Open main menu


Ryzen is a "brand name" by AMD for microprocessorsEdit

Exactly like "Opteron", "Core i3", "Core i5" or "Core i7". I suggest this article should reflect the articles:

and be renamed to List of AMD Ryzen microprocessors

Socket AM4 or Zen (microarchitecture) have their own distinct articles. User:ScotXWt@lk 11:14, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently this deserves continued discussion. There have been a number of edits/reverts by KamranMackey titling the Ryzen as a "line" rather than a brand. While line is not defined, AMD has clearly stated that Ryzen is the "brand" for this series of CPUs and APUs.[1] This is supported by reputable secondary sources.[2][3] Further examples are the Athlon and Xeon articles. (An exception, the lead of the AMD Phenom where line is used, is contradicted in the cited source.) Any change in this naming would require a source (and an exceptional one at that to over-rule the manufacturer), otherwise it is original research. Dbsseven (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC) equivalent?Edit

Is there such a database by AMD? User:ScotXWt@lk 11:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be. (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC) and -- are the closest things to Ark neither site run by amd themselves. Specdb is the closest to Ark, ran by a reddit user. Wikichip is significantly more technical but IIRC amd employees do add to them. -- (talk) 02:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Since several monthe there is etc. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)


I think this article should be a List and nothing else, but until it is, how about documenting the impact of Ryzen-branded microprocessors:

Intel's x86-64 competition:

I would compare this article to Kaby Lake. Do we even have confirmation that Zen is still the official architecture name, or is the architecture now Ryzen?Carewolf (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess at some point this article could be made an overview Ryzen branded CPUs, and the current content moved to a Summit Ridge article as it is specific to that implementation of Zen. I am just not certain AMD is certain how they are going to brand this in the long run.Carewolf (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
The impact is rather simple. AMD offers more value for the same money than what Intel has done for many years, consequently Intel gradually matches this to some extend and also offers more cores for the same price. Intel had a monopoly for many years and consequently Intel offered little value for money (contrasted to the dieshrinks and lower costs for the same number of cores), AMD brought the competition back and consequently in the next years you will see much more progress. I agree that there should be a section dedicated to this aspect of Ryzen, though I would put it in the wiki on Zen because Ryzen is just the first iteration of Zen and Zen is the general architecture (in the X86-family). One final note, because of the big impact Ryzen should definitely get a higher importance rating on the hardware scale. It is much more than just a new architecture, it is a small revolution for CPUs in this decade. (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


Any hint how to pronounce? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

The podcasts PC Perspective and This week in computer hardware say Ry-Zen. Dbsseven (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the current IPA pronunciation hits the nail on the head. "Ryzen" as in "(Ho)rizon" would be spelt /'raɪzɘn/, which is how AMD pronounces this. /'raɪzɛn:/ would make it two individually pronounced syllables as in Rye-Zen, but again, AMD says it differently.--Aera (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
A year on and nobody is pronouncing it "Rye-zen". There are numerous video clips in which AMD staff say the word as "Rye-zn" with the e being hardly vocalised at all. As it stands the article is incorrect. (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Product lineup tableEdit

Simple enough edit to make, but the "threadripper" row in the table doesn't have enough columns, as such the "memory support" column reads "Summer 2017", and the Release price has no entry at all.

As a wikipedia newbie, I thought this would be a simple enough edit to make, to get me started on my way Find a load of "unknown"s and copy and paste one more, plus its delimiter. Simple! Instead all I see it say is: AMD Ryzen inside a pair of double braces (I'm not going to type that literally just in case it has some special meaning in the talk page that I don't know about. Now I thought that meant hyperlink, so when I went to that page. It just redirects me back to this article.

It's a minor low-priority cosmetic edit at this point, I'm sure it will be fixed when all the details are known, but until then, it'd make the page look a bit better if it was fixed. While I get to feel a little silly for not knowing how to edit something that seems like it should be really simple. (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I already fixed it. You can find the table by going to the Template:AMD Ryzen page. It's a template, so the table can be re-used on multiple pages. Thanks for contributing! Dbsseven (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Ah! "Template", that's the bit I didn't understand, I thought it was just a link to a standard page, and why I got confused when it just redirected right back where I came from. Like I said, it seemed like it should've been something really simple, and I bet now that I know I'm looking for the word template, I'll find it straight away in the help page about tables... (talk) 16:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

add phonetic spelling for RyzenEdit

many non amarican people are pronouncing it wrong. Please at ITA for it — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Wikipedia is a wiki, you can edit it yourself. But anyway I've added a pronounciation. I don't think many people understand ITA, I think "rye-zen" is clearer. -- intgr [talk] 21:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Except that isn't how it's pronounced. It's more like "rye-zn". (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Intel ADXEdit

