Talk:Video Display Processor

This is the talk page of a redirect that has been merged and now targets the page:  • Graphics processing unit Because this page is not heavily watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:  • Talk:Graphics processing unit Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions.

Please read ALL COMENTS before attempting to challenge this as I believe the move is necessary, particularly my last coment on this page contained under "oppose merge"

I am in the process of merging this page into Graphics processing unit please do not attempt to edit any content in this page as changes may be destroyed in the merger. I suspect that Graphics processing unit will be able to benefit from your edit; if you wait until the merger is complete that would probably be best. See Talk: Graphics processing unit for more information. Eberhart 03:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

I propose we do this, in connection with the recently created graphics chips category (see also that cat's talk page). And we need to seriously expand this article, of course. --Wernher 04:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with renaming this to graphics chip, because the term that is used is Video Display Processor. In addition to that, graphics chip is now gone and redirects to GPU, which is most definitely not 100% the same. Grauw 20:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

I strongly oppose against such a merge. Although related, a modern-day GPU is absolutely something different than the VDPs of old. For example, a GPU is interchangeable and has many manufacturers, while a VDP is unique for every system and a technology of its own, which people know from inside out. The VDP plays a major part in the character of a system. It’s a fine line, but the difference is kind of like the different between a ‘micro computer’ or ‘home computer’ and a current-day PC. There are different terms for that, and rightly so.

Even if just for explaining that VDP is an abbreviation for Video Display Processor, and that it is an outdated term, used for a technology that has changed, this deserves an article of its own. Please let me know if that makes sense to you, and you agree. Grauw 06:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

That doesn't make sense to me. In the first place, VDP is not an industry-wide term. It's a term used by some manufacturers. Other manufacturers used different phrases. Generically, they are all "graphics chips" (although some may be more than one chip, and others less than one). Mirror Vax 06:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

But the article ‘graphics chip’ has been redirected to GPU not too long ago. I’m not particularly happy with that either, but was not really involved with that decision because I have programmed for the MSX, and have traditionally learned to use the term VDP. But from what I gather from your response here, Wernher’s request above makes sense. Although I say, if that is done, only move some content from this article to there, but not rename this article. As I said, even if just for explaining the abbreviation, and the fact that it’s not used anymore (and why) warrants the existence of this article. Your ‘It's a term used by some manufacturers’ could be added then, too. Anyways, with the new content I wrote for this article, what do you think now? Grauw 07:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Since GPU and VDP both mean "graphics chip", the question is obviously "should there be separate articles for new and old graphics chips?" I don't think that would make sense. I would argue that VDP and GPU should both redirect to "graphics chip". StuartBrady 08:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

This page should be merged into Graphics processing unit, please see the guidlines for a merger, items need not necessarily be exactly the same thing to belong in the same article and the finished merged article will be careful to make proper distinctions. I am in the process of completeing the merger and your comments will be taken into consideration. I believe the merger will be to your satisfaction and adequately represent the history of all such electronic components employed in the capacity of displaying an image on a display device of some variety. Eberhart 03:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't a distinction be made between the two components of a 'typical graphics chip' (i.e. a modern graphcis card).
That is the 3d/2d processor which will almost certainly be entirely digital and the device that converts the digital data into a composite/vga/dvi output (includes analog components at present). I think the article [Graphics processing unit] entirely refers to the former while the actual conversion to a signal suitable for monitor display seems to be totally forgotten (can't find a wiki article - don't know the correct name for such an electronic component).
It seems to me that the title [Video Display Processor] suggests the latter. However it is not entirely clear in the current text that this is the case.
Assuming this distiction is made I would oppose the merge.HappyVR 18:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Why don't we merge biplanes with jet aircraft while we're at it? I'm just making a point here: the days where the term VPU was used described a beast entirely different in kind than what we term a modern GPU. This article is historical in nature, or should be. It should refer to GPU or some other article for a technical account of a graphics procesing chip, and then continue to give its own account of what products and caliber of product this term designated among those who used it while it retained a niche in common parlance. No one ever described the visual output of pong or Space invaders graphical. Before Wolfenstein came along, most people had never even heard of a texture. What's texture mapping? It was after the advent of texture mapping that the term graphics processor began to gain ascendency. Before textures came along, it was just plain old video 90% of the time that anyone spoke about it. It's possible that some people referred to certain rather primitive sprite engines as graphical, on that point I can't recall. Also, there were no lighting models worthy of the description in the VPU/VDU days (unless you include palette rotators). And what about the vibrant arcade game industry? MaxEnt 10:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

The fact that this article is historical in nature does not mean it should not be merged. It belongs in the history section perhaps. For example biplanes and jet aricraft are both types of aircraft and as such could be both covered in an article on aircraft. They may, however, have their own respective pages in addition to the combined article. In this case Graphics processing unit is the all encompassing article that covers all such devices, including VDPs. At this time the article does not have enough content to stand alone and contains many redundancies. If in the future, after the merger, you wish to make a new, fully fleshed, article about VDPs, please do so and link to said article from the GPU article. Eberhart 03:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)Reply