![]() | Ryzen received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | Ryzen received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 June 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
https://www.windowscentral.com/amd-ryzen-which-processor-best-you
12 Nov 2020
Intel and AMD share a similar model-naming scheme. Core and Ryzen use 3, 5, 7, and 9 to differentiate the CPUs. The lower the number, the less capable the processor usually is.
Within each bracket, the processors are named by model number — the higher the model number, the more powerful the CPU. The differences aren't huge and only represent a slight increase in factory-set clock speeds.
Ryzen 3 Ryzen 3 is designed for budget-friendly PC builds and consumers who don't use their PCs for intensive applications. That said, the processors are all quad-core, sporting four physical cores, and as such, they aren't slouching. You'd be able to build a capable gaming rig that can handle even big games.
Ryzen 5 These CPUs are priced aggressively to take on the popular Intel Core i5 family and are incredible for gaming. These processors are a mix of quadcore and hexacore processors, packing more than enough power for video editing and other intense workloads.
Ryzen 7 Much like the Core i7 Intel processors, the Ryzen 7 family may be overkill for most people, but it allows for advanced computing at a somewhat affordable price point. If you happen to have a capable GPU, you may find some benefit in picking up a Ryzen 7 CPU.
--
91.159.188.74 (
talk)
00:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
This edit compares a single result from a set of benchmarks to a different set made using different generations of CPU in order to arrive at the 20% figure for the comparison, which looks like WP:SYNTH. Anyone want to look for a better-supported comparison? Zerranto ( talk) 19:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Zerranto changed the introduction and short description in this edit. The description of Ryzen was changed from "brand" to "series" and in the short description "microprocessors" to "CPUs".
I think "brand" is more apt here. It's not so much a single series as a brand name used for multiple distinct series of processors. For example Threadripper are also Ryzen. If we were going to go with "series" I'd say it should be something like "Ryzen is the name of a series" rather than "Ryzen is a series".
As far as CPUs vs. microprocessors, I think microprocessor is a more recognizable term and better for non-expert audiences.
However, if we look at Intel Core the short description is "Line of CPUs by Intel" and the introduction also uses the term "line". I disagree with the use of CPUs there but I think "line" works as well as brand and has a similar meaning, whereas series has a little different meaning. I think we should make the two articles consistent. —DIYeditor ( talk) 22:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
The lead properly cites a 40% IPC improvement at start of Ryzen (compared to prev arch). We don't seem to have any valid cite for the 52% improvement of IPC. I also searched the Internet.
The lead properly cites a Q1 2017 start of Ryzen deliveries. Where the body had said Q2 2017, I've changed it to just 2017. (I've seen "March 2017", Q1, but only where it made no sence in the sentence in the lead, and was removed per the edit summary yesterday.)
Please help me keep the lead and body consistent. To retain certain copy edit improvements I've made Aug 4 & 5, I'll be glad to accept a simple, valid, reference link in this discussion, and then proceed to do all the restoral work. Until then what is not valid cite in the body is replaced with what is valid in the lead (Q1 and 40%). 01:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC) — Cpiral§ Cpiral 01:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
AMD marketing has not been using the term for some years now, but there's a precise definition: it is an HSA-style processor that contains a CPU and a GPU part. GPU processing power has nothing to do with it. The Ryzen 7000 are APUs, not CPUs. And even AMD still knows this: https://www.amd.com/en/support/apu/amd-ryzen-processors/amd-ryzen-9-desktop-processors/amd-ryzen-9-7950x Trigenibinion ( talk) 12:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Here is the imprecise definition: [1] Trigenibinion ( talk) 13:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello Trigenibinion and AP 499D25, I am responding to the third opinion request in this matter. This is a disagreement where, while there may be an underlying substantive argument to be had, Wikipedia sourcing policies constrain the result on the page. My third opinion is that CPU should be used instead of APU. Secondary sources have been cited to support the CPU argument. The sole source for the APU argument is a primary source document published by AMD itself and its presentation suggests it was used for marketing purposes. The age of the source (a little over a decade) does not trouble me as much as the limitations of using primary sources when secondary sources are available. The latter are preferred from an encyclopedic standpoint. Thus, I suggest using CPU in this instance. I hope my third opinion is useful to you both, and I wish you luck in the collegial resolution of your disagreement. JArthur1984 ( talk) 17:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC) |
From https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-zen-4-ryzen-7000-technical-details/
We actually don't think of the Ryzen 7000 Series as an APU. It's a processor that has graphics, and I know that's a subtle difference. To us, when we say "APU," it really means the product has powerful graphics, is capable of playing a game, has all the bells and whistles for video encode, display, drivers, etc. The IGP in Ryzen 7000 is designed to light up a monitor, handle video encode/decode, run a home theater PC, do productivity, but it's not gaming-grade graphics. APUs with big graphics are absolutely a continued part of our roadmap, and you'll see more.
Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 15:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Desktop chips announced 4 months ago (Mendocino) are not listed anywhere. There's a ton more laptop chips that got announced yesterday. Because of the mix of cores that these have, should we list them under Ryzen 7000 with a column for cores or list them under their Zen generation? ~~ 2001:56A:7A37:DC00:EC88:71A7:248:3E51 ( talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello guys!
I'm intending to make the two following changes to the article, with full reasoning explained below.
Change #1: categorisation of the various products in the lineup
Currently the hierarchy of the product lineup section of the article is arranged like this:
Ryzen x000
. . CPUs / APUs
. . . . Desktop / Mobile
I have an idea, that the arrangement shall be changed to:
Ryzen x000
. . Desktop / Mobile
. . . . Codename (e.g. Renoir)
We need to ditch the CPU/APU naming / categorisation system completely. It's a big recipe for confusion with some of the latest released products such as Dragon Range and Raphael, which contain fully-featured integrated GPUs, although not powerful ones at that. But the full capability of the iGPU means it could be technically considered an APU. There's even conflicting info from the secondary sources about whether Dragon Range is a CPU, or APU – compare [4] [5] and [6] [7]. By referring to them using codename it would eliminate this major potential for confusion. It would also make it easier to compare features between desktop products or mobile products such as Raphael vs. Phoenix Desktop, and Phoenix Mobile vs. Dragon Range.
Change #2: Tables and presentation of information
So the way this article is currently done, it shows every single table for every AMD Ryzen CPU ever released. There also exists a separate List of AMD Ryzen processors article. I propose that we get rid of the tables on this non-list Ryzen article, and replace them with a short summary list of features, going over just what architecture it uses, range of core counts, clock speed, and iGPU information. And then have a "main article" linking to the relevant section of that List of Ryzen article. Much like what you see on AMD Phenom and AMD Athlon II. This would save so much article space, make it easier to read through and compare info at a glance, leaving all the full in-depth details to a dedicated list article.
There have already been several proposals in the past by other editors to do the same thing – remove the tables and leave them to the list article, and make this one a 'summary' article – all of which can be found in the first archive. The one named 'Remove lists of processors' is one worth reading through.
AP 499D25 ( talk) 13:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC) edited 12:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
AMD Athlon 3000G & 300GE are both Raven Ridge based with 14nm manufacturing technology. 300GE => https://www.amd.com/en/product/8986 3000G => https://www.amd.com/en/product/8956
... but Athlon PRO 300GE is Picasso based with 12nm manufacturing technology. 300GE PRO => https://www.amd.com/en/product/8896
... so feel free to correct these mistakes since I'm not able to do it (explanation below).
Here is Athlon 300GE missing => /info/en/?search=List_of_AMD_Athlon_processors Here are the references links wrong => /info/en/?search=Zen_(first_generation) Here is the references link wrong => /info/en/?search=Zen%2B — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.eight.a ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Here is the manufacturing technology Athlon 3000G wrong (the reason is CPU-Z is reporting 12nm although 14nm is correct) => /info/en/?search=Ryzen#Desktop_3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.eight.a ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
PS: I was not able to find the right pages to edit nor find the links to references. The link to Athlon PRO 300GE is not working anymore. At some pages the info is more or less correct elsewhere it is not. k.eight.a 15:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.eight.a ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I just made some changes to the lead section moving most of the text to the history section as it was mostly a timeline of releases. I'm new to editing here so if someone with more experience could review my changes that would be great. Thanks! Bbf242 ( talk) 16:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Basically the subject line. The complete removal of the entire first part of the "History" section of the article discussing the critically important historical context of Ryzen & Zen in regards to the CPU market as a whole has made the article significantly worse. 🤷
Now literally nowhere in the article does it explain how bad things were for AMD before Ryzen/what the market was like (and how things had gotten to that point), what was on the line with its release, and how the CPU market was MASSIVELY changed because of it.
The "History" section is now merely a basic regurgitation of each Ryzen generation's performance improvements, which completely lacks the critical historical context needed to understand Ryzen/Zen and its impact/importance. Cooe ( talk) 05:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello friends.
I think I found a duplicate source.
I am reading and comparing the article again to translate it back into Portuguese, creating a new updated version, and I believe I have found a repeated source.
Reference 8 and 9 are the same, could you check this?