We should add this to the list of extensions that Ryzen supports. -- (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

product Line up targeted Market change suggestionsEdit

I am pretty new to wiki. When i first looked at this article a few months ago, Ryzen 7 was an "High-End" Processor, but now it is classified as an "Performance" Processor. I find this kinda confusing and wrong, because Ryzen 7 is still an High-End CPU, while Threadripper is an Enthusiast-class CPU on an Enthusiast-Plattform. This should be changed on the graph in this article. It only adds confusion in my opinion. I would like to edit the table, but i dont know how to edit it. Additionally i want to hear the opinion of u guys, before i make any changes.

Here are my suggestions:

  • AMD Ryzen Threadripper: Enthusiast
  • AMD Ryzen 7 : High-End
  • AMD Ryzen 5 : Performance (Ryzen 5 1600X, Ryzen 5 1600), Mainstream (Ryzen 5 1500X, Ryzen 5 1400)
  • AMD Ryzen 3 : Entry Level

— Preceding unsigned comment added by AMD-User (talkcontribs)

Interesting ideas. However, the categories listed are based on current citations per Wikipedia policy. If you have a citation for your proposed edits, feel free to post them here to try and find a new consensus. Dbsseven (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I strongly disagree to add more crap from "AMD marketing". These people should be fired anyway... We should have articles on concrete die/chip packages or a family of thereof, e.g. Clarkdale (microprocessor), on microarchitectures, e.g. AMD K8 (though the article itself is severely lacking), and yes, the Wikipedia could continue to bother with lists of …-articles, e.g. List of Nvidia graphics processing units or List of AMD FX microprocessors. User:ScotXWt@lk 07:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Switch to binary units?Edit

Should we maybe switch to binary units where applicable? After all, "AMD defines 1 kilobyte (KB) as 1024 bytes, and 1 megabyte (MB) as 1024 kilobytes", while by definition 1KB is 1000B, but 1KiB do match AMD's 1024B. Ceremony64 (talk) 08:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ceremony64: I think Wikipedia manual of style indicates "MB" and "KB" here. See WP:COMPUNITS "The IEC prefixes kibi- (symbol Ki), mebi- (Mi), gibi- (Gi), etc., are generally not to be used except: [...]" -- intgr [talk] 08:23, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Binary units would be better. After all, all units in computer science are a product of 2 because a switch (transistor, in this case) can be on or off. (talk) 06:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Product lineup table outdatedEdit

Someone needs to update the info in Product lineup table, which seems to contain outdated info. For example Ryzen 1700X, clock rate and memory speed listed doesn't match the specs in official page Hei Liebrecht 19:05, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Good catch. Updated. Checking on the pro products, it looks like only the Pro 1700X speeds were wrong. Dbsseven (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding XFR it seems officially AMD just says whether it's available, but not how much speed it gives. Since Pro seems like a re-label of the orignal Ryzen CPUs, would it be safe to assume that the XFR speed of Pro and original models match?--Pizzahut2 (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd rather not assume, personally. I presume there is/will be some source to publish this. Dbsseven (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

infobox core nameEdit

I realize this is a bit detailed but the "Core names" of the infobox is not correct. However, the listed Summit Ridge, Whitehaven, and Raven Ridge are product code names not core names. The core name is "Zen". The infobox template also includes "Product code" and "Model", might not one of these be more precise? Dbsseven (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Basically just look at pretty much all the articles about Intel products, and do it exactly the same! Most articles related to AMD products are "cr**", ehm, severely lacking. AFAIK a "code name" is not the same as a "brand", but in AMD articles these are used inconsistently… Why???? User:ScotXWt@lk 07:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ryzen brand logo vs actual picture of an AM4 Ryzen 1800X for article's primary image?Edit

Pretty much what it says in the subject line; I just saw that someone recently swapped out the articles primary image from being a rendering of the AMD Ryzen logo to an actual picture of a Ryzen chip; specifically the 1800X. Now I'm of the belief that the former picture suited the article much better than the new/current one for a number of reasons. First off, not every Ryzen chip uses the AM4 socket so showing a picture of an AM4 chip as the primary could be very misleading. Secondly this article is about the entire Ryzen brand of chips, not a single product or set of chips whithin that brand, thus I feel like returning to the brand logo would be the best header picture possible. Just wondering people's thoughts on the matter before I just go and do it though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:30A6:9D00:98E1:1D3A:F3CE:3EF6 (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

