User talk:RM12

February 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Android version history, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. WP:IINFO – The Grid (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you please explain what your issue with the matter is directly? Because as far as I'm concerned there is no problem with anything you mentioned. Like I've already said you can check the Windows 10 version history macOS version history or iOS version history to find that they all mention the last release (EOL) because that is crucial information. You fail to explain you personally think otherwise and why the same information is a unnecessary for Android? --RM12 (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Sony Exmor image sensors for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Sony Exmor image sensors is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sony Exmor image sensors until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

331dot (talk) 15:51, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Tip

Not to sound rude or anything but just a suggestion. Next time you try to save peoples useful hardwork from some... people who cause edit wars for literally no reason other than no reason. Don't announce it otherwise it will be targeted like how less than 10 minutes after you basically screamed you resurrected it. 78.163.105.147 (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Exmor".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

— AP 499D25 (talk) 11:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Samsung Galaxy Xcover6 Pro a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Hajoon0102 💬 15:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Intel Data Center GPU Flex series

Template:Intel Data Center GPU Flex series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:57, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

About your RfD nomination of Samsung Galaxy A22

Hey RM12, I noticed that you might want an article to be created at this title instead of having a redirect. You can follow this link and edit the page, where you'll be able to replace the redirect with an article. Make sure you demonstrate that the article's subject is notable by using reliable sources, and let me know if you have any questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Snapdragon 400 series

Please fix the table of Snapdragon 400 series you have messed it up Kirisame01 (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. I replaced "| -" with Template:N/A. Thanks didn't notice it while replacing spaces. RM12 (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Snapdragon 8G2 FG

Hello, I reverted your undo. 8G2 FG comes with FC6900 in multiple Samsung devices and this should be on the Snapdragon 8G2 FG specs, putting correct information about a product on Wikipedia isn't a "bloat", its the correct thing to do. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Hey,

Are you going to do this for all other Qualcomm chips that support multiple Wi-Fi and Bluetooth specifications too?

There are many 8(+) Gen 1 powered phones that only support Wi-Fi 6 not 6E that don't use the FastConnect 6900 but 6800. Then you'd have to continue with the Snapdragon 7 series. Then there are old chips where Wi-Fi 5 or Wi-Fi 6 isn't supported on all configurations. It's an endless rabbit hole that's why I reverted your edit because you single out one instance which misses the bigger picture. Like I've said these are device specification and not the capabilities of the SoC as the SoC is always backwards compatible. RM12 (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Also this doesn't only apply to the 8 Gen 2 for Galaxy but rather for both 8 Gen 2 models as there are also 8 Gen 2 powered phones that rely on the FastConnect 6900 (like the Xperia 1 V for example). RM12 (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

SoC specs should always reflect what the hardware use, if a another chip use a different connectivity chip then yes this need to be put on the specs as well, you can't say 8G2 supports only FC7800 when there are devices that come with a FC6900 chip, thats simply wrong. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Have fun adding those then I've already mentioned 8 Gen 2, 8(+) Gen 1, 7 series and more since it's also wrong to only correct one error and leave all the others. That's actually even worse because it makes the other mistakes seem correct. RM12 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Well as they say Rome wasn't built in a day, eventually the article will get there just like every other article on Wikipedia, cheers. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 17:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Intel Xe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arrow Lake. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI regarding TSMC N4X

Hello RM12,

Regarding TSMC N4X process, the process being "tailored" for HPC doesn't mean it wouldn't work for lower power applications, the process includes multiple transistors options (including an ultra low voltage) which can be used depending whether the design target is efficiency or power or both. Read more here.

Also to note that TSMC definition of HPC isn't that clear, sometimes they do refer to mobile (SoCs) as being part of HPC, here's an example. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding your Anandtech citing: The article confirms what I've said in the first sentence by stating N4X is for HPC applications. And if you read the last sentence they specifically differentiate between HPC, smartphone, and automotive.

