropriate packages for Xorg 1.10 in AUR, then we could add back some info, but until it's misleading I think. --[[User:City-busz|City-busz]] 23:32, 3 November 2011 (EDT)
 
:::nvidia-96xx and nvidia-71xx are in the AUR, you can't use pacman to install them. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 00:03, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
 
::::You can't install these packages from AUR, because they requires Xorg 1.10/1.7, which is not available in official repos, nor in AUR. Once NVidia make them compatible with Xorg 1.11, then someone should add them back to the official repos. Another option is to someone create xorg-server-1.10, xf86-input-evdev-1.10 etc. packages to support these drivers. --[[User:City-busz|City-busz]] 01:31, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::You can use [[Downgrading_Packages#ARM|ARM]] or some other mirror that holds old packages and still use nvidia-173xx and older drivers. My question is, why did you put {{ic|# pacman -S nvidia-96xx nvidia-96xx-utils}} instead of "install {{AUR|nvidia-96xx-all}} and {{AUR|nvidia-96xx-utils}} from the [[AUR]]."??
 
:::::The latter still works with out of date packages while the former does not, because I'm not aware of any repo that has nvidia-96xx. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 09:06, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
 
::::::It's possible, but it requires further explanation (maybe in a new section). Simply install nvidia-* packages from AUR is not work currently. --[[User:City-busz|City-busz]] 10:20, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
 
:::::::And installing them with pacman does work? I still don't get this change. -- [[User:Karol|Karol]] 11:16, 4 November 2011 (EDT)
 
  
The following section was commented in the article. I am moving it here instead:
+
"GeForce 600 series cards and newer [NVEx and newer]" is generally the right description for cards supported by the current driver (410).
  
These drivers are not compatible with the latest Xorg release in the official repo.
+
But as noted, it is not completely correct: some very low end OEM cards are rebrands of older (pre-600 series) cards, notably: GeForce GT 610M, GT 620M, GT 630M, GT 635M, GT 640M LE, GT 615, GT 620, GT 630, GT 705(A), GT 730, GeForce 800(A) and some others.
  
:Whereas users with older cards should install (GeForce 5 FX series cards [NV30-NV38]):
+
However, most mid and high and cards from the 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000 and 2000 series are supported just fine by the current 410 driver. This makes the explanation given after[https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=NVIDIA&diff=547339&oldid=546100] misleading in my opinion.
:{{bc|# pacman -S nvidia-173xx nvidia-173xx-utils}}
 
  
:or (GeForce2 MX, GeForce3 and GeForce4 series cards [NV11 and NV17-NV28]):
+
I think we should keep the description as it was but maybe add some more notices about that some low end rebrands are not included, or alternatively, completely remove the mention of GeForce series cards and just point people to the Nvidia site and let them figure out this mess themselves (we also don't list supported Quadro or Tesla cards).
:{{bc|# pacman -S nvidia-96xx nvidia-96xx-utils}}
 
  
:or (Riva TNT, TNT2, GeForce and GeForce2 series cards [NV03-NV10 and NV15-NV16]):
+
[[User:Lonaowna|Lonaowna]] ([[User talk:Lonaowna|talk]]) 18:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
:{{bc|# pacman -S nvidia-71xx nvidia-71xx-utils}}
 
  
-- [[User:Pointone|pointone]] 10:31, 4 April 2012 (EDT)
+
Regarding [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=NVIDIA&diff=547362&oldid=547339],
 +
as you can see from this link [https://www.nvidia.it/Download/driverResults.aspx/138293] in the supported products tab, the 410 driver supports only the GeForce RTX 20 series, while all the previous cards work with the 390 driver, as this other link says [https://www.nvidia.com/Download/driverResults.aspx/137276/en-us].
 +
For example, my GeForce 970 card worked neither with the 340 nor with the 410, only with the 390, as stated in the Nvidia website.
 +
I think we should update according to what the Nvidia website says.
  
== custom kernel ==
+
[[User:Goldgoat|Goldgoat]] 12 ott 2018, 20.45 UTC
  
The package changed for kernel 3.0 and the instructions no longer work. Please fix this. [[User:Z.T.|Z.T.]] 09:14, 23 November 2011 (EST)
+
I think the 410 driver has only been officially released for the 2000 series, but it is definitely coming for the other supported series too. The 390 driver was branched a few months ago and put all pre-600 series cards in legacy support mode. None of the >600 series cards are listed as [https://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_32667.html legacy].  
  
== '/dev/nvidia0' Input/Output error... suggested fixes ==
+
For example take a look at [https://www.nvidia.co.uk/download/driverResults.aspx/137949/en-uk this 410.57] beta release of that supports all current (>600 series) cards.
  
