Template talk:AMD Zen based mobile APUs

Order of SKU's

Shouldn't the SKU order in the table be reversed, with the highest end SKU's (Ryzen 7 Mobile) being listed on top like any other semiconductor chip page? (tried to do it myself, but it didn't seem to work, also I wasn't able to swap the citations in my edit as I couldn't figure out how).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooe (talk • contribs)

Why have the two desktop APUs been added?

This is a table of Mobile Ryzen products. Desktop devices have no place in it. 49.145.138.74 (talk) 16:22, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it makes particular sense to separate the desktop and mobile APUs into separate tables. But you're right, the template should probably be renamed.

I started editing this template originally because it was used in the Ryzen article section "Raven Ridge" and the desktop APUs are produced under the "Raven Ridge" code name too.

Having them both in one table makes sense for easy comparison because they both list CPU as well as GPU specs. The other template Template:AMD Ryzen doesn't have GPU columns. And creating a new table for just 2 products seems silly.

Agree/disagree?

What should we we rename this template to? "AMD Ryzen APUs" seems appropriate but AMD officially no longer uses the "APU" term; they opted for "AMD Ryzen Processors with Radeon Vega Graphics", ugh...

-- intgr [talk] 16:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have to see where these tables are used. For one this is the microarchitecture article and second is the List of AMD APUs which makes very heavy use of these tables. However there you have already sections for the different target segments. So if you address the (different) target segments in this table it doesn't fit in the existing scheme. Wikiinger (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform design with the other APU tables

It would be nice if we could keep these new tables (this here + this one) in sync, with the existing APU tables (see AMD APUs). There is some new stuff like caches and XFR, but other stuff should stay the same IMHO. Thats why I removed the target segment column. Minor stuff: Order of TDP/Memory support, Released vs Release Date, Missing MHz. And why is this table sortable? PS: Also the sorting in the other tables the most powerful processor is on the bottom here it is the other way around... Cheers Wikiinger (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Vega" or "RX Vega"

@Matthew Anthony Smith: In response to your latest edit, what's the distinction between "Vega" and "RX Vega"? You only updated one row in the table but not others. -- intgr [talk] 14:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the device id states RX is for 10 and 11 only. mobile uses C3 desktop uses C6

proof https://www.techpowerup.com/gpuz/details/33hg6

if you are wondering why so many variants its because AMD saves slots for later, so expect years of these being used

1002 15DD C1 = Radeon RX Vega 11

1002 15DD C2 = Radeon Vega 8

1002 15DD C3 = Radeon RX Vega 10 Mobile

1002 15DD C4 = Radeon Vega 8 Mobile

1002 15DD C5 = Radeon Vega 3 Mobile

1002 15DD C6 = Radeon RX Vega 11

1002 15DD C8 = Radeon Vega 8

1002 15DD C9 = Radeon RX Vega 11

1002 15DD CC = Radeon Vega 6 Mobile

Matthew Smith (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew Anthony Smith: I think it's just a mistake or inconsistency. AMD's own website for example contains "Radeon™ RX Vega 6 Graphics" and another page has "Radeon™ Vega 11 Graphics". If it were an intentional distinction, I think you'd see it applied consistently also in marketing and reliable sources.

I think we should rather strive to be consistent in these tables. Also the source you've posted is a user-contributed source and would not pass reliable source criteria. -- intgr [talk] 10:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there is no mistake in amd drivers telling us what i showed you and the fact RX Vega 11 is validated as RX in GPUz which is a reliable source as it is, engineers code the drivers and named it what i posted its the most reliable source there is. Matthew Smith (talk) 11:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew Anthony Smith: If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia, please do take your time to get acquainted with our policies and guidelines, WP:RS and WP:V in particular. Rather than simply asserting that something is reliable, make an attempt see what the policies say about source reliability. We generally consider published secondary sources to be the most reliable.

Besides that, engineers aren't "the most reliable source" for product names, which are generally decided by marketing. Since we have two examples of primary sources contradicting on this, I think it's best not to trust either of them. -- intgr [talk] 12:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'd prefer keeping the columns in the table as narrow as possible. What's the importance of this distinction in the first place? "RX Vega" is the designation for the first GPUs using the "Vega" architecture. It does not imply any difference in performance or functionality. -- intgr [talk] 13:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well it does imply difference in performance, 10 and 11 are the best variants and AMD stated in an email themselves RX implies that. Matthew Smith (talk) 13:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Matthew Anthony Smith: What email? If there are published sources then please share and cite them. If they aren't public then you may be right but Wikipedia should not rely on that according to WP:V. -- intgr [talk] 13:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] this is a slide from AMD themselves showing RX 11 and non-RX 8 Matthew Smith (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you, I guess that's good enough. (By the way, I replaced your image with an external link; you cannot upload non-freely-licensed content to Wikimedia Commons). -- intgr [talk] 10:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wild about it. While it may be the official name, I don't think it adds much ("performance difference" is already described explicitly in the "Processing power" column). I also haven't seen any consensus in reliable secondary sources around including the RX.[2][3] But that's the standard for article naming, but not necessarily content... so I'll not fight on this. Dbsseven (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

←Interesting that in the Embedded section of the Ryzen article the V1202B is shown as having an RX Vega 3 integrated GPU. This seems like an inconsistency to me. Furthermore, the AMD slide mentioned above specifically refers to desktop Raven Ridge APUs, all of which are shown as having RX Vega n (n is either 8 or 11) integrated GPUs in their template. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 13:08, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Athlon Silver and Gold

AMD just announced the Athlon Silver 3050U and Athlon Gold 3150U 14 nanometer parts. Could someone add them to this template? I'm not good with tables. --Veikk0.ma 07:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, this template is used for "Raven Ridge" APUs, and from what I've seen, these two new APUs are codenamed "Dali", which is also 14nm and based off Raven Ridge. So, they would go in a new template for inclusion in the Dali section of List of AMD accelerated processing units and other pages. --Vossanova ^o< 15:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...which I've gone ahead and done. Template:AMD Athlon Mobile 3000 series --Vossanova ^o< 16:27, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to {{AMD Dalí Mobile}} because there is a Ryzen part. {{AMD Athlon Mobile 3000 series}} will only contain Athlon. Trigenibinion (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]