Talk:Zen 4

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Links

Here the links to some articles about Zen 4:

--Soluvo (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely horrible design and data presentation for AMD CPUs templates

Let me voice my utmost aversion to the style and manner which AMD CPU articles/templates are edited:

There's a metric ton of duplicated data, in fact for this AMD Ryzen 7000 Series template found in this Zen 4 article nearly 90% of the data in the table is duplicated. There's zero justification for it.
Technically the templates contain falsehoods. I.e. L1/L2 caches are not shared yet they are presented as a total amount. Only L3 is shared and if I'm not mistaken each CCX has its own L3 cache.
In WP articles where this template is used the page doesn't fit even on a 2560px wide screen. You need to scroll it ... horizontally which is madness. It's outright unusable on mobile.
Nearly every company other there lists its products from fastest to slowest. For some reasons templates are on the the opposite side.
ff601e color is pure acid. I've not seen any other WP articles where such colors are used.
In other templates there are "Enthusiast", "Performance" and "Mainstream" categories which are just wrong/bad/inappropriate. Why? Because people buy CPUs based on their purchasing power which varies a lot from country to country. What's "Mainstream" for the average American, is actually "Luxury" for the average person in the Central African Republic. WP's task is to provide raw data, not to give its own agenda, opinion, verdict on what is what. Even AMD itself has long stopped using these categories. In addition to that CPUs from years ago get so cheap these categories become laughable.
This is simple, concise and pertinent. The current template looks like the worst case of graphorrhea or something created solely for style over substance.

I'm not going to touch any of the templates because I've done so several times and my edits were reverted by people who present zero counter arguments and simply don't care.

Casting @DIYeditor:, @ILM126:, @Wikiinger:. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 11:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Casting @DIYeditor:, @ILM126:, @Wikiinger:, @Master Of Ninja: again. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 07:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that I'm pinged on this, and I have time... I think I've only edited this article a few times, and generally I only edit to clear up grammar, references or outright inaccuracies. I am a "casual" editor as I don't have time to "police" articles, but WP has the flaw that sometimes some editors care too much about their own article. I note the comparison between a previous version and User:Artem S. Tashkinov's version. Comments:

I would actually prefer data stored on Wikidata and sourced from there. I think this is a WP work in progress, so not totally relevant immediately to this discussion, but is something for long-term data use, presentation and accessibility.
I agree there is duplication e.g. the graphics unit information does not need to be on each row.
How many pages is this template used on? i.e. does this need to be a template?
There is poor table design - i.e. being too wide, and duplicated data
I note an edit comment on the table template - consistency is not a reason for poor table design, and this is not a reason to have this table layout
Some of the info e.g. pricing needs to be labelled as "initial pricing"
I can't work out why there are the orange bars. These should be separate tables.
Also are the labels of enthusiast etc. AMD's titling, and if so where's the reference? Otherwise it is pretty much WP:ORIGINAL and should be deleted.
I note you say you've edited the template several times - you've only got one edit against your username on that template. I will go with good faith that you edited when logged out, but if this debate went higher up the WP chain it would be worthwhile to get things logged for audit purposes.
Does this table belong on this page? If Zen 4 is the architectural page, should products not go on the relevant linked page with a "see also" template?

I would actually simply the table, and even delete the template if it is not being used on many pages. See my last point - I don't think the table even belongs on this page.

Thinking about it slightly harder, I think the problem is that the purpose of the template has not been specified. If I put it this way, this template is only useful on the Ryzen page. If this is the case, the template has been used to minimise the amount of text in the page. I do not think this is a good use of the template facility, but I would have to look at the WP guidelines on this. If this is really the case I would actually nominate the template for deletion. If the Ryzen page is getting too big, the solution is not templates, but creating subpages e.g. Ryzen 7000 doesn't re-direct to Ryzen, but is a page in its own right.

Thoughts? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts at all? I might go and edit the template soon. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I went to have a look at the table source - I noted that discussions around these should be at Talk:List of AMD Ryzen processors, and the OP has already posted there. I'm not going to do much more about the table and template itself, although I think it shouldn't exist as it as a template, and could be transcluded from the page if needed (which I also think it doesn't need to be). - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem S. Tashkinov , @Master Of Ninja

My quick opinion about current state of Ryzen tables (in general).

1) Top Priority: I vote to remove orange rows first (It doesn't matter if it's Ryzen 1-2-3 or Entry-Mid-High).

It's unofficial and waste of space, I mean just look at Ryzen 3000, 6 rows? You can create entire table from it.