The title of 8 is: The AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive: The 2700X, 2700, 2600X, and 2600 Tested
The title of the 9 is also the same, as well as the link too www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600
The real difference is the access date. Elder N ( talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | Ryzen received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | Ryzen received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 June 2019. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
https://www.windowscentral.com/amd-ryzen-which-processor-best-you
12 Nov 2020
Intel and AMD share a similar model-naming scheme. Core and Ryzen use 3, 5, 7, and 9 to differentiate the CPUs. The lower the number, the less capable the processor usually is.
Within each bracket, the processors are named by model number — the higher the model number, the more powerful the CPU. The differences aren't huge and only represent a slight increase in factory-set clock speeds.
Ryzen 3 Ryzen 3 is designed for budget-friendly PC builds and consumers who don't use their PCs for intensive applications. That said, the processors are all quad-core, sporting four physical cores, and as such, they aren't slouching. You'd be able to build a capable gaming rig that can handle even big games.
Ryzen 5 These CPUs are priced aggressively to take on the popular Intel Core i5 family and are incredible for gaming. These processors are a mix of quadcore and hexacore processors, packing more than enough power for video editing and other intense workloads.
Ryzen 7 Much like the Core i7 Intel processors, the Ryzen 7 family may be overkill for most people, but it allows for advanced computing at a somewhat affordable price point. If you happen to have a capable GPU, you may find some benefit in picking up a Ryzen 7 CPU.
--
91.159.188.74 (
talk)
00:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
This edit compares a single result from a set of benchmarks to a different set made using different generations of CPU in order to arrive at the 20% figure for the comparison, which looks like WP:SYNTH. Anyone want to look for a better-supported comparison? Zerranto ( talk) 19:10, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Zerranto changed the introduction and short description in this edit. The description of Ryzen was changed from "brand" to "series" and in the short description "microprocessors" to "CPUs".
I think "brand" is more apt here. It's not so much a single series as a brand name used for multiple distinct series of processors. For example Threadripper are also Ryzen. If we were going to go with "series" I'd say it should be something like "Ryzen is the name of a series" rather than "Ryzen is a series".
As far as CPUs vs. microprocessors, I think microprocessor is a more recognizable term and better for non-expert audiences.
However, if we look at Intel Core the short description is "Line of CPUs by Intel" and the introduction also uses the term "line". I disagree with the use of CPUs there but I think "line" works as well as brand and has a similar meaning, whereas series has a little different meaning. I think we should make the two articles consistent. —DIYeditor ( talk) 22:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
The lead properly cites a 40% IPC improvement at start of Ryzen (compared to prev arch). We don't seem to have any valid cite for the 52% improvement of IPC. I also searched the Internet.
The lead properly cites a Q1 2017 start of Ryzen deliveries. Where the body had said Q2 2017, I've changed it to just 2017. (I've seen "March 2017", Q1, but only where it made no sence in the sentence in the lead, and was removed per the edit summary yesterday.)
Please help me keep the lead and body consistent. To retain certain copy edit improvements I've made Aug 4 & 5, I'll be glad to accept a simple, valid, reference link in this discussion, and then proceed to do all the restoral work. Until then what is not valid cite in the body is replaced with what is valid in the lead (Q1 and 40%). 01:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC) — Cpiral§ Cpiral 01:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
AMD marketing has not been using the term for some years now, but there's a precise definition: it is an HSA-style processor that contains a CPU and a GPU part. GPU processing power has nothing to do with it. The Ryzen 7000 are APUs, not CPUs. And even AMD still knows this: https://www.amd.com/en/support/apu/amd-ryzen-processors/amd-ryzen-9-desktop-processors/amd-ryzen-9-7950x Trigenibinion ( talk) 12:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Here is the imprecise definition: [1] Trigenibinion ( talk) 13:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello Trigenibinion and AP 499D25, I am responding to the third opinion request in this matter. This is a disagreement where, while there may be an underlying substantive argument to be had, Wikipedia sourcing policies constrain the result on the page. My third opinion is that CPU should be used instead of APU. Secondary sources have been cited to support the CPU argument. The sole source for the APU argument is a primary source document published by AMD itself and its presentation suggests it was used for marketing purposes. The age of the source (a little over a decade) does not trouble me as much as the limitations of using primary sources when secondary sources are available. The latter are preferred from an encyclopedic standpoint. Thus, I suggest using CPU in this instance. I hope my third opinion is useful to you both, and I wish you luck in the collegial resolution of your disagreement. JArthur1984 ( talk) 17:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC) |
From https://www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-zen-4-ryzen-7000-technical-details/
We actually don't think of the Ryzen 7000 Series as an APU. It's a processor that has graphics, and I know that's a subtle difference. To us, when we say "APU," it really means the product has powerful graphics, is capable of playing a game, has all the bells and whistles for video encode, display, drivers, etc. The IGP in Ryzen 7000 is designed to light up a monitor, handle video encode/decode, run a home theater PC, do productivity, but it's not gaming-grade graphics. APUs with big graphics are absolutely a continued part of our roadmap, and you'll see more.