I suspect the reasoning is that the photo is freely licensed, while use of the logo relies on fair use or whatever terms AMD licenses it under. Since the image isn't showing the underside of the chip, it isn't really sufficient to determine the socket type alone, so I don't think that is likely to confuse people. And the image is captioned with the exact model it portrays, which should remove any confusion. --James (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
I personally think that the Ryzen logo is preferable, licensing permitting. (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


Is it correct that 6 cores do have integrated FPUs each, not sharing them? (talk) 13:21, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes. This is discussed on the Zen (microarchitecture) article and links within that article. Dbsseven (talk) 14:49, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Desktop APUsEdit

Should the recently announced and soon to be released 2200G and 2400G be added to the main table of products (Ryzen 3, 5, 7 and Threadripper) or should they have a new table of their own? If the former then the table will need modifications. Clearly they are not Mobile Ryzen products but a new table with similar features could be created. (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I began a discussion on the Template:AMD Ryzen talk page about this very topic, in an effort to avoid the template becoming unwieldily. But yes, this content should certainly be added. Dbsseven (talk) 15:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I'll take a look there. (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


In the Summit Ridge/Whitehaven subsection the term Summit Ridge is defined but Whitehaven is not. I assume Whitehaven refers to first generation Threadripper but I'm reluctant to add it without a citation. (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


The product tables are being duplicated between this page and the Zen microarchitecture page. Where does it belong best? It looks like AMD will be sticking with the Ryzen brand for a good long time like they did with the Atlhon brand. Should we move products to their architecture page and have a simple listing of iterations here (list features, not specific products)? Real tlhingan (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The product tables are defined as templates so they only exist in one place but can be included in as many articles as need them. (talk) 06:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
I think Real tlhingan's point is that the content is redundant, and it may not be necessary to replicate it. Based on previous pages (Intel and AMD) it is consensus to replicate the tables over both the microarchitecture and product pages. (ie. Core i7 and Kaby Lake) I personally find this very helpful, and with the templates it is easy to keep the content consistent. Dbsseven (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Zen+ Ryzen went retail. So, we add Ryzen 2000 here as a new table and copy to Zen+? So Ryzen would consist of all Ryzen generation and each architecture only related generations? Elk Salmon (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Zen+ is a refresh of Zen and should not have an article all to itself. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 06:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Too technical?Edit

I severely disagree with the statement that this article would be too technical and I suggest that we don't make it less technical. If it gets difficult for laymen to understand parts of it, then explain those parts in more detail. Technology is difficult, get over it! We don't dumb down wikis on mathematics, let's not do that for technical subjects either. On top of that is Ryzen a new kind of architecture within the X86-family and consequently it gets a bit more complicated. I have read the entire article, it really isn't that difficult to understand most of it, nothing in this article is in-depth. Having said that, I do think that this article could be improved, I notice that it could use a lot more structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, especially on the comparison with the often incomprehensibility of mathematical articles. The article does need more content and explanation. (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Coverage of CTS Labs vulnerabilitiesEdit

@Cautilus, Denniss, and Jasonanaggie: I'm reverting the addition again for now. I agree that these are real vulnerabilities and worthy of coverage on Wikipedia. But they need to be covered neutrally: independent security researchers agree that there is nothing "critical" about these vulnerabilities, there is no "backdoor", etc. and AMD is already working with hardware vendors to distribute fixes.

PS: In the future when there's a disagreement, please create a talk page section to discuss it; edit summaries are not the right place to have a discussion. See WP:BRD. -- intgr [talk] 15:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

softlock bugEdit

@Denniss: and IP editor(s): I am beginning this discussion to see if consensus can be found about the purported GNU/linux soft lock bug of the Ryzen processors. Right now the citations provided appear (to me) not to meet the standards for reliable sources (based on WP:SPS) and and for content (based on WP:NOTCHANGELOG). Unless and until there is a reliable third party publication discussing these, I don't think we have evidence they are encyclopedic and therefore warrant inclusion. Thoughts? Dbsseven (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Everything was fine until some contributors started removing one command/variable claiming "it's only used for testing". So the problem appeared with certain Ryzen system. Users adding it back have no problem so it's clearly a software problem as something in the AMD ecosystem under Linux relied on it. If I read the bugreport correct in kernel 4.12 all was fine, only with 4.13+ the problem appeared due to removal of this command/variable. Reminds me of "never change a running system" as there was no real need to remove it.--Denniss (talk) 06:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Ryzenfall Tag discussion - possible questions and help?Edit

I just tagged the Ryzenfall section for bias, orig research, and sources. I came across it doing research on Intel vs AMD vulnerabilities and noticed the tone of the section seemed off immediately and so checked the source links. I don't have the time to really source this correctly myself right now, nor am I an expert on the subject.