Desktop APUs are already infected with halloween rows (as of recent).

We should prevent this before it spreads to other articles or lists, like blue rows on Intel CPUs, not to mention Intel Arc is already infected with rainbows.

2a) After step one is resolved we can discuss removing duplicate entries like arch, fab, socket, memory, pcie lanes,...or using short dates Sep/Nov (instead of September/November) to reduce width.

2b) Maybe remove or rework L1/L2 col (some tables have "per core", others "in total", I don't know which one to follow...so I roll with it).

AMD reports total L1/L2 size...True, it's not shared like L3, so tehnically incorrect.

Still, current option: "64 data + 32 int. per core" can easily extend to 6-7 rows when viewing article on the phone (actually reading most Ryzen tables on the phone is a nightmare).

How about "4x96 KB" one liner (for 4 cores)? Instead of "1 MB per core" L2, how about "4x1 MB" inline?

2c) On all Ryzen APUs I would remove processing power and replace config with CU only.It's APU, is that even important info? Also remove all Vega/RX Vega confussion with GCN 5 note above table.

3) Too much different templates with same products...ryzen based, athlon based, zen based this & that, APU based...hard to keep track of everything (but we need a better design that's for sure).

4) Why is Threadripper together with AM4 stuff? It's not same socket? We should split those tables and create new for workstation stuff (by doing so we can easily merge/delete duplicates).

5) I can't understand why nobody is bothered by all this repeating stuff? You can easily add note above/below and save tons of space.

To me it feels like tables are competing for style point over usability, totally useless for mobile and also frustrating on desktop (with 50% of it empty and copy paste).

My appologies if it seems like I am venting, belive me I am not.I just typed first things that came to mind (without grammar checking anything). :-)

I feel this is important topic, and I wanna encourage further discussions (somewhere, anywhere, here, over there).

Overall: I am not a fan of this theme spreading, soon we gonna have red radeon and green geforce lines.

(This talk addon is totally messing my text, can't shift+enter to break rows...oh well.) Rando717 (talk) 10:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this version. Would be great if we simply started from it. Contains zero duplication, all the necessary data is in it. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I can't understand why nobody is bothered by all this repeating stuff? You can easily add note above/below and save tons of space" - I have a sneaking suspicion it was introduced by a designer and someone thought it would be great to copy it to all other articles. And then a few users (turned out to be a single person having multiple accounts as well as editing anonymously) who did it were banned permanently. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That example is a good starting point (IMO), all duplicates are out of table.If needed we can add few things back.

Personally I would move chiplets col out.Doesn't appear to be all that important (1x I/O or 2x CC die copy pasted all over). Rando717 (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was playing around with table on sandbox (7000 series might not be the best example, only 4 CPUs released so far).

Anyway here is [example] table, quite similar to one you posted. Rando717 (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like the second table. 1) The GPU section is exactly the same across all CPUs. Do we really need to show it? In terms of performance it's a filler, not a gaming iGPU. 2) L2 cache is 1MB per core - could be moved out as well, as it's not shared. People (even myself) will still read it as e.g. 6MB for 7600X which is not correct. On the other hand shared L3 is indeed important - that's something which differs a lot, specially in light of future X3D parts. Suit yourself. Let's just abandon acid colors once and for all :-) Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I said that 7000 series might not be best example for table re-design.There are Ryzen APUs with different Vega models (CU and clock).

I would remove FLOPS and config from all APU tables.In case models are the same I would completely remove GPU and add note above (doubt that people care about IGPU performance or config).

Nobody is gonna be like "Look! Ryzen 5 4680U with 60 more shaders and 1344 FLOPS compared to 1152 on Ryzen 5 4600U." (and yes we talk in GFLOPS not TFLOPS).

As for L2 I said above that we should rework (that per core part takes too much space IMO) or remove it, even I sometimes incorrectly look at it as total sum. :-) Rando717 (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The number of CCD dies is definitely not something most people care or know about. In fact most reviewers don't even talk about them at all. Yeah, I think we can totally move them out of the table as well. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Artem S. Tashkinov,

Here is my say on the matter.

Firstly, a comment on that bold edit you made to the Ryzen 7000 series template. The user who reverted it, did so with the reason of "consistency with the other tables" in the edit summary. It is quite a poor excuse to revert a bold edit to the table layout when you could think of it the other way around and say, "why don't all the other tables look like this?" as well. All I'm saying, is that the rationale to that revert is quite poor, imo. There is one flaw with that particular template revision, and that is, it misses integrated GPU info, but that's still not an excuse to undo the whole layout change, as that info can be easily added back.

