Talk:List of AMD Ryzen processors

Termal solution (col) & Notelist (type)

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:

• Wikilink header to AMD Wraith and remove "Wraith" from cells?
• Change "LED" to "RGB" and remove "NO LED", so it's either RGB or nothing?
• Maybe simplify entire column, by reducing it to "yes|no" check marks and moving col behind MSRP?
  

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)

Hi Rando717!

Regarding the thermal solution info:

This issue was actually previously discussed by me at User:Artem S. Tashkinov's talk page after I noticed him moving the cooler info on the Ryzen 7k series template out of the table and into the common features list above the table.

I was going to do that to the other tables, but then I figured that it wasn't an optimal solution either, as it would end up with very long text on some of the templates, something like "model 1 comes with type 1 cooler, model 3 and 5 come with type 2 cooler, models 6 and 7 come with type 3 cooler".

The current idea that Artem S. Tashkinov has come up with, is to remove the cooler info from all the tables entirely, since the tables are about the CPUs and their specs, not what comes with the CPUs anyway, and instead have all the "what Ryzen CPU comes with what cooler?" information in a table at the AMD Wraith article instead.

Pinging @CGBR (who added the info to the tables), and @Artem S. Tashkinov to start the discussion.

--------------------------------------------

Onto the explanatory footnotes issue:

Personally, I don't really care what type of footnotes are used / how they are presented.

If anything, I prefer various different types of footnotes to be used for each category of item (i.e. roman numerals for technical details, NoteTag for additional models not listed). I would leave them as they are.

Although, one thing I would like to see being done regarding explanatory footnotes in the templates, is to remove the notelist templates from all the templates entirely, and instead have them in a "Notes" section on every article that has the template. The reason for this is that if you have the notelists in the templates instead, this interferes with any footnotes being used on the articles, outside of the templates. Instead of appearing in the "Notes" section of the article like they should, instead they will just appear in the nearest template below it only, which can be rather confusing and cumbersome to readers. A good example of this can be found here, look at that notes list, completely empty, even though there should be notes in it considering there are some of them on the article.

So let's not have notelists in templates. But that's my opinion though. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Removing termal solution col also works. Tables are about CPUs anyway.

About footnotes:

I mean, using roman numerals for header notes is fine, using lower-alpha for any extra notes withing cells is fine (yes, there is small spacing inside notelist, but whatever).

But than when it comes to notetags, they take too much space IMO. Great example would be Template:AMD Barceló, 3 sets of notes are used, look how much space NoteTags take (models col).

I would rather have Pro models back inside tables than using those Note 1, Note 2,...tags. Rando717 (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion of prices in the tables

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)

You make some good points here, and I think this is why I've been reluctant to remove the price column from processor lists myself, even if it felt a bit hypocritical while I was removing prices from car articles. They should be seen as less of a shopping guide and more of an insight to how AMD marketed the chips (in a clearer way than the model numbers themselves), and how they competed with Intel. Overall, I don't strongly feel one way or another about their inclusion in these lists. --Vossanova ^o< 15:32, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Prices are very much subject to change and hence, require a lot of maintenance. Moreover, none of the claimed prices, as far as I can ascertain, are actually sourced and it is unclear if these are retail prices (which will likely differ from one supplier to the next) or OEM prices.

Worst of all, the prices were listed in Template:AMD Ryzen 1000 series, transcluded into a number of articles, which makes it worse. It also renders this talk page a non-obvious venue for discussion, but I'll let that slide.

So, no. I don't think prices should be listed in templates. Or indeed, elsewhere. Kleuske (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Couple of things:

