Talk:Zen (first generation)

New info

This just came out. Haven't had the time to go through it, but it appears to have some worthy stuff. --uKER (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

More new info here, but I don't feel qualified enough to curate what's relevant from there. --uKER (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Much of this is already included in the article from other sources. Thanks! Dbsseven (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

A bit more here. --uKER (talk) 20:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I would be hesitant to include Wccftech as a sole source. My understanding of the consensus about tech sources is that it is not a reliable source. Dbsseven (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Forward looking

It seems from reading and editing that information included in this article need to be very explicit and careful about what are rumors and what are confirmed facts about Zen. As the product is not released yet, very little has been actually confirmed. Unverified "facts" should be noted accordingly. Dbsseven (talk) 18:57, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

No news on ECC support or detailed official specs yet. If there official spec before March, anyway? Minikola (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no good sources (do posts of various online boards count?) for this but as far as I know ECC is enabled/works on all of the chips, however not all motherboards have it enabled and it isn't officially certified by AMD on chips targeted at home users. 2A00:EE2:600:900:428D:5CFF:FE24:E8C0 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about all boards, but it is supported in all chips per [1]. I will add it to the article. Dbsseven (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Quad Cores and Hex Cores

A lot of rumors have started showing info on Quad and Hex Core models, AMD has said there will be a full stack at launch, should we update the table with 4 (8) for core count? and maybe for 6 (12), or should we wait for more concrete information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:18E8:3:28D3:F000:0:0:2F6 (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality issue of the intro

Especially the last part:

This makes the entire system more power-efficient. With the SoC design, AMD can easily put Zen chips in laptops, NUC-style mini PCs, and big desktops, as well as servers.

--Tuxayo (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree this could use some cleaning up. If there were a citable source arguing both these things are true, this could just be prefaced with "Arguably". Othwerise, do you have suggested language? Dbsseven (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Front side bus CPUs can also be easily put into laptops or mini pcs etc. so i think it's best not to include this part in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.80.187.225 (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Cleanup

While much of the information on the page is useful, parts of the article are getting a bit unwieldy and difficult to read, in my opinion. Things I believe could be improved:

• The lengthy bullet point list of improvements. (In particular, the instruction sets would be most useful move to a "List of XXX microprocessors" page. As has been done with List of AMD Opteron microprocessors where the supported instruction sets are listed above each generation.)
• The quote in 'Enhanced security and virtualization support' adds little, but just reiterates in detail things previous said.

I don't want to hacking away at the article with out posting here. Any thoughts? Dbsseven (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

• There sure is a lot of information that is out of date or otherwise not really relevant anymore. Such as connectivity refering to expected 64 PCIe lanes in Naples even though it has been common knowledge for months that Epyc has 128 PCIe lanes (same amount in single and dual config) and many pointings to pre-release benchmarks etc. The page would need quite a lot of overhaul. 84.251.242.48 (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Production date

In an effort to avoid an edit war I would like to start a conversation about the production date on the Zen. Two edits have given the start date as 2013. This is not supported by any citation. The only firm production information we have is that it was produced in 2017. The assertion that production must have started prior to 2017 is conjecture or original research. And the specific date of 2013 completely unfounded. Any date earlier than 2017 (which is in the citations) needs a citation supporting it. Dbsseven (talk) 15:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate Tables

The table of Ryzen processors and their specs is an exact duplicate of that on the Ryzen wiki page. It should only be in one place, and I vote for it to be on the Ryzen page. Real tlhingan (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Both are links tp the same template table. I don't think there is any harm in listing it twice. This is already done on the Intel Core Skylake section and the Skylake (microarchitecture) pages, as one example. Dbsseven (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Which chips support Secure Memory Encryption (SME) and Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV)?

Which chips support Secure Memory Encryption (SME) and Secure Encrypted Virtualization (SEV)? Some Epyc server CPU slides seem to state these features are only available in Epyc chips instead of desktop Zen chips. I don't know if this is true or false? If all chips in this article support these features, then never mind, other clarify in this article which group of chips supports these features. PLEASE INVESTIGATE! Thanks! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

This source [2] states that that Ryzen Pro products will support SME and SEV. While not explicit, I believe this means these features are not in regular Ryzen products. Dbsseven (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

branding

@Intgr: I see you revered my recent edit to the infobox to indicate Epyc's branding. You are correct, no consensus was achieved in the previous Talk:Epyc#EPYC or Epyc? discussion as to if "(stylized as EPYC)" should be included in the lead. However, the conclusion of that discussion was that it would be acceptable to list "EPYC" in the infobox, as this was not in the lead (the major objection) and fit exactly the definition of the infobox line "Brand name(s)".

