Computing Template‑class | |||||||
|
Now that Ryzen has officially launched, and R5 parts have been offically confirmed, is it time to remove the unconfirmed/uncited parts from this list? Dbsseven ( talk) 20:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
XFR, as implemented on my MSI X470 Gaming Plus MAX allows up to motherboard defined power limits (based on the specific VRM), or chip defined frequency limits (At least for Zen 1). My R3 1200 will boost an extra 50 MHz on 1-2 core, but not in 3-4 core loads. XFR seems to have been unlocked further on X-series, at least for first generation Zen chips. SVMLegacy ( talk) 15:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
References
There is a growing list of extraneous information on this template (Pure Power, Precision Boost, XFR, Neural Net, DDR speeds). I believe this template should be as minimal table as possible, otherwise it makes it very unwieldily when used (ie. on the Ryzen article page where much of this information is redundant). Thoughts? Dbsseven ( talk) 16:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
There has been some back and forth between me and @ User:Petosirisusabout the inclusion of 12-core Ryzen parts that have been reported by Videocardz. [1]. I do not think a single source citation from videocardz.com reports meet Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Dbsseven ( talk) 15:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Videocardz has been wrong before with rumors. ex Ryzen 5 specs. [5] I don't have a problem with the videocardz site itself, but I do not believe it can serve as a sole source for encyclopedic content. This single source of unreleased/unconfirmed/unannounced specs is both not reliable sourced and violates wikipedia's crystal ball policy. Even AMD's Don Woligroski said 'you can't believe everything you hear on the internet.' in reference to rumored HEDT parts. [6] Dbsseven ( talk) 16:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed 16C/32T by AMD itself!!!! [7] [8] "Beyond Ryzen 7" [7] and "This summer" [7] 80.98.255.115 ( talk) 08:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
(@ Petosirisus) I see there has been some editing of MB to MiB (and KB to KiB). However, as far as I can see none of the sources state MiB/KiB (but rather MB/KB). Is there a source for this? Otherwise I think the values should be in MB/KB unless and until a better source is found. Dbsseven ( talk) 15:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
References
So there had been some back-and-forth by myself and others editors ( VinLAURiA) in edit comments about including the bundled coolers in the template. I would like to discuss it here, find consensus, and avoid edit warring. I believe it does not belong in this template.
The question (for me) is not if it is properly cited ( WP:ONUS), but if it is appropriate here? ( WP:ROC)
I look forward to the discussion here. Dbsseven ( talk) 14:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
References
Why are the Pro-designated parts placed lower in the table than the equivalent-numbered non-Pro part (e.g. the R5 Pro 1600 is placed lower than the R5 1600)? 49.145.139.233 ( talk) 17:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
After the recent edit, I think it would be better to state the total L2 cache in MB in the L2 column, instead of saying "512 KB per core". Please discuss then change if required. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Please note that when you edit the Template then be sure to check that references and formatting are retained also after your edit. Now references to KB and MB is gone. This has happened before too. Double line between Market Segments is also partly gone, here and there. Don't expect others to clean up after you but check your edit with Preview before pressing Submit. Thank you! Petosirisus ( talk) 01:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The clock rate and boosts are a bit of a mess and wrong for Threadripper. For Ryzen it is correct that boost is for 1-2 cores (though, that information is hidden quite well), but XFR isn't single max frequency, it is extra boost given suitable cooling to both base clock (upto all cores) and boost clock (1-2 cores). So like for 1800X 3.6 GHz base and 4 GHz boost, the 0.1 GHz XFR gives 3.7 GHz XFR all core and 4.1 GHz XFR 1-2 cores. As for Threadripper, the boost goes for 1-4 cores with similar XFR. So, say 1950X 3.4 GHz base and 4 GHz boost with 0.2 GHz XFR gives 3.6 GHz XFR all core and 4.2 GHz XFR 1-4 cores. This needs a bit more tweaking on the tables to get there right, so I didn't go in to make a mess there. 84.251.242.48 ( talk) 13:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Something like http://ark.intel.com/products/35605 User:ScotXW t@lk 20:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Added one for this template for testing. If there is consensus to use this, it could be applied to all AMD table templates.