1. the prices listed in all the tables are specifically the original manufacturer suggested retail price (MSRP) of the CPUs. That is, when the company launches the product, they specify a suggested end consumer pricing for the retailers (these are not OEM prices). They can mark the price up or down however they want, but the MSRP remains the MSRP (though, that said, the majority of US retailers do usually adhere to the MSRP). This is actually quite common information, as AMD will put out a presentation or press release listing all the original MSRPs and then secondary sources will copy and repeat them in their articles, meaning it can be found quite easily. Hence why citations aren't often provided about it. Here are some examples of articles containing MSRP info for the Ryzen 1000 series:
2. yes, the actual prices of the parts do often change over time, especially after it's been over half a year since the products launched (they usually get cheaper). The prices shown in the tables are meant to be the original launch price of the parts, and never updated. Once again, it tells how things were at the launch of the product, in terms of economics and competition.
3. For the "templates" part: well, there's no better way to put them than have them be part of the product listing tables. A separate table or section on the article about the pricing would make significantly less sense.
4. Templates continued: So the way AMD Ryzen, AMD Radeon and Intel Arc articles are set up, are that all the tables listing the individual SKUs and their details are put into templates, which are then transcluded on the various articles that would want to have the same table. The major advantage of doing this is it "deduplicates" the same table between multiple articles that may have the same table. So for example, if I want to add a new Ryzen 7000 SKU to Wikipedia, instead of having to add it two or three times across the various articles that contain a Ryzen 7000 SKU list, I only need to add it to the template once, and then it will go "live" on the two or three articles that have the template, simultaneously. Another advantage of using templates is it helps keep a consistent style and layout between those various articles.
5. Further reading into the use of templates on CPU / GPU articles: this has actually been recently discussed on the Intel Arc talk page, where someone previously tried to remove templates from the Intel Arc article and replace them with regular substituted tables, likely due to not knowing how to edit the template. They voiced their opposition on the talk page, but the use of templates has been supported by numerous editors, citing synchronicity and style consistency as the core reasons once again. One product family / lineup which doesn't use templates on Wikipedia yet is the Nvidia GeForce GPUs, which I have actually started a proposal on the talk page about moving all the tables on GeForce articles to templates. (As of yet, nobody has opposed the idea of moving them to templates.)
6. Templates continued 2: yes, one disadvantage of having the product lists in templates is that it does make it seem not obvious where to discuss the product lists. To counter this, the documentation of the templates explain and provide a link to the centralised discussion place where the tables should be discussed, which is how I came here. If you look at the template documentation of the Ryzen 1000 series template, you'll notice that it says Common place to discuss layout and style of the Zen CPU tables at: Talk:List of AMD Ryzen processors. in it.

Hope that makes things clearer about why templates are used and why the prices are listed in them. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kleuske Is there anything you want to add to the above?

I'm considering starting a requests for comment on this, as there are at least hundreds of Wikipedia product list tables out there that contain pricing (not just AMD CPUs, but also GPUs, Intel CPUs, who knows what else), so I feel like gathering a wider consensus on whether pricing should really be included in these list tables or not. After all, some of these list tables have had pricing in them for over an entire decade now, undisputedly. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

In favor of including launch MSRP in tables. Can someone with better editing skills than me add a price column and prices back to the Ryzen 1000 series table so it at least matches the tables for all the other desktop Ryzen parts?

And the for the love of God, please don't remove the launch MSRP data from all the other tables. If you do, you may as well do it on all the articles for different generations of Intel Core i3/i5/i7/i9 processors and the lists of those processors too, and the launch prices of Nvidia GeForce and AMD Radeon GPUs on those list pages and generational articles... wait. Please, oh please, for the love of God, don't make any of those changes either. Jtenorj (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for late response, but I did restore the pricing information on Template:AMD Ryzen 1000 series once (diff), but then another editor came in and also removed the pricing information / disagreed with me (diff). Hence why I came here and created this thread, to discuss whether prices should really be included or not.

My plan is to do what has been suggested at User talk:WhatamIdoing/Archive 22 § RfC help needed, which is to incorporate original retail prices into sentences on the Ryzen article, talking about how they competed with similarly priced or positioned products from the competitor cited with reliable sources, rather than having them listed for each product in every desktop processors list table. Otherwise, I may consider starting a RfC on this. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I removed the tags because there's no reason to make the table compact for the sake of making it compact. We aren't on 80 column screens. The <br /> tags are also just downright ugly and make the table harder to maintain. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 03:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

Also, who wouldn't like a table that has less empty space and requires less distance scanning across the rows when reading them?

