Template talk:AMD Ryzen 1000 series

Unconfirmed parts

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)

Agreed, and removed. We do not know the details of any of the other R5 and R3 processors, and we cannot assume data, since the leaks were proven wrong, with 1500X being 4C/8T, not 6C/12T. I have removed the older references and added current references.

* XFR effectively unlocks the turbo clock speed up to a limit not yet revealed by AMD. Hence, indicated by a '+' symbol in the Turbo column.

* XFR also increases the TDP, as observed by tomshardware.com. Hence, indicated by a '+' symbol in the TDP column.

* L3 cache is 8 MB per 4 cores. You can see this in CPU-Z screen-shots. Don't know as yet about 6-core processors.

* Socket and integrated memory controller are common across all processors in each generation; they do not need a column in the table.

* PCIe is not specified in the AMD launch presentation slides. Some leaks say 16 lanes, Ars Technica says 24 lanes. Removed until confirmed. Please add PCIe, SATA, USB, etc. if/when confirmed. Thanks. Terilbah (talk) 12:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Ryzen has 24 PCIe lanes so that 16 are to GPU and such, 4 to M.2 and 4 to chipset (can be used as 8 2.0 lanes). Threadripper has 64 PCIe lanes so that 60 are to GPU, M.2 and such and 4 to chipset (can be used as 8 2.0 lanes). 84.251.242.48 (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. The PCIe lane count can get confusing as some sources specifically don't count/exclude the chipset connection. Modifying the table with a note accordingly. Dbsseven (talk) 22:23, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

XFR

I see you have already made many of these modifications, and that largely seems fair. However, I could not find the TDP-XFR reference you made in the Tom's Hardware article. PC Per has noted that AMD and Intel define TDP differently and this may be reflected in the benchmark results, but it does not make the TDP incorrect. Dbsseven (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Good find - the PCPer article on XFR. I'm not convinced though; the only other reference that mentions 50 MHz XFR for the Ryzen 7 1700 processor is wikichip, so it looks like that is his own conclusion.

I believe XFR allows the processor to exceed the specified max TDP if the system can dissipate more heat. Tom's Hardware measured the chip consuming 141.4W. That much higher power cannot be due to just XFR though, so I've left the TDP numbers unchanged for now. Terilbah (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This boost and XFR implementation seems stupid; what is the point of marketing 100 MHz boost? I hope somebody publishes something intelligent soon. Terilbah (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, I see someone modified the boost speed based on the number of cores active. I have not seen this in any source I have read. If there is no citation, it likely should be removed. Dbsseven (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently they have deduced the numbers from the AMD launch presentation slide (second image in the PCPer article), so I left it there. Generally I try not to remove content unless it is clearly incorrect or irrelevant. Also we now have more/less all of the accurate information available, so we can wait a few months for clarifications. Up to you. Terilbah (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

XFR is a technology (and that's being generous - it's actually a marketing term), not a quantifiable figure. It's generally misunderstood and there's a lot of misleading and, to put it bluntly, plain wrong information out there. The PC Perspective reference is incorrect and the actual situation was explained by an AMD spokesperson in early 2019 in a Reddit post. See the Ryzen talk page for a link. I've removed the XFR columns from the tables for the other processors since all entries were "Unknown" and therefore redundant but I've held off removing information (albeit erroneous) from this table so that it can be discussed first. In a nutshell, there is no extra frequency boost beyond that given by Precision Boost. That is the maximum frequency the processor will automatically attain under any circumstances. There is only Precision Boost at play. XFR is a term that is used to market the fact that if the user takes steps to provide additional cooling then the Precision Boost algorithm will keep the average clock frequency closer to the quoted PB frequency than would otherwise be the case. Any slight discrepancy (50 to 100 MHz) is explained by the fact that the Precision Boost frequency printed on the box is generally rounded down - a boost frequency of 4.05 GHz would, apparently, "look silly" on the box, so it's printed as 4 GHz. So, I propose that the XFR column be removed but perhaps some of the entries in the Boost frequency column ought to be adjusted upwards slightly, but since AMD's own product web site shows the same values as is printed on the boxes I don't see how individual values can be verified. Either way u/AMD_Robert is a more reliable source than Intel_Shrout. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 14:23, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's [1] the Reddit article I referenced above. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2019 (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)