Regarding your Cadence citing: They aren't talking about N4X at all in the blogpost and by "mobile" they mean laptop chips from AMD and Apple that TSMC counts towards HPC. There's even AMD's Ryzen 7045 series (HX) that are desktop chips repackaged for mobile which is what they also include in such statements. Nowhere does that blogpost prove that N4X is used for the Dimensity 9300.

Now to prove my point that TSMC always differentiates between HPC and smartphone we only need to look at all of their financial results here. If you check the "Presentation Material" from all of them you will find that there's always a clear differentiation between smartphone and HPC.

The fact that MediaTek states "3rd generation 4nm" in their press material doesn't confirm the node. It could just as well be marketing talk for 3rd chip on 4nm.

@Kirisame01 made a similar edit a while ago which you also reverted without providing a reliable source for your claim. Please provide a reliable source that confirms the Dimensity 9300 uses N4X or leave it at majority vote. RM12 (talk) 12:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Read the Anandtech article properly.

"N4X adds four new devices on top of the N4P device offerings, including ultra-low-voltage transistors (uLVT) for applications that need to be very efficient, and extremely-low threshold voltage transistors (eLVT) for applications that need to work at high clocks. For example, N4X uLVT with overdrive offers 21% lower power at the same speed when compared to N4P eLVT, whereas N4X eLVT in OD offers 6% higher speed for critical paths when compared to N4P eLVT".

Since you claim its a HPC only node, why would N4X offer a low voltage option? Why its much more efficient at lower voltages than N4P? Why TSMC made N4X upgrade compatible from N4 & N4P if its only good for HPC?

Second, MediaTek claim of the D9300 & D9300+ being built on the TSMC's third gen 4nm process (which means N4X) is the only reliable source we have at the moment, so unless you have a more reliable source or other reliable sources that contradicts that then that what will stay on the page, you, Krisame01 or even my claims are irrelevant, Wikipedia works on sourced facts, not a guessing game or a popularity contest. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The reason I changed it before is because TSMC mentioned that the N4X is made specifically for HPC. Link. Notice: TSMC 4nm third generation does not mean N4X, it just means that they have improved compared to the previous generation Kirisame01 (talk) 05:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Being "tailored" for HPC doesn't mean it wouldn't work well for other applications, it seems that for N4X TSMC optimized the performance for HPC (i.e >=1.2V) while also retaining the performance for lower voltages by offering various transistors options that fits all other voltage options, even ultra low voltage.

"it just means that they have improved compared to the previous generation"

Thats a guess on your part, Wikipedia doesn't work this way, even if you're correct you cannot put that info there unless you have a reliable source to back this up.

Also please read the reply to RM12 below. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Because HPC also needs efficiency. Because architectures for HPC can be implemented into a vast variety of products (high clocked on workstations and lower clocked in servers). Because design compatability helps in the R&D phase when the decision on the node isn't final. None of that proves your point.

Mediatek doesn't say it's N4X either so it's not sourced and there is real evidence to support otherwise which you simply ignore. I have also brought up TSMC as a source which states that N4X is not for smartphones so what about that?

Wikipedia works by WP:CON and the current consensus (2:1) is that you're edit isn't factually proven. So it's up to you to support your claim.

We can settle on "TSMC 4nm" as that is the only confirmed fact or add a disclaimer (citation needed) if you want to but N4X is not factual at least given public sources. RM12 (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

If I remember correctly ULV in TSMC terms is 0.4V, so its outside the scope of any HPC chip, the fact that TSMC made N4X the long term node of the 5nm family and made it easier to upgrade from N4 & N4P nodes points to it being the one node that fits all needs.

To do WP:CON you need to have at least a reliable source to say that D9300 is built on N4P so that it contradicts claims by MediaTek that its built on TSMCs 3rd gen 4nm node, I found a reliable source, TechInsights says that its built on N4P, TechInsights do teardowns and anaylsis and is a third party so its much more reliable than MediaTek claims.

I'll change the article to N4P with a note saying that MediaTek claims its built on TSMC 3rd gen 4nm. Alawadhi3000 (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)