Also by the way, the reason there is "(total)" in the L3 cache columns of the table templates is that the L3 cache layout of these processors are not straightforward – for example, in the case of Ryzen 7 1700X, instead of being a single pool of 16MB cache it's actually two separate 8MB caches, due to the "two CCX" layout of the chip where each CCD contains 4 cores and 8MB shared L3. The "total" makes it clear this is the total amount of L3 cache in the processors, rather than it being unknown if this is total number of the separate caches together, or if it's all shared. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

References

Abbreviated dates

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)

No, not always. It depends on how much information they include. As that table does not include that much information, it does not make sense to unnecessarily abbreviate dates, and as far as I am aware, most tables I'm aware of don't abbreviate dates regardless, same with how references don't have abbreviated dates either. Edit: Plus, to be honest, abbreviated dates kinda just look wrong when you're shortening month names like March, July, June, etc when they are already pretty short in name. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 02:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright.

There's also the consistency argument: one table might have short dates like May June July, while the other table has long dates like September November. In that case it makes sense to either use short dates or long dates on all the tables, rather than have some be short and some be long depending on length of the month names.

Unfortunately, Template:AMD Ryzen 1000 Series isn't the only product list table that has abbreviated dates, there are at least 50 odd other table templates out there that also have abbr'd dates. As far as I'm aware, if you're in a dilemma where 20 tables use style 1 but 2 tables use style 2, and there is no guideline or policy that strongly recommends one over the other, the general precedent is to use the style that is the most widely used across all the articles, rather than changing them all the other way around to use the less widely used style, unless there is consensus from editors to do so. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

~50 templates using abbreviated dates vs hundreds of thousands of templates using non-abbreviated dates means that those ~50 templates should be updated to follow the near-universal date style, in this case being non-abbreviated dates. - Evelyn Marie (leave a message · contributions) 02:43, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay then, that makes sense. I've moved this to article talk so other editors can easily view the reasoning for un-abbreviating the dates, as well as participate in the discussion if they wish. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Add a table of contents?

It's hard to track the logical separations without a TOC 96.234.183.171 (talk) 01:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no such chip as the "Ryzen 7845U"

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)

Note is from another section and I removed it because I agree that it's confusing and doesn't provide additional information. RM12 (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

AMD confirms Ryzen 8000G family doesn't support ECC RAM

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)

AMD Ryzen (Pro) 8000G („Phoenix“)

Here is a list of all upcoming Ryzen 8000G (with GE) incl. Link to the original source. 147.161.136.180 (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Usage of 'start date and age' templates

@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)

I switched it back to dts. I personally like the extra info but hey I don't care enough to argue about it.

Someone changed the other Ryzen 7000 & 8000 templates to plain text. Don't know if that also messes with sorting but that's not on me. RM12 (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I've changed those back to the DTS template as well. Mind you the dates have been un-abbreviated because of a dispute above, but you are more than welcome to change them back and participate in that discussion. — AP 499D25 (talk) 23:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Table design minor updates

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:

• Disable sortability for core count, clock speed, cache size, core config, chiplets, iGPU model, clock, config, processing power, thermal solution and price. I don't think it makes sense to have the sortability option on all the columns, and so by enabling sortability for only the model, TDP (base) and release date columns, we can reduce the width of the tables quite a bit (here's an example: before and after).
• Add nowrap to tables class to prevent text flow breaking when viewing on narrow width window. Right now, if you view the tables on a narrow window (e.g. small browser window, or a mobile phone), some text in the table such as the cooler info, TDP ranges and "Ryzen 3/5/7" will automatically break up, causing the table to grow taller while making it harder to read as it breaks the otherwise smooth text flow from left to right.
• Reorder common features list. They are in a bit of a random order (i.e. it goes bus-cache-bus), so I'm going to put them in a socket-buses (RAM-PCIe-system bus)-iGPU common info-cache-fab node-additional notes order.
• Add some secondary source references (or refs to non-AMD databases). The reason for this is I have seen some editors complain in the past about some of these list articles apparently relying too much on primary sources, additionally if you read the inclusion of pricing dispute above, editors have suggested that there must especially be secondary source references if we were to have the launch price info in the table. As a matter of fact, the AMD CPU databases don't actually seem to state the launch prices, and Intel removes MSRP info from their databases when CPUs are discontinued. So I think this may be a very good idea if we were to keep the launch price data in the 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)