I'd like to discuss the sources I have problems with: One of the sources (currently listed as cite 134: Lawyer Blog) is a personal blog on a crowd sourced, non-reviewed, article aggregator, which is clearly out. Another is less clear cut, (cite 133, Gamer Nexus) because it's a medium sized youtube channel and gamer site. The article is written by one of it's main Editors and an assistant, there are no other real published accomplishments for either in their field - so their expertise is debatable. The article itself is not sourced except for inline mentions, no links or references, and highly slanted with original research and fringe theories - the former is poor material and the latter is, of course, allowable, but amusing. The most borderline reference in the problem area is what is currently cite 132 (Linus Torvalds) which is a post on the Linus Torvalds forums with quotes and references from various, likely legitimate, 2nd and 3rd party sources, often with Linus Torvalds direct quotes. Torvalds is directly invested in software that had to make patches and updates for some of the vulnerabilities found between Intel and AMD and I'm unsure if he would count as a "third party" reference who is too close to the issue. That is the issue that may prevent simple switching of the link to one of the other potentially more reliable sources listed in the forum post?

Any feedback would be appreciated - or if you're a more informed expert on this subject and can de-clutter, show some more relevant data, or neutralize the tone - even better. I don't really even know where to start looking for good security sources for up-to-date news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumbcat (talkcontribs) 23:44, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure how to keep neutrality in this topic. The topic very quickly came and gone, and not much was revealed throughout the entire thing- CTS acted shrewdly, AMD was quite quiet through the entire controversy, with the first message saying that they received the reports but have never heard of CTS, and the second message saying that they are working on a fix. RAM (talk) 03:51, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
The whole thing was mainly a scam. The section does list both sides, but it could probably be considered undue weight. Though the story had coverage enough to warrant mention somewhere on wp.Carewolf (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
IMHO its not really even an errata, it's more so some very lenient security checks as the assumption is attacker won't have admin and they won't have physical access and you won't download random firmware, not from AMD.
Things like the Phenom TLB bug, Spectre, Meltdown, L1TF, Pentium Fdiv. are all key examples of major errata that 1) has a major impact to computing 2) affects the product significantly where it could be no longer fit for purpose 3) had to be worked around.
The "errata" demoed by CTS had requirements like Ring 0 execution or custom firmware/bios to be installed. I guess it could be more suited to Trivia if we don't want it removed? with just what CTS claimed, Media coverage and AMDs response.
And if we were to consider this an errata where do we draw the line as there's another 46 known errata(s) for Ryzen according to the AMD 17h Rev Guide and around 175 of known errata to Skylake according to the 6th Gen Spec Update. (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

ECC Support?Edit

Is it true that the Series 2 Ryzens have dropped support for ECC memory?

I noticed a marked increase in crashes of my current (INTEL) PC when I utilised non ECC memory and my PC does need to be highly available. My new one (hopefully Ryzen) as it will work both as freeview recorder and Network video recorder.

If so this is a significant change for some types of system. Processing ECC 'off CPU' will create a one cycle performance hit. --Leopardtail (talk) 08:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

No. It isn't true. But show me an AM4 motherboard that has both hardware support and BIOS support for ECC RAM. Note that a number of AM4 motherboards claim that ECC RAM can be used but that is very different from saying that the ECC function can be used. (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It looks as though some X570 motherboards will officially support ECC RAM and make use of its ECC function. (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Raven Ridge number of PCIe lanesEdit

The article claims "16 external PCIe 3.0 lanes (4 to chipset). 8 internal PCIe 3.0 lanes for iGPU." I added a Dubious-Discuss tag because Raven Ridge has 16 internal PCIe 3.0 lanes for the iGPU plus other on-board I/O, such as USB and SATA. Since Zen supports a total of 32 PCIe lanes (with a maximum of 24 available externally) that leaves 16 available externally for Raven Ridge Ryzens, as follows: 4 to the Promontory chipset, 4 to the M.2 socket, 8 to the dGPU x16 slot. This can be shown using tools such as HWiNFO64 but doesn't seem to be documented anywhere. The Raven Ridge Athlon 200GE has fewer PCIe lanes available - only 4 to the dGPU slot and (possibly) no support for MVMe M.2 devices. (talk) 19:43, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