-- Pizzahut2 ( talk) 16:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Here's a related discussion, though I doubt it'll work out:
That's just the idea lab. To reach a consensus it would have to be moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) once it's fleshed out. -- Pizzahut2 ( talk) 17:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting to do it yet, but more as a general discussion. When should we remove rumored products that haven't been released, or even new rumors announced? Specifically I'm thinking of the Threadripper 1920 (non-X). Even the citing source doesn't list it anymore. (I know of contemporary news sources which cite this source, but not anything since.) Without any new information this seems as likely to me to be a typo that got blown out of proportion than anything else. Again, I don't want to do any editing yet. Just getting the conversation started. Dbsseven ( talk) 19:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The first Ryzen desktop products with Vega graphics have been announced [3]. These appear to be marketed as "Ryzen", and not as APUs. Incorporating a bunch of GPU information into this table where it is mostly irrelevant would make this table more confusing IMO. Can anyone think of either a clean way to do this, or a nice way to justify separating the "APU" and non-APU desktop products? (Not looking for WP:OR, but a justifiable way to organize.) Dbsseven ( talk) 18:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Pretty much the header. Someone added both Precision Boost parameters to the SKU table (all-core; aka >2/4 cores [AM4/TR4 respectively], as well as the usual <=2/4 cores boost stats). That's all well and good, but the column titles for said parameters happens to be totally inaccurate. The said 2 column's are currently labeled for "<=2 cores", and ">=3 cores" boost when those #'s ONLY apply to Ryzen AM4 and NOT FOR the Threadripper SKU's also listed in the table. Basically, someone with editing privileges for said table needs to update the column titles to accurately represent the Precision Boost core counts for all the SKU's listed within & not just part. Aka something like
1. "Active cores <= 2 / 4 (AM4/TR4)"
2. "Active cores >= 3 / 5 (AM4/TR4)" ; respectively.
And instead of using the socket names to differentiate the values, ala "(AM4/TR4)"; "(Ryzen/TR)" could also be used (though with "Ryzen" being the overarching brand for both AM4 & TR4 SKU's, that might be more confusing). Regardless, as it's labeled right now, the P.B. info is extremely confusing/misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooe ( talk • contribs)
Now that the sections of the template have been reordered to put Threadripper at the bottom the table has been left in a mess again because the SKUs within each section retain their original order. 83.104.249.240 ( talk) 18:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The "TBA" entries in this table need to be replaced with actual values or with "Unknown". This product line is now mature and anything that hasn't already been announced about it isn't going to be. 83.104.249.240 ( talk) 12:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Might be an opportunity to also get rid of table cell templates with which the VE is partially incompatible (if table structure is changed). Options:
?