You are correct in Epyc being used throughout the prose of the article per MOS:TM. However, in the case of the "Brand name(s)" within the infobox, the correct information is "EPYC". "Epyc" is unambiguously stated not to be the brand name. Dbsseven (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Ryzen APU

The info that is coming out is that the new Ryzen APU announced for February 2018 are actually Zen+ cores. Shouldn't we move them to that page? Real tlhingan (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source of the APU's using Zen+? I have read a bit stating the APUs include core improvements, and they are named 2000-series, but nothing explicitly stating they use Zen+. Dbsseven (talk) 14:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

According to the AMD website, these will still be on the 14 nm process, and that is Zen, not Zen+. The press release was just mashing the announcement about the new APUs and the upcoming Zen+ together, some tech news websites got confused and though they were one and the same.Real tlhingan (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Ryzen 5 2600

Where is Ryzen 5 2600? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Ryzen 5 2600 is Zen+ based and therefore listed there.Dbsseven (talk) 14:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Ah, okay. (That's somewhat confusing.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:52, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Alleged TSMC production of Zen chips

Hello. Current version of the zen (microarchitecture) article does mention "TSMC" near the manufacturer and have ref https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/220603-confirmed-globalfoundries-will-manufacture-amds-mobile-low-power-polaris-gpus. I think this is incorrect and zen was not produced on tsmc. And extremetech from January 7, 2016 talks about GPU (polaris) not about zen. Should we recheck zen 1 fabrication on tsmc and delete tsmc mentions from the article? Wikichip gives Globalfoundries as the only producer of zen 1: https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/amd/microarchitectures/zen (with only zen2 being tsmc with 7nm). `a5b (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

At 4 March 2017 this was the only tsmc mention in zen article: "though reports state some Zen processors may also be produced at TSMC.[36]"; Added 22 August 2016 by @Dbsseven:. Added to template 19 June 2019 by @Maestro2016: `a5b (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Removed it from article and Samsung too (produced some Polaris or Vega chips but not CPUs). --Denniss (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Denniss:, thanks. You did remove it from the template, but there is still alleged tsmc in article text (added 22 August 2016 by Dbsseven): section Manufacturing process text "processors are reportedly produced at GlobalFoundries[49] and TSMC[dubious][50]". Should we delete the second mention of tsmc too? `a5b (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Ryzen 5 1600 12nm

Some people assume it is just a rebranded 2600 but it could also be:

• 1600 design on 12nm with added spacing but without Zen+ logic improvements
• Shrunk 1600 design
• Zen+ die with Zen microcode

217.162.74.13 (talk) 16:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

A German site checked that the chip ID code is the same as the 2600.

It could still have Zen microcode because it seems that they did not check the version.

But I guess this new CPU belongs in the Zen+ table anyway. 217.162.74.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

The 2600 might just be a better bin. 217.162.74.13 (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

CCX in hexa cores?

The article says the CCX is the building block of Zen and it comprises 4 cores. How does that work for hexa-core CPUs? --uKER (talk) 08:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, here's a CPU with 2-core CCX, so the article would probably need some corrections for sure. I'd do it myself but I'm not sure what it's supposed to be. Anyone? --uKER (talk) 08:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

With non-multiples of four, AMD simply disables some cores; hexacores should use two CCXs with one core each disabled. I have added some text to the article. --Zac67 (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Zen (first generation microarchitecture): schedulers

Hello! Sorry for my English, it's not my mother language. I'm writting about the article "Zen (first generation microarchitecture)" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(first_generation_microarchitecture) ). There might be an inaccurate information in this sentence: "Each Zen core can decode four instructions per clock cycle and includes a micro-op cache which feeds two schedulers, one each for the integer and floating point segments." I'm not sure that there are only two schedulers, because this schematic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(first_generation_microarchitecture)#/media/File:Zen_microarchitecture.svg ) tells that there are more than two schedulers. Maybe this sentence should be rewritten (and maybe there should be a phrase like "see schematic"). I'm not a specialist in this area, that's why I could be wrong:) AntonKreis9 (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

"Zen (redirect)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Zen (redirect) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 2#Zen (redirect) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)