The Zepplin dies have 32 PCIe lanes. AM4 only allows for a total of 24 of them to be used. TR4/SPr3 will use the full 32 lanes. Raven Ridge is a different chip to Zepplin, it has a total of 16 PCIe lanes only has 8 PCIe lanes after the 8 have been used by the iGPU (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Something is wrong with your maths there. Raven Ridge still has 4 lanes to the Promontory chip and 4 lanes to the M.2 socket, so (with the 8 lanes to the dGPU slot) that's 16 lanes total at the AM4 socket. That doesn't account for the internal connections. (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
The internal connection to the Raven Ridge iGPU is reported as x16 by the Windows tool CPU-Z. So adding that to the above gives a total of 32 lanes for Raven Ridge Ryzens comprising:
  • 16 used internally by the Vega GPU and shared with other SoC based I/O;
  • 8 available externally to a PCIe slot;
  • 4 available externally to the chipset;
  • 4 available externally to the M.2 socket.
Raven Ridge Athlons do support x4 NVMe devices, so same as above with the exception of only 4 to the PCIe slot for a total of 28. (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

FMA3 ErrataEdit

Why on earth someone wants to just call this errata, give it a specific name. Errata is a general term. Spectre is a form of errata, Meltdown is a form of errata. -- (talk) 17:11, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

These are vulnerabilities, not errata. An erratum is a correction for a published text.-- (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The FMA3 Errata caused a SegFault, it had been corrected a while, with a few changes since (Now under segmentation fault) before you had replied, also its not a vulnerability lol.-- (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Proposed mergeEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There was no support for the merge. 09:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Someone proposed that the article List of AMD Ryzen microprocessors be merged into this article but neglected to create a section to discuss it here. So I'll make a start.

I don't see any information in that article that isn't already present in this article, except for the list of Epyc processors. Since Epyc is not Ryzen it should not be there anyway. So my vote is not to merge but to delete the other article. (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Probably better to just split off the processor information into the "list of" article, like what happened with Qualcomm Snapdragon. (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the articles need their own spaces. These graphs on the list are well-done, but would clog the main Ryzen page. (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I see tables that are already included in this article and in the Epyc article. Remove those and there would very little left. I don't see any graphs. (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Compatibility/Issues - are these sections really needed and neutral?Edit

I think these sections are a bit odd. Long since 1985 (386) AMD archs have been consistently running x86 code perfectly fine, yet the myth of "AMD compatibility" still persists. Intel had many serious bugs:!topic/nairobi-gnu/EQcYcRZa9Os

Meanwhile AMD just couldn't run code compiled with strict optimizations for proprietary post-586 Intel archs: a notable example were past versions of OpenFOAM, an opensource fluid dynamics package. It managed to have the TLB bug which wasn't observable in real life, initial Ryzen bugs have been fixed by firmware updates and has been involved in Spectre/Meltdown much less than Intel.

point 1: Ryzen(and more generally, "Zen") arch is x86 compatible, or is there some evidence of the contrary to justify the voice Compatibility? point 2: All chips have bugs, yet Intel Core arch wikipage doesn't have a "Bugs" section, but Ryzen does sport an "Issues" section. This looks like a subtle way of sowing distrust or fud. I think every company should have the same key sections. Cheavacca (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC) edited 10/03/2019 to add Spoiler exploit