Also of note, there seems be a large difference in XFR for later chips, it may have been completely replaced with precision boost overdrive (PBO). SVMLegacy (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Extraneous information

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)

Mmm, good observation. The list of APUs has explanatory points above each table, but I guess the tables are not used in article pages. All of the SenseMI explanation points should go into the article page rather than be in the template. The socket and memory info can be columns in the table; Intel CPU list tables have them. What do you think? Terilbah (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sounds good. I also believe the voltage column should be removed. This is not typically seen on other CPU/APU tables; likely as it is dynamic, changing with frequency and power requirements. Dbsseven (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Removed. CPU voltage used to be useful to know, but you are right, it is no longer relevant. I moved your other comment into the XFR section on this page. Terilbah (talk) 10:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Number of PCIe lanes should be added back into the table though. 49.145.139.233 (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Good point. Adding this to the table. Dbsseven (talk) 20:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Unconfirmed 12-core parts

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.. 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)

The mentioned results at SiSoft: [2] 212.96.54.92 (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not a citable source. It does not say what product/part it is, and certainly does not say Ryzen or Zen anywhere. This could be a differently branded AMD part, a test sample that may never get released, etc. Dbsseven (talk) 15:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

It does say something about the processor if you know how to decode the SKU string/ID. It's clearly a Zen type CPU, but with another socket and TDP. Petosirisus (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

More has emerged at Videocardz and WccfTech reports further about this. Surpricingly detailed information doesn't make it more confirmed than earlier, but it's another evidence at least of the existence of this CPU market segment from AMD. WccfTech even say it's going to be released in mid 2017, but doesn't cite a source for this. Petosirisus (talk) 04:40, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

WCCFtech cites Videocardz and neither are reliable sources. Specifically in this case, both continue to cite poorly described SiSoft results of engineering samples. I still have not seen a reliable source for AMD HEDT products. Rumors and anonymous reports of engineering samples are not encyclopedic. Dbsseven (talk) 18:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I didn't claim any of them was reliable sources, I only pointed to them as evidence. I even said unconfirmed. And, as I said, surpricingly detailed. There are schematics of the platform, engineering samples, chip and socket names, and now even a market name. Another evidence is that Intel is releasing its new iteration of HEDT platform in June instead of August, which was planned. You have already removed the section of the template and it's in no danger from me to be restored anytime soon, but the fact is that evidences are piling up. Petosirisus (talk) 01:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Platform confirmed by AMD. Codename Threadripper, CPUs upto 16 cores and 32 threads. Petosirisus (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Videocardz has been wrong before with rumors. ex Ryzen 5 specs. 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. Dbsseven (talk) 16:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

In all fairness, Don Woligroski commented here on the question about the rumored X399 chipset, not anything else. Also, the primary source is not really Videocardz, but the SiSoft Sandra database entry. Videocardz just reported its find. Petosirisus (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

@ Petosirisus Where are you getting that SiSoft is the source for the videocardz article? It's not in the videocardz citation. And if the SiSoft source is the result above, then no-where in it does it say the part will be Ryzen branded. Also there is absolutely no source for the 16-core part in the template. And if SiSoft is the root source then the same one fundamental source of questionable veracity still applies. Dbsseven (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

It says, under the Program section, "SiSoft Sandra 22.35" and "Yes" to it's a registered version just below that. So, either you have a registered licensee submitting false data (somehow), or that is a photoshopped image we're seeing. I highly doubt both of those theories. Ryzen is a brand name, not something the manufactorer code into the SKU string. Petosirisus (talk) 22:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Or videocardz is presuming it's a Ryzen branded part based on a SiSoft result of an unknown engineering sample. And you may doubt the other theories you propose but I do not. I have given evidence where videocardz has released specs and been wrong. Are there any reputable sources that support this rumored product? Dbsseven (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Confirmed 16C/32T by AMD itself!!!! "Beyond Ryzen 7" and "This summer" 80.98.255.115 (talk) 08:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

References

MB versus MiB

(@ 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)

