You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In most cases, the current information (graphics card name and video memory capacity) does indeed reflect all the information many people need to know. However, as an enhancement, maybe we can output the specific chip model of the graphics card? This would be useful in some scenarios, because graphics cards with the same marketing name may actually have different chip models (for example, RTX4060 uses AD107 and AD106 chips to provide the same specifications, while Radeon RX550 uses two chips (Lexa PRO (also known as Polaris 12) and Baffin LE) to offer two specifications (512SP and 640SP)).
This makes providing more information (such as chip name and the number of stream processors) useful. However, there seems to be no universal method to obtain the accurate number of stream processors, so I won’t make any comments or requests about this. But in most cases, outputting the chip name should be possible. On Linux, lspci can usually do this. For example, the following lspci line indicates that this is an RX550 series graphics card based on the Lexa PRO chip:
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] Lexa PRO [Radeon 540/540X/550/550X / RX 540X/550/550X] (rev c7)
And (at least for me), lspci on Windows is also effective. I downloaded lspci for Windows from here, and it correctly outputted my graphics card model (Radeon RX6500XT) and the chip it uses (Navi 24):
Custom modules should be able to achieve this, but I don’t think it would be inappropriate to incorporate it as part of fastfetch. fastfetch is already capable of retrieving a significant amount of hardware information, this proposal aligns with your requirements (“We only accept hardware or system level software feature requests.”) and should be feasible to implement.
Additional context
I also tested this on a computer with an Intel integrated graphics card. lspci outputs the code name of the current integrated graphics card, which is similar to my goal of “outputting the graphics card chip model” (used to distinguish graphics cards with different chips but the same marketing name). I think we should do this for Intel integrated graphics cards. Here is the output:
Although I currently don’t have an environment to test Nvidia graphics cards, I vaguely remember that for Nvidia graphics cards, lspci also outputs the chip name.
(Sorry, I am using a translation service, so I might have inadvertently used an incorrect way to express my request. I hope you can understand and be tolerant of this. Thank you very much!)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I now realize that fastfetch might already be able to do this. But I hope everyone will point out which part of the Wiki when they send me RTFM, okay? The existing Wiki (honestly) is very confusing.
If your meaning is that the current fastfetch cannot recognize the chip name of the graphics card, do you have any plans to achieve this in the future? Thank you!
Description
In most cases, the current information (graphics card name and video memory capacity) does indeed reflect all the information many people need to know. However, as an enhancement, maybe we can output the specific chip model of the graphics card? This would be useful in some scenarios, because graphics cards with the same marketing name may actually have different chip models (for example, RTX4060 uses AD107 and AD106 chips to provide the same specifications, while Radeon RX550 uses two chips (Lexa PRO (also known as Polaris 12) and Baffin LE) to offer two specifications (512SP and 640SP)).
This makes providing more information (such as chip name and the number of stream processors) useful. However, there seems to be no universal method to obtain the accurate number of stream processors, so I won’t make any comments or requests about this. But in most cases, outputting the chip name should be possible. On Linux, lspci can usually do this. For example, the following lspci line indicates that this is an RX550 series graphics card based on the Lexa PRO chip:
01:00.0 VGA compatible controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] Lexa PRO [Radeon 540/540X/550/550X / RX 540X/550/550X] (rev c7)
And (at least for me), lspci on Windows is also effective. I downloaded lspci for Windows from here, and it correctly outputted my graphics card model (Radeon RX6500XT) and the chip it uses (Navi 24):
03:00.0 VGA compatible controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] Navi 24 [Radeon RX 6400/6500 XT/6500M] (rev c1)
Motivation
Custom modules should be able to achieve this, but I don’t think it would be inappropriate to incorporate it as part of fastfetch. fastfetch is already capable of retrieving a significant amount of hardware information, this proposal aligns with your requirements (“We only accept hardware or system level software feature requests.”) and should be feasible to implement.
Additional context
I also tested this on a computer with an Intel integrated graphics card. lspci outputs the code name of the current integrated graphics card, which is similar to my goal of “outputting the graphics card chip model” (used to distinguish graphics cards with different chips but the same marketing name). I think we should do this for Intel integrated graphics cards. Here is the output:
00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation TigerLake-LP GT2 [Iris Xe Graphics] (rev 03)
I also tested AMD integrated graphics cards from different periods, and there were no issues.
00:01.0 VGA compatible controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] Wani [Radeon R5/R6/R7 Graphics] (rev e2)
c1:00.0 VGA compatible controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] Phoenix1 (rev c8)
Although I currently don’t have an environment to test Nvidia graphics cards, I vaguely remember that for Nvidia graphics cards, lspci also outputs the chip name.
(Sorry, I am using a translation service, so I might have inadvertently used an incorrect way to express my request. I hope you can understand and be tolerant of this. Thank you very much!)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: