This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Ryzen on 14 February 2019. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was No support for a merge. |
|
||
1. About Thermal Solution: Is there a way to improve recently added Termal Solution column?
As of right now it takes good portion of space (e.g.
Template:AMD Ryzen 1000 series).
How about:
2. About Notelist (and NoteTag/NoteFoot):
Can we universally use only one type? Maybe only lower-roman or lower-alpha footnotes?
IMO some tables are a bit disorganized, plus there is extra space between two note lists (e.g.
Template:AMD Ryzen Mobile 5000 Zen 3 based series).
Also "note X" takes more space inside cells (e.g.
Template:AMD Ryzen Mobile 3000 Zen+ based series).
Rando717 (
talk) 18:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history of Template:AMD Ryzen 1000 series, as well as the cleanup tags once placed on this list article, I see that there is an intent to remove the pricing / MSRP of CPUs from the tables.
WP:NOTCATALOG has been cited as the reason for the removal of the pricing information.
I understand that Wikipedia articles should not list every single known piece of information about a product out there, that they should contain just the information that's relevant to the average reader / "makes sense" in an encyclopedia.
However, I believe the prices should be included as they have encyclopedic relevance, and don't break the "What Wikipedia is not" criteria above. Here's why:
The pricing of computer hardware and their components can change a lot over time, due to things like inflation, change in costs of materials, cost of manufacturing, and competition.
Having the pricing there tells us a "story" of how the pricing of the products has changed (or not changed) over the many years of new generations. For example, when Ryzen 5000 series came out, it increased the prices across the board (3600X $249 --> 5600X $299, 3800X $399 --> 5800X $449, etc) as AMD was able to do so at that time due to its "dominant" position over Intel as their processors were quite superior in performance to the Intel counterparts.
Another great example is the Threadripper 3000 and Pro 5000 series. Intel has been very lacking in this HEDT / workstation space lately, with the last release from them being the 10xxx series of Cascade Lake-X processors released in 2019, which only go up to 18 cores. AMD was able to charge $3990 for its 64-core Threadripper 3990X, because they were simply able to do so, due to this highly dominant position. And then with Threadripper Pro 5995WX they were able to charge even more money at US $6500, due to lack of competition once again.
On Intel side you have i9-9980XE $1979 --> i9-10980XE $979, they dropped the prices of the 10000 series HEDT processors due to the competition from AMD. It is also likely it has gotten cheaper to manufacture over the years, being built on the many-years-old 14nm node as before.
So yeah, I think the prices have relevance in an encyclopedic article, as they indicate ("tell a story" of) how relatively cheap or expensive the product was for its time, how things were at the time in terms of economics and competition. I did not know the Core i7-920 retailed for only 284 USD! I thought it was at least twice as expensive as that, given how powerful and advanced that processor was at that time.
On top of that, plenty of other tech product articles like ones on game consoles, and flagship smartphones also mention pricing of the product somewhere in the article. This has been done for at least over a decade now.
Also a quick sidenote: the edit on the Ryzen 1000 template by Evelyn Marie also removed HTML break tags from the header cells of the article. I have no idea why these break tags were removed. They make the table wider and less space efficient, there becomes an awful lot of blank space in the table cells and the eye has to scan the rows a much more distance / "arc" when reading the table row-by-row. For these reasons, I strongly believe they should be kept and not removed. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Common place to discuss layout and style of the Zen CPU tables at: Talk:List of AMD Ryzen processors.in it.
The <br /> tags are also just downright ugly and make the table harder to maintain.→ The same thing could be said about non-breakable spaces, convert templates, and vice versa. "It looks ugly in the source code" isn't a valid reason to remove it in my book. Forced breaks have been used in numerous AMD CPU and GPU, Intel product tables for at least over a decade now, without any complaints about them. I've seen plenty of other "ugly" looking source code in articles and templates I've edited in the past too, I've almost never seen anyone remove or 'tidy' them. At the end of the day what really matters is what's visible to the readers, not what's behind the scenes.
References
In response to that
this Template:AMD Ryzen 1000 Series edit:
As far as I'm aware, it is within the MOS:DATE guidelines. It states Only in limited situations where brevity is helpful
, but it also states in the explanatory footnote next to it, For use in tables, infoboxes, references, etc
. Tables are meant to be a compact, concise presentation of data aren't they? —
AP 499D25
(talk) 02:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
It's hard to track the logical separations without a TOC 96.234.183.171 ( talk) 01:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
one of the notes in the Barcelona-R section makes mention of a chip that doesn't exist. Apologies I'm not sophisticated enough to figure out how to edit that section :/ Evil genius fin ( talk) 05:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
AMD confirms Ryzen 8000G family doesn't support ECC RAM, but future Ryzen Pro 8000G family suppose to support ECC RAM, per article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Here is a list of all upcoming Ryzen 8000G (with GE) incl. Link to the original source. [1] 147.161.136.180 ( talk) 14:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
References
@ RM12
While it's true that the usage of start date and age templates don't take up much additional space in the tables, there is one big problem with them, which is that it breaks the sortability aspect of the table:
Take a look at Special:PermaLink/1215822199. If you click the release date column to change its sorting order, it sorts by the number of the day first, rather than sorting properly by time. The dts template previously used correctly does this, and that's the reason why it's used on nearly all the other list tables here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Just an FYI, @ Rando717 and @ Artem S. Tashkinov, I'm going to be making the following small changes to all the Zen-based CPU list tables:
These would bring the Ryzen tables up to the standard of List of Intel Core processors, where I have already implemented the first three changes throughout all the tables. Artem, I know I've discussed this with you already on your talk page, but I'm just letting you know I'm intending to make the same changes here as well. Rando717 and anyone else, if you have any thoughts, suggestions or objections to these changes, please feel free to leave a comment! — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for merging with Ryzen on 14 February 2019. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was No support for a merge. |
|
||
1. About Thermal Solution: Is there a way to improve recently added Termal Solution column?
As of right now it takes good portion of space (e.g.
Template:AMD Ryzen 1000 series).
How about:
2. About Notelist (and NoteTag/NoteFoot):
Can we universally use only one type? Maybe only lower-roman or lower-alpha footnotes?
IMO some tables are a bit disorganized, plus there is extra space between two note lists (e.g.
Template:AMD Ryzen Mobile 5000 Zen 3 based series).
Also "note X" takes more space inside cells (e.g.
Template:AMD Ryzen Mobile 3000 Zen+ based series).
Rando717 (
talk) 18:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the edit history of Template:AMD Ryzen 1000 series, as well as the cleanup tags once placed on this list article, I see that there is an intent to remove the pricing / MSRP of CPUs from the tables.
WP:NOTCATALOG has been cited as the reason for the removal of the pricing information.
I understand that Wikipedia articles should not list every single known piece of information about a product out there, that they should contain just the information that's relevant to the average reader / "makes sense" in an encyclopedia.
However, I believe the prices should be included as they have encyclopedic relevance, and don't break the "What Wikipedia is not" criteria above. Here's why:
The pricing of computer hardware and their components can change a lot over time, due to things like inflation, change in costs of materials, cost of manufacturing, and competition.
Having the pricing there tells us a "story" of how the pricing of the products has changed (or not changed) over the many years of new generations. For example, when Ryzen 5000 series came out, it increased the prices across the board (3600X $249 --> 5600X $299, 3800X $399 --> 5800X $449, etc) as AMD was able to do so at that time due to its "dominant" position over Intel as their processors were quite superior in performance to the Intel counterparts.
Another great example is the Threadripper 3000 and Pro 5000 series. Intel has been very lacking in this HEDT / workstation space lately, with the last release from them being the 10xxx series of Cascade Lake-X processors released in 2019, which only go up to 18 cores. AMD was able to charge $3990 for its 64-core Threadripper 3990X, because they were simply able to do so, due to this highly dominant position. And then with Threadripper Pro 5995WX they were able to charge even more money at US $6500, due to lack of competition once again.
On Intel side you have i9-9980XE $1979 --> i9-10980XE $979, they dropped the prices of the 10000 series HEDT processors due to the competition from AMD. It is also likely it has gotten cheaper to manufacture over the years, being built on the many-years-old 14nm node as before.
So yeah, I think the prices have relevance in an encyclopedic article, as they indicate ("tell a story" of) how relatively cheap or expensive the product was for its time, how things were at the time in terms of economics and competition. I did not know the Core i7-920 retailed for only 284 USD! I thought it was at least twice as expensive as that, given how powerful and advanced that processor was at that time.
On top of that, plenty of other tech product articles like ones on game consoles, and flagship smartphones also mention pricing of the product somewhere in the article. This has been done for at least over a decade now.
Also a quick sidenote: the edit on the Ryzen 1000 template by Evelyn Marie also removed HTML break tags from the header cells of the article. I have no idea why these break tags were removed. They make the table wider and less space efficient, there becomes an awful lot of blank space in the table cells and the eye has to scan the rows a much more distance / "arc" when reading the table row-by-row. For these reasons, I strongly believe they should be kept and not removed. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Common place to discuss layout and style of the Zen CPU tables at: Talk:List of AMD Ryzen processors.in it.
The <br /> tags are also just downright ugly and make the table harder to maintain.→ The same thing could be said about non-breakable spaces, convert templates, and vice versa. "It looks ugly in the source code" isn't a valid reason to remove it in my book. Forced breaks have been used in numerous AMD CPU and GPU, Intel product tables for at least over a decade now, without any complaints about them. I've seen plenty of other "ugly" looking source code in articles and templates I've edited in the past too, I've almost never seen anyone remove or 'tidy' them. At the end of the day what really matters is what's visible to the readers, not what's behind the scenes.
References
In response to that
this Template:AMD Ryzen 1000 Series edit:
As far as I'm aware, it is within the MOS:DATE guidelines. It states Only in limited situations where brevity is helpful
, but it also states in the explanatory footnote next to it, For use in tables, infoboxes, references, etc
. Tables are meant to be a compact, concise presentation of data aren't they? —
AP 499D25
(talk) 02:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
It's hard to track the logical separations without a TOC 96.234.183.171 ( talk) 01:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
one of the notes in the Barcelona-R section makes mention of a chip that doesn't exist. Apologies I'm not sophisticated enough to figure out how to edit that section :/ Evil genius fin ( talk) 05:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
AMD confirms Ryzen 8000G family doesn't support ECC RAM, but future Ryzen Pro 8000G family suppose to support ECC RAM, per article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Here is a list of all upcoming Ryzen 8000G (with GE) incl. Link to the original source. [1] 147.161.136.180 ( talk) 14:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
References
@ RM12
While it's true that the usage of start date and age templates don't take up much additional space in the tables, there is one big problem with them, which is that it breaks the sortability aspect of the table:
Take a look at Special:PermaLink/1215822199. If you click the release date column to change its sorting order, it sorts by the number of the day first, rather than sorting properly by time. The dts template previously used correctly does this, and that's the reason why it's used on nearly all the other list tables here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Just an FYI, @ Rando717 and @ Artem S. Tashkinov, I'm going to be making the following small changes to all the Zen-based CPU list tables:
These would bring the Ryzen tables up to the standard of List of Intel Core processors, where I have already implemented the first three changes throughout all the tables. Artem, I know I've discussed this with you already on your talk page, but I'm just letting you know I'm intending to make the same changes here as well. Rando717 and anyone else, if you have any thoughts, suggestions or objections to these changes, please feel free to leave a comment! — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)