Can anyone verify that the BIOS related suggestions work and are not coincidentally set (either automatically when changing the IRQ or turning off ACPI) while troubleshooting?  I have found little information that confirms any of the suggestions would work. The file permissions thing seems to be completely unfounded and never works (as noted in the article) that I could find.  It would probably be a good idea if we cleaned out items that have not been verified to work. For my setup I was having this error and none of the items in the wiki nor the many file permission search results worked. -- [[User:Clickthem|click, them so hard]] 19:16, 4 March 2012 (EST)
+
It looks like that is the same one that is currently distributed as the {{Pkg|nvidia}} package. I actually also have a GTX 970 card which works fine with that driver.
:I've added an Accuracy template, please next time add it yourself so that discussions like this are more visible. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] 05:40, 6 March 2012 (EST)
 
  
== Rewrite ==
+
[[User:Lonaowna|Lonaowna]] ([[User talk:Lonaowna|talk]]) 21:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I think the "Installing" section is a little ambiguous and could use a bit of rewording.  Because the steps are numbered, and little indication is given otherwise, it is implied that you need both the packages named like nvidia-173xx, ''and'' the regular nvidia packages.  I don't actually have my nvidia drivers working properly, so maybe I'm misinterpreting this, but if I'm right in assuming that you need ''either'' the specifically named drivers like nvidia-173xx ''or'' the plain ol' nvidia drivers, step 2 needs to be reworded.  I would suggest displaying two separate [code] blocks, one with # pacman -S nvidia-173xx nvidia-173xx-utils, and the one that's there now.  Then make it explicitly clear that you need to do one or the other, not both.  --[[User:Sotanaht|Sotanaht]] 18:45, 17 May 2012 (EDT)
 
  
Oh, I forgot that the nvidia-173xx drivers were not in the official repos.  Scratch the part about including the command for installing that. I still think it's important to make clear that people using the nvidia-173xx drivers ''do not need'' the regular nvidia drivers. Also make it clear that people using the regular nvidia drivers do not need any nvidia-XXXxx drivers.  --[[User:Sotanaht|Sotanaht]] 18:49, 17 May 2012 (EDT)
+
You are right, I didn't know about the beta versions. But I don't understand why my card didn't work with the 410 driver, maybe I downloaded an older version.
  
:Well, I've never had to use the old Nvidia drivers, but the note says that the old modules don't support Xorg 1.11 (Arch provides 1.12 now). Unless the situation has changed, those drivers are useless unless you also write instructions on how to safely downgrade Xorg. Please correct me if I'm wrong. -- [[User:Kynikos|Kynikos]] ([[User talk:Kynikos|talk]]) 11:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
+
[[User:Goldgoat|Goldgoat]] 13 ott 2018, 13.01 (UTC)
  
== Bad performance, e.g. slow repaints when switching tabs in Chrome suggestion broke emerald/compiz ==
+
So today they [https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NVIDIA-410.66-Linux-Released released] the first real stable version, which lists the 600/700/800/900 series and more as supported. (by the way, Goldgoat: if you're having issues with it you should open a bug report!)
Firefox performs quite poorly for me, so I tried this suggestion and it ended up breaking my WM. All new window borders changed to solid white and would not move around. Can someone else confirm? If so there should probably be a note or amendment to the suggestion. [[User:Biltong|Biltong]] ([[User talk:Biltong|talk]])
 
  
== Run a test ==
+
But back to what I meant originally: [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php?title=NVIDIA&diff=539407&oldid=530043 this edit] seems to be about the fact that the list [https://www.nvidia.com/object/IO_32667.html "The 390.xx driver supports the following set of GPUs:"] contains some low end 600 series card that seem to require that legacy driver and are no longer supported by the latest one. I'm not sure what to do about that. Any opinions about the options mentioned in my first post (keep note about low-end cards or remove GeForce series entirely)?
  
There is confusing paragraph saying ''You can run a test to see if the Xorg server will function correctly without a configuration file.''. IMHO, it should be clarified what kind of test the author has in mind, an exact command would be helpful. Currently, this suggestion is simply confusing, especially to less experienced users. --[[User:Mloskot|Mloskot]] ([[User talk:Mloskot|talk]]) 19:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
+
[[User:Lonaowna|Lonaowna]] ([[User talk:Lonaowna|talk]]) 21:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:26, 16 October 2018

TV-Out

NVoption Online Version - great tool to make tv-out easy and fast

[I'm using gmplayer with gl and twinview] [1]http://www.sorgonet.com/linux/nv-online/ —This unsigned comment is by Suw (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2006‎. Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

A user found this useful to get TV-Out working with an old Geforce 2 MX: nvtvAUR -- Alad (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

'/dev/nvidia0' Input/Output error... suggested fixes

Can anyone verify that the BIOS related suggestions work and are not coincidentally set (either automatically when changing the IRQ or turning off ACPI) while troubleshooting? I have found little information that confirms any of the suggestions would work. The file permissions thing seems to be completely unfounded and never works (as noted in the article) that I could find. It would probably be a good idea if we cleaned out items that have not been verified to work. For my setup I was having this error and none of the items in the wiki nor the many file permission search results worked. -- click, them so hard 19:16, 4 March 2012 (EST)

I've added an Accuracy template, please next time add it yourself so that discussions like this are more visible. -- Kynikos 05:40, 6 March 2012 (EST)

Run a test

There is confusing paragraph saying You can run a test to see if the Xorg server will function correctly without a configuration file.. IMHO, it should be clarified what kind of test the author has in mind, an exact command would be helpful. Currently, this suggestion is simply confusing, especially to less experienced users. --Mloskot (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