Why would you think that? If you read the definitions you'd see the differences and why we use Mebibyte and Kebibyte. Change it if you want but then it's your responsibility. Petosirisus (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Why would I think what? I understand the differences between the two values, but we have no source to support the parts being spec'd in MiB/KiB. I double checked the sources and all say MB/KB, none say MiB or KiB. To assert that the parts are actually MiB/KiB is WP:OR unless there is a cite to support it. Dbsseven (talk) 15:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, this cleary demonstrate that you don't understand the difference and why it's necessary to use Mebibyte and Kibibyte in encyclopedia articles. The reason media and manufactorers consistently use MB and KB is because that's what people know and recognize, but it's not precise enough to use in an academic text. It's like a car, where people still talks about Horsepower (HP) although we have more modern and better ways to describe an engine's power today. WP:OR is hardly relevant when it comes to using MiB and KiB. No computer hardware or software use MB and KB internally. There's always a factor of 2, hence why we use MiB and KiB. This is common knowledge and doesn't have to be cited. You can't cite everything. It'd be like citing sources for that the sky is blue ... I'm sorry, but this issue is not something I want to have a debate with you about. I'm not in the adult education business. You think and do what you want with this template and see if I care. Petosirisus (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

It is not an issue of my understanding, it is an issue of WP:Verifiability. (And don't attack me, discuss facts. WP:No personal attacks) I completely understand both your assertion "No computer hardware or software use MB and KB internally" and the difference between 2¹⁰ and 10³. It seems plausible and reasonable and I don't even disagree. But WP is built on cites and verifiability, not any individual editor's version of "common knowledge". And in this case all of the cited sources give KB/MB units. There is no provided evidence to support that Ryzen is spec'd KiB/MiB (WP:PROVEIT). Even AMD's own "Software Optimization Guide for AMD Family 17h Processors" uses Kbytes and Mbytes, not Kibytes and Mibytes. Dbsseven (talk) 22:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it would not be original research, as it is supported by AMD's own documentation, so it would be only a translation from AMD's terms into the generally accepted terms. --78.98.224.164 (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

However, I did find this AMD source "Processor Programming Reference (PPR) for AMD Family 17h Model 01h, Revision B1 Processors" in which they define the units. They still call it Kilobyte and Megabyte but define it in terms of base-2. No matter what the sources call it, it would be original research for us as editors to rename the units just because we think that's what they should be called. I believe a fair compromise would be to keep the nomenclature as is on the template, but have the links for KB and MB redirect to KiB and MiB. Dbsseven (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

An easy fix is put a note immediately below the table "NOTE: KB = 1 kilobyte (1024 bytes) (2¹⁰ bytes), MB = 1 megabyte (1048576 bytes) (2²⁰ bytes)." or some variation or subset. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

"I believe a fair compromise would be to keep the nomenclature as is on the template, but have the links for KB and MB redirect to KiB and MiB."

Absolutely not. They're two different things and now the text and definition doesn't match. They're now linked to the wrong definitions and it's not something worthy of Wikipedia - or any other academic text, for that matter.

Alright Petosirisus, then what do suggest? (The links went to the correct JEDEC/AMD definition of KB/MB, in case it was missed.) Neither AMD, nor JEDEC, nor the cited sources call them KiB or MiB; so there is not support for renaming them. Wikipedia is not a... textbook or scientific journal. What about a compromise similar to what Sbmeirow suggested? I'd suggest "AMD defines 1 kilobyte (KB) as 1024 bytes, and 1 megabyte (MB) 1024 kilobytes" Dbsseven (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

AFAIK, in case you buy SCSI hard disk (now SAS hard disk), then MB means Mebibytes… but you buy IDE/SATA hard disks (marketing imbeciles calls this "consumer" products) or DVDs, then MB means megabytes. This was even worse with some diskettes, where some geniuses used a mixture of power of 10 and power of 2. AFAIK, RAM, caches, registers are always power of 2. This is an encyclopedia, right? User:ScotXW^t@lk 20:40, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Someone went reverting clean up again. MB is ambiguous, MiB is not. End of story. See Binary prefix. 217.162.74.13 (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The structure of the caches is documented. 64-byte line size, powers of two number of lines. 217.162.74.13 (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Cooler listing in template

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)

• This is not relevant to all places this template is used (ex: Zen (microarchitecture)). Adding trivia decreases the generality and utility of the template (which was to avoid maintaining a unique table in each article).
• The bundled cooler is not general to Ryzen CPU specs but rather to the retail Ryzen product. (ie. This is irrelevant to systems which include other cooling solutions.)
• The bundled coolers are already covered in the Ryzen article. I would say this is an appropriate place for this information.