Visite fortuitement prolongée ( talk) 15:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Desktop chips announced 4 months ago (Mendocino) are not listed anywhere. There's a ton more laptop chips that got announced yesterday. Because of the mix of cores that these have, should we list them under Ryzen 7000 with a column for cores or list them under their Zen generation? ~~ 2001:56A:7A37:DC00:EC88:71A7:248:3E51 ( talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello guys!
I'm intending to make the two following changes to the article, with full reasoning explained below.
Change #1: categorisation of the various products in the lineup
Currently the hierarchy of the product lineup section of the article is arranged like this:
Ryzen x000
. . CPUs / APUs
. . . . Desktop / Mobile
I have an idea, that the arrangement shall be changed to:
Ryzen x000
. . Desktop / Mobile
. . . . Codename (e.g. Renoir)
We need to ditch the CPU/APU naming / categorisation system completely. It's a big recipe for confusion with some of the latest released products such as Dragon Range and Raphael, which contain fully-featured integrated GPUs, although not powerful ones at that. But the full capability of the iGPU means it could be technically considered an APU. There's even conflicting info from the secondary sources about whether Dragon Range is a CPU, or APU – compare [4] [5] and [6] [7]. By referring to them using codename it would eliminate this major potential for confusion. It would also make it easier to compare features between desktop products or mobile products such as Raphael vs. Phoenix Desktop, and Phoenix Mobile vs. Dragon Range.
Change #2: Tables and presentation of information
So the way this article is currently done, it shows every single table for every AMD Ryzen CPU ever released. There also exists a separate List of AMD Ryzen processors article. I propose that we get rid of the tables on this non-list Ryzen article, and replace them with a short summary list of features, going over just what architecture it uses, range of core counts, clock speed, and iGPU information. And then have a "main article" linking to the relevant section of that List of Ryzen article. Much like what you see on AMD Phenom and AMD Athlon II. This would save so much article space, make it easier to read through and compare info at a glance, leaving all the full in-depth details to a dedicated list article.
There have already been several proposals in the past by other editors to do the same thing – remove the tables and leave them to the list article, and make this one a 'summary' article – all of which can be found in the first archive. The one named 'Remove lists of processors' is one worth reading through.
AP 499D25 ( talk) 13:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC) edited 12:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
AMD Athlon 3000G & 300GE are both Raven Ridge based with 14nm manufacturing technology. 300GE => https://www.amd.com/en/product/8986 3000G => https://www.amd.com/en/product/8956
... but Athlon PRO 300GE is Picasso based with 12nm manufacturing technology. 300GE PRO => https://www.amd.com/en/product/8896
... so feel free to correct these mistakes since I'm not able to do it (explanation below).
Here is Athlon 300GE missing => /info/en/?search=List_of_AMD_Athlon_processors Here are the references links wrong => /info/en/?search=Zen_(first_generation) Here is the references link wrong => /info/en/?search=Zen%2B — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.eight.a ( talk • contribs) 15:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Here is the manufacturing technology Athlon 3000G wrong (the reason is CPU-Z is reporting 12nm although 14nm is correct) => /info/en/?search=Ryzen#Desktop_3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.eight.a ( talk • contribs) 15:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
PS: I was not able to find the right pages to edit nor find the links to references. The link to Athlon PRO 300GE is not working anymore. At some pages the info is more or less correct elsewhere it is not. k.eight.a 15:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.eight.a ( talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I just made some changes to the lead section moving most of the text to the history section as it was mostly a timeline of releases. I'm new to editing here so if someone with more experience could review my changes that would be great. Thanks! Bbf242 ( talk) 16:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Basically the subject line. The complete removal of the entire first part of the "History" section of the article discussing the critically important historical context of Ryzen & Zen in regards to the CPU market as a whole has made the article significantly worse. 🤷
Now literally nowhere in the article does it explain how bad things were for AMD before Ryzen/what the market was like (and how things had gotten to that point), what was on the line with its release, and how the CPU market was MASSIVELY changed because of it.
The "History" section is now merely a basic regurgitation of each Ryzen generation's performance improvements, which completely lacks the critical historical context needed to understand Ryzen/Zen and its impact/importance. Cooe ( talk) 05:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello friends.
I think I found a duplicate source.
I am reading and comparing the article again to translate it back into Portuguese, creating a new updated version, and I believe I have found a repeated source.
Reference 8 and 9 are the same, could you check this?
The title of 8 is: The AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive: The 2700X, 2700, 2600X, and 2600 Tested
The title of the 9 is also the same, as well as the link too www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600
The real difference is the access date. Elder N ( talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)