It's strange. I agree. The link goes to the section for running X. After a beat, I realized you simply try to launch X. And in my case the screen was black. So the "test" failed. A better instruction might say to try launching launching X, and then provide the link which describes all the ways this is done--depending on your configuration. Xtian (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

nvidia-xconfig

Several of the commands which are suggested to be run with nvidia-xconfig (such as nvidia-xconfig --twinview) don't work with the current nvidia packages in the repository. I just went through setting mine up so I intend to clean up the ones that I can from my experience. Some don't seem to have a 1:1 replacement (there is a --dynamic-twinview argument now; is that the same as --twinview was?). Teh (talk) 13:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

While it shouldn't be necessary to use xconfig to get nvidia working on X, creating a 20-nvidia.conf file is an integral step to fix screen tearing for people that suffer from that issue. Perhaps this section should have this explained and include a link to the nvidia troubleshooting article which contains the section about fixing screen tearing? --TheChickenMan (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Troubleshooting sections link to the main documentation, not vice versa. Otherwise there would be no point in having separate troubleshooting sections. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy of driver selection

A thread on the forums revealed that nvidia is more conservative in their suggestion than needed and checking their website tells you to use an older driver (nvidia-340xx) while the latest 'nvidia' one will do just fine. Gusar suggested the removal of the second point in the 'Installing' section. Do we want to get rid of this potentially useful, although somewhat confusing info? -- Karol (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've rewritten the second point to make it clearer, I hope I got it correctly. However steps 2 and 3 there should probably merged into one, because they deal with the same problem, i.e. finding the correct driver to install. Maybe we could use a table? (just brainstorming). -- Kynikos (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Compositing

I think it could be helpful for anyone that's still using X server to be guided on setting up compositing.

One way to update the Xorg.conf file to enable composition is to use the nvidia command line tool:

   # nvidia-xconfig --composite

The other is to edit the file manually, as per the example below adding the Composite Option to the Extensions section of /etc/X11/xorg.conf:

   Section "Extensions"
       Option         "Composite" "Enable"
   EndSection

For those running KDE, to check if compositing is enabled they can run the following command, compositing information is at the end of the output:

   $ qdbus org.kde.KWin /KWin supportInformation

Esdaniel (talk) 06:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


xorg-server 1.20

Seems with xorg 1.20 some nvidia packages are not supported anymore e.g. nvidia-340xx - no matiching ABI. Should we insert a warning? Ua4000 (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Rebranded cards and driver versions

Regarding [2], [3], [4], [5], and my own [6] (hit submit too soon without finishing my edit summary, sorry!):

"GeForce 600 series cards and newer [NVEx and newer]" is generally the right description for cards supported by the current driver (410).

But as noted, it is not completely correct: some very low end OEM cards are rebrands of older (pre-600 series) cards, notably: GeForce GT 610M, GT 620M, GT 630M, GT 635M, GT 640M LE, GT 615, GT 620, GT 630, GT 705(A), GT 730, GeForce 800(A) and some others.

However, most mid and high and cards from the 600, 700, 800, 900, 1000 and 2000 series are supported just fine by the current 410 driver. This makes the explanation given after[7] misleading in my opinion.

I think we should keep the description as it was but maybe add some more notices about that some low end rebrands are not included, or alternatively, completely remove the mention of GeForce series cards and just point people to the Nvidia site and let them figure out this mess themselves (we also don't list supported Quadro or Tesla cards).

Lonaowna (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Regarding [8], as you can see from this link [9] in the supported products tab, the 410 driver supports only the GeForce RTX 20 series, while all the previous cards work with the 390 driver, as this other link says [10]. For example, my GeForce 970 card worked neither with the 340 nor with the 410, only with the 390, as stated in the Nvidia website. I think we should update according to what the Nvidia website says.

Goldgoat 12 ott 2018, 20.45 UTC

I think the 410 driver has only been officially released for the 2000 series, but it is definitely coming for the other supported series too. The 390 driver was branched a few months ago and put all pre-600 series cards in legacy support mode. None of the >600 series cards are listed as legacy.

For example take a look at this 410.57 beta release of that supports all current (>600 series) cards.

It looks like that is the same one that is currently distributed as the nvidia package. I actually also have a GTX 970 card which works fine with that driver.

Lonaowna (talk) 21:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

You are right, I didn't know about the beta versions. But I don't understand why my card didn't work with the 410 driver, maybe I downloaded an older version.

Goldgoat 13 ott 2018, 13.01 (UTC)

So today they released the first real stable version, which lists the 600/700/800/900 series and more as supported. (by the way, Goldgoat: if you're having issues with it you should open a bug report!)

But back to what I meant originally: this edit seems to be about the fact that the list "The 390.xx driver supports the following set of GPUs:" contains some low end 600 series card that seem to require that legacy driver and are no longer supported by the latest one. I'm not sure what to do about that. Any opinions about the options mentioned in my first post (keep note about low-end cards or remove GeForce series entirely)?

Lonaowna (talk) 21:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)