I look forward to the discussion here. Dbsseven (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I say remove the Bundled Cooler column. It's about as relevant as a Retail Package Design column. 49.145.139.233 (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove the column. If someone objects, then we can discuss it here. Dbsseven (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Position of Pro-designated parts in the table

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)

L2 column

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)

I am unsure. While I agree that listing it as per core makes this value identical for all products on the table, it does make clear that the L2 scales with the number of cores, while some other values are independent of the core count. Dbsseven (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Returning to this comment days later, I retract my original request. KB per core makes it more obvious. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:45, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit mess

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)

Good points about template aesthetics. If you feel strongly about market segment lines, I would suggest WP:FIXIT. On the KB/MB note, I moved the note link to the header of the table as it was previously used inconsistently. And I also noted this according in the edit summary. Dbsseven (talk) 03:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Why should I fix it? I've tried that before, and I don't want to fix other people's mess repeatedly. About the links you moved to the header I don't see where. As far as I can see there are no links to KB and MB in the header or subheader. The previous inconsistent use on these are documented in the "MB versus MiB" section above. Petosirisus (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

In answer to your question of "Why should I fix it?", because layout copyediting is a basic part of wikipedia editing too. And as the layout/aesthetics are fundamentally opinions on presentation, consensus can be found either by discussion here or organically through editing of the template.

My point about inconsistency was not about the definition of KB/MB, which was previously discussed. Rather it was the placement of the link to the table footnote, which was used for some MB/KB annotations and not others. I am surprised you cannot see it, but the same superscripted 1 is still in the table, in the header for cache (Cache¹). The footnote at the bottom of the table remains also, unchanged. Dbsseven (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

As I said, cleaning up other people's lazy editing repeatedly isn't something I want to do. About the KB/MB definition, I see the footnote but that isn't a link to the definitions for KB and MB in Wikipedia. A footnote to an external source isn't sufficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petosirisus (talk • contribs) 18:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Clock rates

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)

Relatedly, I've been wanting to add All Core Turbo to the list, as it's really the most important figure when determining the relative max multi-threaded performance of the various parts. I think this figure is far more interesting than base clock (though I'm not actually advocating removing base clock).bjquinn (talk) 15:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjquinn (talk • contribs)

Are there references from AMD directly?

Something like http://ark.intel.com/products/35605 User:ScotXW^t@lk 20:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

@ScotXW: I'm not sure if this fits your criteria, but there is a page for each processor. There is a bit of propaganda though.

AMD has pages for each "Ryzen", that is, the Ryzen 7, Ryzen 5, and Ryzen 3. There's also a page for the Threadripper.

Threadripper CPUs:

• Ryzen Threadripper 1950x
• Ryzen Threadripper 1920x
• Ryzen Threadripper 1900x

Ryzen 7:

• Ryzen 7 1800x
• Ryzen 7 1700x
• Ryzen 7 1700

Ryzen 5:

• Ryzen 5 1600x
• Ryzen 5 1600
• Ryzen 5 1500x
• Ryzen 5 1400

Ryzen 3:

• Ryzen 3 1300x
• Ryzen 1200

I hope this helps. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 12:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

More directly, to my knowledge AMD does not have a permanent database of products and specs equivalent to Intel's ark. Dbsseven (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dbsseven: would this page be good enough? I found some specs for older products there, and it seems ok? Would need to check with some other products though. By the way, since I'm not sure where you live, after the "/", put "en-us" for the english website. I get redirected to the "pt-br" because of my location. User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 23:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: That page is fine for citing but just keep in mind at some point the reference will be come a dead link. If you notice, that site only lists current products, so it will become outdated as time passes. (ie. Phenom and Athlon parts are not listed) Dbsseven (talk) 16:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Navbars for table templates?

