Talk:Framebuffer

Colloquial Usage

On the 21st of October, 83.255.36.199 added an additional definition to the page that stated that "framebuffer" could be used to refer to any memory used for graphical storage. I attempted to clarify this as an incorrect usage of the term on the 14th of November. Presumably the same user posting from 83.255.36.148 reverted the change on the 17th of November, posting the challenge, 'Who are you to say that's "incorrect"?'

To clarify my stance, I am the original author of this article. I created it back in 2006 when I realized that the previous article was propagating the confusing definition that the unnamed user attempted to add to the article. I feel it is important that Wikipedia information be as correct as possible, and therefore I attempted to source the proper definition of a framebuffer as well as I possibly could.

From my original work, a number of Wikipedia editors have added additional sources and references to back up the precise definition of what a framebuffer is. Thus I feel that the definition of "framebuffer" as hardware is unassailable. A statement I am sure the unnamed editor will agree with.

What has not been proven is if there is any merit to the concept that "framebuffer" can refer to something other than a device that generates graphical output. From the majority of people I've spoken with, much of the confusion over this issue appears to derive from the existence of "virtual framebuffers"; devices that pretend to be a framebuffer device, but do not really exist. The article goes into some detail on these "fake" devices in an attempt to clarify their relationship to the physical devices.

That being said, I am not unopposed to mentioning the colloquial usage of the term. In fact, my most recent update changed the text to "colloquial usage" and attempted to explain the difference between proper usage and such "common" usages. If that is acceptable, then great! We're done! :-)

If my update is unacceptable to the unnamed poster, then I request that we open a dialog here and hash out what (s)he wants said, why (s)he thinks it's valid to add it, and what references (s)he wishes to use to source the statement. Per Wikipedia's guidelines, I'm sure we can come to an amicable solution.

Jbanes (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The whole article is vague, incorrect, and confusing. For example, is the article implying that a framebuffer is the same thing as video card, GPU, or PPU? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.96 (talk) 20:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Of the statements, "vague, incorrect, and confusing" the only one I can give any weight to is "confusing". The article has certainly changed over the years as a number of editors have touched it. Many of the changes are not cohesive and some are simply irrelevant. As for the other two, disagreeing with an article does not make it incorrect or vague. The article contains a very complete history of framebuffers going all the way back to Richard Shoup's experiments at Xerox PARC. The article may be different than how you've understood "framebuffer" your entire life, but that's what makes Wikipedia great! Articles get to provide the reality, history, and truth rather than opinion. That being said, if you see something that needs improvement, please improve it! That's why Wikipedia is here. :) Jbanes (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"The term video card can also be synonymous with a GPU."

I removed this line, as the terms 'video card' and 'GPU' each have a specific technical meaning, and conflating the two is, at least in my opinion, always an error. This was reverted by 174.141.208.112 without adequate explanation.

A practical note: the existence of video cards featuring multiple GPUs underscores the problem with conflating the two terms.

Comments?

Wootery (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Video cards are incorrectly called GPU's. A GPU or Graphics Processor Unit is a specialized chip. Where as a video card is a secondary 'daughter' board that connects to the main 'mother board' and whose primary purpose is to render video as opposed to physics cards and GPGPU cards like the tesla whose purpose is general calculations. Things to note is that many devices like cell phones and other embedded devices have the GPU built along side the CPU and Intel sometimes have a gpu built directly into the CPU itself.

Hicklc01 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Section "Page Flipping"

Here it states: This switch is usually done during the vertical blanking interval to prevent the screen from "tearing" (i.e., half the old frame is shown, and half the new frame is shown). This is wrong, maybe it is true on some platforms. But this line suggests that it is almost always the case ("usually"). It is not, in fact many people dislike the lag vsync introduces and on PC it is mostly disabled by default. This should be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.1.78.191 (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there really any difference between this and screen buffer?

The screen buffer article suggests there is a difference between that and a frame buffer. But it doesn't really say that, it contrasts itself with VRAM, which is odd. Worse, the provided references both clearly refer to buffers holding a full screen (in one case, ASCII data) and don't distinguish themselves.

I can imagine a difference between the two - one could buffer just a portion of the screen while the other is a full screen. However, if such a distinction exists I've failed to find any evidence of it.

If someone can offer a distinction I'm all ears, otherwise I'd like to merge the screen buffer here, leaving it as an "alternate term" definition and redirect.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no difference between the two. I vote to merge Screen buffer into this article. 104.228.101.152 (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2016 (UTC)