I'm not sure what your complaint is regarding the Compatibility section. There's nothing debatable in there at all, it's completely factual and well sourced.
Regarding point 2, whether Intel artices have an Issues section is completely irrelevant. Rather than a conspiracy, the more likely explanation is that no one has had the time add such sections to the articles. I'm sure you're more than welcome to do so yourself.
As for your claim that initial Ryzen bugs have been fixed by firmware updates, this is false. Bugs that could be patched in firmware have indeed been patched, but the Linux segfault bug is a hardware issue and requires the processor to be replaced. 04:15, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Cheavacca: I haven't heard any "myths of AMD compatibility" myself. Also the section seems fairly netural, it states that Microsoft doesn't officially support Intel CPUs with older Windows versions either.
I don't see any reason to remove the section but you have any thoughts about how to make the section more neutral then that would be welcome.
We could also rename "Compatibility" to "Operating system support". -- intgr [talk] 14:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@intgr: you must be very young then… maybe stop talking about "myths" and ask people about their experience with concrete products from the 386/486-era. Also please distinguish between compiler and operating system. I don't know how many people even use Intel's compiler, but they do bother to offer one. Though, do they still? User:ScotXWt@lk 07:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I'm too young to know about 386/486 issues, but that's irrelevant. We're talking about Ryzen in particular here, Cheavacca suggested that the myths still persist; I haven't heard of compatibility myths or issues about Ryzen or any modern x86 processor -- have you?
As for compilers, "Compatibility" section in the acticle currently only discusses operating system support (e.g. ), not compilers. I don't think Intel's compiler was ever truly incompatible with AMD processors, it just disabled many optimizations that would be applicable. -- intgr [talk] 09:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Ryzen Embedded R1000 series released!Edit

Hello guys

A month ago AMD released a new series in its Embedded section. The Ryzen R1000 series, which consists of 2 models, R1505G and R1606G, were released during a keynote in Taipei last month. I tried to edit the page to include that but the site returned me with HTTP 404. Can someone else help edit that so this newest information can also be added? Check all the specs out here:

Thank you so much.

What is "Threadripper"?Edit

Allthogh Threadripper reirects here, that term is not defined in any way by this current article. Onr might be able to infer that "Threadripper" is AMD's term for a high-end processor, it's neither stated clearly nor described meaningfully. I ask that regular editors of this article add a brief statement in the lede to clarify this ambiguity. Thank you. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I've added a paragraph and done some tidying up. (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The XFR columns in the tables should be removedEdit

There is incorrect information in the tables about XFR (and most entries simply say "Unknown") so they should be removed. See [1] for the discussion and clarification from an AMD spokesman. In short, XFR does not increase clock frequency above the maximum frequency provided by Precision Boost and there is a lot of misinformation on the Internet that claims it does. Any discrepancy is due to maximum Precision Boost frequencies being rounded down. Discuss. (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I spent a few bours tidying up today. Hopefully it's an improvement. (talk) 20:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Known issues sectionEdit

I'm planning to rationalise this section. If no one objects I will delete the subsections on the segmentation fault and the CTS Labs conspiracy, both of which are in the past and not relevant today. That will leave the subsection on Spectre, which is still relevant. (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think either of the subjects warrant complete removal from the article, not even the segfault issue. The CTS Labs incident was covered fairly well in the tech media, but the current citations in the article leave much to be desired. Outlets such as Tom's Hardware, PC World, and AnandTech covered the issue in detail, with the latter even conducting a live interview with CTS Labs. None of these articles are currently used as references, however. I'd be glad to remedy that when I get the time, or have someone else do it.
Whether all the issues need their own sections is another matter. The segfault issue was not covered as widely as the others (though there are still more sources that could be added to that section), but I think we could mention that with a sentence or two in another section. History perhaps. Maybe the whole Issues section or its contents would be a better fit for the History section (or the issues could be mentioned there in addition to its own section) if there was more written about Ryzen's history? 09:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the CTS Labs section - thanks for those refs. The History section was buried below Zen microarchitecture in the Product lineup section so I raised it to the top level, where it can hopefully be expanded. (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Multiple issuesEdit

The article has been tagged with multiple issues. At first sight it might look as though I added that tag but I didn't - it was lost when I reverted some recent vandalism and I simply restored it. I'll list the issues here and encourage a discussion as to how best to fix them.

  • This article may be too technical for most readers to understand
  • This article needs additional citations for verification
  • This article possibly contains unsourced predictions, speculative material, or accounts of events that might not occur
  • This article may be written from a fan's point of view

I disagree that the article is too technical. It's a technical subject and I believe the majority of the terms used are wikilinked or explained. It is no more technical than, say, Intel Core which incidentally is longer but has fewer citations, and considerably less technical than, say, Reed–Solomon error correction. There's always a need for more or better citations. This article has 152 individual references at the moment. It would be nice to replace some of the less reputable ones with reliable sources. There are a couple of key points that are in need of citation but, at the moment, that's all. I disagree on the third point. I think they've all been removed but I could be wrong. On the fourth point, I have done a major copyedit of the whole article and ask for comments. I think it's fairly neutral now but everyone has their own particular bias and I'm sure I'm not immune. (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