or unknown
. No VE issues, but it looks less fancy.— Pizzahut2 ( talk) 00:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
All SKUs have 64 KiB of instruction cache per core and 32 KiB of data cache per core. I think it would be simpler to say that in a note and remove this entire column, which is currently taking up quite a lot of space. Comments? 83.104.249.240 ( talk) 18:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Recently the part numbers have been added and subtracted from this table. I'm in favour of keeping them, as they are useful in indentifying the physical chip, particularly in the case of the 1200 and 1600, which have a Zen+ variant under the same name. SVMLegacy ( talk) 23:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
If anyone wants to share their thoughts regarding whether the release dates should be abbreviated or not, and whether these listing table templates should have original retail price (MSRP) info or not, there are discussions over at Talk:List of AMD Ryzen processors § Abbreviated dates and Talk:List of AMD Ryzen processors § Inclusion of prices in the tables respectively. Thank you. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Computing Template‑class | |||||||
|
Now that Ryzen has officially launched, and R5 parts have been offically confirmed, is it time to remove the unconfirmed/uncited parts from this list? Dbsseven ( talk) 20:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
XFR, as implemented on my MSI X470 Gaming Plus MAX allows up to motherboard defined power limits (based on the specific VRM), or chip defined frequency limits (At least for Zen 1). My R3 1200 will boost an extra 50 MHz on 1-2 core, but not in 3-4 core loads. XFR seems to have been unlocked further on X-series, at least for first generation Zen chips. SVMLegacy ( talk) 15:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
References
There is a growing list of extraneous information on this template (Pure Power, Precision Boost, XFR, Neural Net, DDR speeds). I believe this template should be as minimal table as possible, otherwise it makes it very unwieldily when used (ie. on the Ryzen article page where much of this information is redundant). Thoughts? Dbsseven ( talk) 16:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
There has been some back and forth between me and @ User:Petosirisusabout the inclusion of 12-core Ryzen parts that have been reported by Videocardz. [1]. I do not think a single source citation from videocardz.com reports meet Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. Does anyone else have any thoughts? Dbsseven ( talk) 15:54, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Videocardz has been wrong before with rumors. ex Ryzen 5 specs. [5] I don't have a problem with the videocardz site itself, but I do not believe it can serve as a sole source for encyclopedic content. This single source of unreleased/unconfirmed/unannounced specs is both not reliable sourced and violates wikipedia's crystal ball policy. Even AMD's Don Woligroski said 'you can't believe everything you hear on the internet.' in reference to rumored HEDT parts. [6] Dbsseven ( talk) 16:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Confirmed 16C/32T by AMD itself!!!! [7] [8] "Beyond Ryzen 7" [7] and "This summer" [7] 80.98.255.115 ( talk) 08:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
(@ Petosirisus) I see there has been some editing of MB to MiB (and KB to KiB). However, as far as I can see none of the sources state MiB/KiB (but rather MB/KB). Is there a source for this? Otherwise I think the values should be in MB/KB unless and until a better source is found. Dbsseven ( talk) 15:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
References
So there had been some back-and-forth by myself and others editors ( VinLAURiA) in edit comments about including the bundled coolers in the template. I would like to discuss it here, find consensus, and avoid edit warring. I believe it does not belong in this template.
The question (for me) is not if it is properly cited ( WP:ONUS), but if it is appropriate here? ( WP:ROC)
I look forward to the discussion here. Dbsseven ( talk) 14:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
References
Why are the Pro-designated parts placed lower in the table than the equivalent-numbered non-Pro part (e.g. the R5 Pro 1600 is placed lower than the R5 1600)? 49.145.139.233 ( talk) 17:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
After the recent edit, I think it would be better to state the total L2 cache in MB in the L2 column, instead of saying "512 KB per core". Please discuss then change if required. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 08:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Please note that when you edit the Template then be sure to check that references and formatting are retained also after your edit. Now references to KB and MB is gone. This has happened before too. Double line between Market Segments is also partly gone, here and there. Don't expect others to clean up after you but check your edit with Preview before pressing Submit. Thank you! Petosirisus ( talk) 01:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
The clock rate and boosts are a bit of a mess and wrong for Threadripper. For Ryzen it is correct that boost is for 1-2 cores (though, that information is hidden quite well), but XFR isn't single max frequency, it is extra boost given suitable cooling to both base clock (upto all cores) and boost clock (1-2 cores). So like for 1800X 3.6 GHz base and 4 GHz boost, the 0.1 GHz XFR gives 3.7 GHz XFR all core and 4.1 GHz XFR 1-2 cores. As for Threadripper, the boost goes for 1-4 cores with similar XFR. So, say 1950X 3.4 GHz base and 4 GHz boost with 0.2 GHz XFR gives 3.6 GHz XFR all core and 4.2 GHz XFR 1-4 cores. This needs a bit more tweaking on the tables to get there right, so I didn't go in to make a mess there. 84.251.242.48 ( talk) 13:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Something like http://ark.intel.com/products/35605 User:ScotXW t@lk 20:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Added one for this template for testing. If there is consensus to use this, it could be applied to all AMD table templates.