Added one for this template for testing. If there is consensus to use this, it could be applied to all AMD table templates.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:AMD_Ryzen&oldid=805022367
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Navbar#Usage

--Pizzahut2 (talk) 16:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

I like it. Very helpful! Dbsseven (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Namespace for table templates

Here's a related discussion, though I doubt it'll work out:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)/Archive 23#Dedicate a namespace to (table) templates editable with the VisualEditor

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)

Threadripper 1920 (non-X)

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)

It seems that several mainboard vendors removed this CPU from the support list. This makes it uncertain whether the CPU will be released at all. It probably should be removed acc. to WP:CRYSTAL.--Pizzahut2 (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think we've given enough time for anyone else to chime in. Removing the 1920 (non-X). Dbsseven (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

"APU" products

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)

I suggest a separate table similar to, but distinct from, the Mobile Ryzen table. My justification is that it's a separate product line marketed as "AMD Ryzen Desktop Processor with Radeon Vega Graphics". The devices are also 2000-series and should arguably be in a separate table from 1000-series parts, anyway. 119.92.137.221 (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

It looks as though someone has added them to the Mobile Ryzen table, which is not where they belong. If they are to stay there then that template will need to be renamed. 49.145.138.74 (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Intgr: I realize this discussion could have occured on a number of different talk pages, but it seems like the consensus is the desktop APUs should not go in on the Ryzen Mobile template. If you agree, maybe we should go ahead a create a new template of desktop APUs. Dbsseven (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Dbsseven: Right, I wasn't aware of this discussion here. I was the one who added the APUs there and some IP also objected to my edits at Template talk:AMD Ryzen Mobile#Why have the two desktop APUs been added?, with my reply.

I would urge you people to consider whether we're simply being held back by the current name of the template (Template:AMD Ryzen Mobile which could be renamed to "AMD Ryzen APUs") or if it really makes sense to create a new template/table for two products. It doesn't seem likely that there will be more Ryzen "1" APUs since Ryzen 2 will soon be released.

But if you still think it makes sense to create a new template/table for it, then clearly that is the consensus and I wouldn't mind. -- intgr [talk] 19:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair points Intgr. I'd be fine with moving the template, except it is also used on List of AMD accelerated processing unit microprocessors where mobile and desktop are listed separately.

Personally, I'm not so sure Ryzen 2 APUs will be coming soon necessarily. The APU cadence may simply always lag the CPU only products by ~8-10 months... I would personally also expect to see more desktop APUs, and these are simply the first two released.

This may end up being a consensus that changes organically as products are released. Dbsseven (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Errors in SKU table regarding Precision Boost

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)

Edit mess again

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)

Time to get rid of the TBAs

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:

• Continue using table cell templates like {{tba}} or {{unk}}. Looks nice, but some table operations may not work correctly with the VE.
• Use table cell templates, but as substitution, e.g. {{subst:unk}}. Looks nice and probably works with the VE, but source code would be cluttered with styling and changes to the table cell templates in the future wouldn't be applied.
• Use plain text, e.g. ? or unknown. No VE issues, but it looks less fancy.

— Pizzahut2 (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

L1 cache column

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)

I agree with this. L1/L2 and manufacturing process should be removed in favour of a comment. SVMLegacy (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is taking up too much space. I guess the reason for these columns is probably historical / from older CPU tables. However I agree that it is not optimal either and could use some refinement. Anyways since this change should affect all Ryzen tables, I think it would be the best to place the discussion at Talk:List_of_AMD_Ryzen_processors. Wikiinger (talk) 01:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Part number inclusion

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)

I'm against adding the part numbers. The reason is that these tables are intended to list hardware specs and features of CPUs, GPUs, APUs, etc... The PN isn't a hardware spec, but rather a shopping information and an information which I don't think has any encyclopedic value. Wikiinger (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The value I see in the part number is a unique identifier for the hardware itself, as I have mentioned before, the hardware specs can change under CPU's with the same branding. SVMLegacy (talk) 02:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Release dates abbreviation and MSRP inclusion

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)