It has come to light that User:Regice2020 recently added the Unreferenced, Fansite and Speculation tags in this edit. The incorrect dates make them appear longstanding when in fact they are not. Is that in itself justification for their removal? (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
There are plenty of references, so that tag can be removed. I don't see much speculation anymore so we can probably remove that too. As for "fansite" or bias, there are several, perhaps too many, comparisons to Intel, especially in the History section. Maybe that can be edited a bit to focus more on AMD, or making more comparisons with previous AMD chips instead. --Vossanova o< 14:57, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Remove lists of processorsEdit

I think one way to help clean up this page would be to remove the lists of Ryzen processors. There is already List of AMD Ryzen microprocessors, and the lists on this page are for the most part a duplicate of that page. This could help with the arguments that this page is "too technical", and would narrow the focus to just explaining what Ryzen is and does. --Vossanova o< 14:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I tried editing out all the tables in a sandbox and the result looks very sparse, with no information at all under some of the headings. It's a good suggestion as there is a lot of information duplicated between the articles but I'd like to see the History section expanded and some prose added to the Product lineup section first before making such a big change. (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we would convert as much of the Product lineup section to prose as possible. It can link to architecture pages like Zen. The other sections can stay as-is. --Vossanova o< 20:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Another option would be to merge the lists into the article fully. That would be a lot of tables though, and a prior merge proposal went nowhere. Maybe it could be done with collapsed tables? Sakkura (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
That would just make the page harder to read, really. Even with collapsible tables, there would be lots of breaks between paragraphs, and it would be harder to maintain and update everything. I'm still for a descriptive processor article, and a separate list as a technical reference, which is how nearly every other CPU is included in Wikipedia. --Vossanova o< 20:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
As a comparison, the Intel Core article is not unlike this one in terms of subject matter. It has several more tables of products, considerably more prose and fewer citations. It isn't considered to be too technical and it has a B class quality rating. I'm not sure I understand what makes it a "better" article than this one. There are also several Intel List of... articles that seem to have the same duplication of information as we have here. Maybe I need to take a step back for a while. (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
What I had in mind was like Athlon, which has no tables, and a See also section with lists like List of AMD Athlon microprocessors. --Vossanova o< 13:02, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 13 July 2019Edit

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: consensus against the requested move (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 20:27, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

RyzenAMD Ryzen – Ryzen brand is owned by AMD, and it should renamed to AMD Ryzen just like AMD FX.] Regice2020 (talk) 19:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Reply The necessary move request was not made in the past for those pages. AMD Ryzen should name just like AMD FX, AMD Turion, AMD Phenom..etc. Regice2020 (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps YOU should have done a little bit of research then and put in a move request for every single processor that isn't prefaced by the manufacturer, per your rationale. There are dozens, so moving a single page won't fix what you are claiming is the problem.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:31, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose – A move rationale should be based in some kind guideline or convention; this one is not. Dicklyon (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is only one Ryzen so no need for disambiguation. The name is fine as it is, meeting WP:CONCISE per other people's comments. (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Observation User:Regice2020 has an agenda with this article, having previously nominated it as an AFD, tried to get it protected, twice, and when they failed he made disruptive edits bordering on vandalism. As far as I can tell he has never made a constructive edit to this or any other AMD-related article. He ignores WP protocols, ignores consensus, refuses to engage on Talk pages and goes crying to admins when he doesn't get what he wants. (talk) 05:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"Product lineup" tagged as advertisingEdit