-- Pizzahut2 ( talk) 16:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Here's a related discussion, though I doubt it'll work out:
That's just the idea lab. To reach a consensus it would have to be moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) once it's fleshed out. -- Pizzahut2 ( talk) 17:21, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting to do it yet, but more as a general discussion. When should we remove rumored products that haven't been released, or even new rumors announced? Specifically I'm thinking of the Threadripper 1920 (non-X). Even the citing source doesn't list it anymore. (I know of contemporary news sources which cite this source, but not anything since.) Without any new information this seems as likely to me to be a typo that got blown out of proportion than anything else. Again, I don't want to do any editing yet. Just getting the conversation started. Dbsseven ( talk) 19:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The first Ryzen desktop products with Vega graphics have been announced [3]. These appear to be marketed as "Ryzen", and not as APUs. Incorporating a bunch of GPU information into this table where it is mostly irrelevant would make this table more confusing IMO. Can anyone think of either a clean way to do this, or a nice way to justify separating the "APU" and non-APU desktop products? (Not looking for WP:OR, but a justifiable way to organize.) Dbsseven ( talk) 18:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Pretty much the header. Someone added both Precision Boost parameters to the SKU table (all-core; aka >2/4 cores [AM4/TR4 respectively], as well as the usual <=2/4 cores boost stats). That's all well and good, but the column titles for said parameters happens to be totally inaccurate. The said 2 column's are currently labeled for "<=2 cores", and ">=3 cores" boost when those #'s ONLY apply to Ryzen AM4 and NOT FOR the Threadripper SKU's also listed in the table. Basically, someone with editing privileges for said table needs to update the column titles to accurately represent the Precision Boost core counts for all the SKU's listed within & not just part. Aka something like
1. "Active cores <= 2 / 4 (AM4/TR4)"
2. "Active cores >= 3 / 5 (AM4/TR4)" ; respectively.
And instead of using the socket names to differentiate the values, ala "(AM4/TR4)"; "(Ryzen/TR)" could also be used (though with "Ryzen" being the overarching brand for both AM4 & TR4 SKU's, that might be more confusing). Regardless, as it's labeled right now, the P.B. info is extremely confusing/misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooe ( talk • contribs)
Now that the sections of the template have been reordered to put Threadripper at the bottom the table has been left in a mess again because the SKUs within each section retain their original order. 83.104.249.240 ( talk) 18:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
The "TBA" entries in this table need to be replaced with actual values or with "Unknown". This product line is now mature and anything that hasn't already been announced about it isn't going to be. 83.104.249.240 ( talk) 12:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Might be an opportunity to also get rid of table cell templates with which the VE is partially incompatible (if table structure is changed). Options:
?
or unknown
. No VE issues, but it looks less fancy.— Pizzahut2 ( talk) 00:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
All SKUs have 64 KiB of instruction cache per core and 32 KiB of data cache per core. I think it would be simpler to say that in a note and remove this entire column, which is currently taking up quite a lot of space. Comments? 83.104.249.240 ( talk) 18:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Recently the part numbers have been added and subtracted from this table. I'm in favour of keeping them, as they are useful in indentifying the physical chip, particularly in the case of the 1200 and 1600, which have a Zen+ variant under the same name. SVMLegacy ( talk) 23:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
If anyone wants to share their thoughts regarding whether the release dates should be abbreviated or not, and whether these listing table templates should have original retail price (MSRP) info or not, there are discussions over at Talk:List of AMD Ryzen processors § Abbreviated dates and Talk:List of AMD Ryzen processors § Inclusion of prices in the tables respectively. Thank you. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)