Ryzen#Product_lineup was tagged as advertising. Most of it looks completely normal for a CPU article, listing various features etc. I did trim some "positive reviews" stuff from the descriptions of the associated Wraith coolers, and removed the tag. If someone wants to put the tag back, I'd like to hear what particular parts sound like advertising. Sakkura (talk) 19:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but i don't care about other articles. This one include release date and price of the AMD products, like an advice. You can't speak about enclopedic informations. -- (talk) 10:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Release date and price does not make it sound like an "advice" or an advertisement. Sakkura (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
You can't speak about enclopedic informations.-- (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
That's not helpful. Release date and price are pertinent information that do not justify the tag. Do you have any proper justification for keeping the tag? Sakkura (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Your are Wrong. Please explain why this informations are pertinent. -- (talk) 13:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
justication? please read this page.-- (talk) 13:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The launch date of a product is of obvious importance and notability. You'll find it in articles about all kinds of things, not just CPUs but GPUs, video games, movies, cars, vacuum cleaners and so on. Heck, even the infobox templates for cars and movies include it. Price is not universally included, but still prevalent for certain product categories including CPUs. And listing prices still has nothing to do with advertising. Sakkura (talk) 14:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
We are not here to speak about cars articles. You don't explain why the price is so important for this products. I never try to delete some informations. But in my opinion, this article is not encyclopedic. If you don't understand, please respect other opinions. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:CC82:D9C:BC3E:C5A8 (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The point is not whether I respect your opinion, it's whether there is a consensus for it. If you had any policy-based reason for your opinion, that might help you establish consensus. As for the other articles, they demonstrate the absence of a general consensus that putting pricing information in an article makes it read like advertising. Sakkura (talk) 18:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm agree. There is no concensus here for remove the tag. This not the place to speak about others articles. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:F93E:1502:E3F4:20FB (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
You added the tag. Per WP:NOCON, the default outcome in absence of consensus is to retain the version before the addition. Sakkura (talk) 20:45, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Advertising is not permitted. It is not neutral. If you feel like writing an ad, what you should do instead is write neutral content based on sourcing. You have never justify why you remove this tag. Can you explain why it's so difficult to accept disapproval opinion ? --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:F93E:1502:E3F4:20FB (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Please give clear evidence of what you believe is advertising in the article. —MegaPedant 05:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, you don't explain why you remove the tag. This article is advertising because many of sources are not quality references. There is a problem. Majority of reference come from AMD advertiising, or from fan forum. In fact, when i search on the web AMD ryzen, i don' t find article from not spécialized press. Please explain why it's so difficult to accept disapproval opinion.--2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:D4F1:1787:53F7:759E (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
It' s very strange to remove the tag after 7 years inactive on wikipedia. It will be difficult to Assume good faith in this case. Are you paid by AMD ? --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:D4F1:1787:53F7:759E (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The bulk of the article's sources are tech review/news sites, which are essentially the best possible source. A large share are directly from AMD, which is also good as they confirm official specifications and the like. There are only a few references to community sites (reddit and AMD's community), and in all cases the referenced posts are confirmed to be by AMD employees. Additionally, this is not the same reason you gave before; it seems like you're just moving the goalposts.
Jumping straight to assuming bad faith (or arguably outright personal attacks) is contrary to Wikipedia policies. In light of the recent SPI, I'd like to point out that it is also similar to what User:Regice2020 did in the Ryzen AfD last month. Sakkura (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I think we should just ignore or have this anonymous "contributor" blocked. He/she doesn't contribute and appears to be just trying to cause debate and controversy where none exits.Carewolf (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
"in all cases the referenced posts are confirmed to be by AMD employees". So, i was thinking wikipédia is neutral content based on sourcing. This page is under control of AMD. If we need approbation from AMD employees, there no difference with an advertising. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:D4F1:1787:53F7:759E (talk) 16:41, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Do you actually read what you are typing regice? That's complete and utter BS.--Denniss (talk) 17:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Denniss, if you'are just here for personnal attacks please stay away from this page. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:C83:7A44:7EFE:11D1 (talk) 18:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, you don't like mud thrown against you? Then you shouldn't have started this mud-throwing in the first place. The only attacks and accusations are from you.--Denniss (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Why do you says that i attack you? It's not true. Maybe you are the sockpûppet of MegaPedant. In this case he come here after 7 years of inactivy juste for removing the tag. It's normal to ask him if he work for AMD. You can't speak about attacks.And you're not allowed to modify my message. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:9CCC:FDBE:2D88:9301 (talk) 08:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not normal to accuse people of being employees and thus having a conflict of interest, based on practically zero evidence. As for the modification of your message, it's just the indentation level. That's okay under the rules, as long as content and meaning are unaffected. Sakkura (talk) 15:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

It's not the place to speak about what your thinking about my messages. OK, i understand you don't like my question to MegaPedant, but this question is pertinent. It could explain why so many contributeurs from nowhere (under 5000 edit after many years) are here. Please explain why it's so important for you to remove an advertising tag on this promotionnal page. --2A01:CB08:8AED:E00:88F8:D880:4F3F:9F51 (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

"Contributeurs from nowhere" are to be expected when an article is made a subject of WP:PR. —MegaPedant 00:07, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Why is it so important for you to add an (unjustified) advertising tag on this page? As Sakkura said, per WP:NOCON, the default outcome in absence of consensus is to retain the version before the addition. Please provide clear evidence that this page is written like an advertisement. Edible Melon (talk) 12:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Ryzen" page.