Secondly, I've noticed there have been attempts to put horizontal branding headers and duplicate info into tables on Intel CPU and Nvidia GPU articles as well, ultimately failing miserably in the end. It seems some of the editors doing it are suspected sockpuppets trying to do it over and over again in a 'pushy' manner, rather than doing it after achieving conclusive consensus in favour of it first.

My take on branding headers: if there's going to be a branding header, then it should be a column, not a row, as a row would break up a column of common/merged information, leading to have to duplicate that information after the horizontal branding header, again. Not to mention it hurts the flow of reading columns top to bottom to compare info between processors.

Thirdly, and this is probably the most significant point here, but based on the second point above, I think what needs to happen is that there should be a centralised discussion place for how the tables should all look, since it's not just an issue affecting AMD Ryzen processor tables, but also Intel CPU, GPU tables, Nvidia GPU tables, pretty much any table of tech product releases as well. I'm considering starting a dispute resolution with this generalised subject in mind, getting in as many opinions as possible, to achieve a complete consensus for once and for all, to settle this debate and stop the disruption caused by constant back/forth switching of table layouts and designs.

My quick own opinion on the matter: the current table layout sucks, and the table layouts like the one in your bold edit as well as the one on Raptor Lake page are significantly better, in terms of accessibility, and readability.

Thanks. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton for your considerations. I'm willing to participate in the discussion you mentioned, "there should be a centralised discussion place for how the tables should all look". Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 09:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Artem S. Tashkinov @Rando717

I'm going to make a round of bold edits to the tables. The style change will be applied throughout all the Ryzen CPU templates.

Before I do so, I would like some thoughts on the template layouts 2 and 3 shown here in this sandbox.

My intention is to go for layout 3. Layout 2 is there primarily as what a compromise could look like between 1 and 3.

Another question: regarding the Ryzen Threadripper 3000 series processors, there are the Pro models and then there are the non-Pro models, with differentiating common features between them. Should TR Pro and non-Pro be separate as well, or should they remain in one template?

— AP 499D25 (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Layout 3 looks fine to me.

I think we should keep Pro and non-Pro models together. Rando717 (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like layout 3 the absolute most - it's exactly what I was looking for. I'm only not sure Chiplet and Core Config information has to be there - it's highly technical, the performance implications are minimal and it takes a lot of space. It's really up to other editors as I'm totally OK if we include it.

Two notes: firstly, the first column could be (re)named "Branding and Model". Secondly, if people want to see the Chiplets and Core Config columns, then I suggest we move them after the TDP column (before the release date column) - they have very little significance and they are highly technical. Otherwise it's just perfect.

Three other absolute minor notes: 1) Add the br HTML tag just before "(GHz)" to make this column narrower. 2) make the table "sortable". 3) Rename "Retail price" to "MSRP". Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 11:21, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your inputs, both of you. I'll be definitely taking them into consideration.

By the way, regarding the topic of Chiplet and Core Config columns, even I'd say there is a bit of a point for them to be kept there with the chiplet CPUs such as Matisse Ryzen 3000 and Raphael Ryzen 7000:

For example, the core config difference between Ryzen 3 3100 and Ryzen 3 3300X is one of the reasons why the 3300X performs quite a bit faster in some applications, besides the clock speed differences - source

Another example is the Ryzen 9 vs Ryzen 7 7000 series CPUs. The Ryzen 9 CPUs actually perform slightly worse in some games and certain scenarios due to the chiplet config difference - pages 19 and 28 of this TPU review.

However though, on tables for monolithic CPUs such as Ryzen 1000 Summit Ridge and especially Ryzen 4000 Renoir CPUs, it makes no sense to have the chiplet and core config columns. Like, what is the importance of them being there, I don't understand.

But honestly, I'm fine with it being removed or kept either way. Maybe I'll boldly remove it altogether, and if it gets put back then that's the consensus.

I'm also considering flipping the tables upside-down so that the items are sorted highest-to-lowest, rather than the lowest-to-highest order they are in right now. Even AMD themselves has their CPUs ordered highest to lowest on their website, as shown on the bottom of this page here. Though for the record, I had a look through older AMD CPU lists like FX Bulldozer and Athlon II and they too look like they've been lowest-to-highest order from the start, so it's not a recent thing it seems.

— AP 499D25 (talk) 09:39, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with everything you've said. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only want the 7950X3D to be removed for the time being because it's not been formally revealed. It's a soft case of WP:CBALL but considering we know nothing about the CPU except that it's a 16-core part with a large cache it's just not worth to list it. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer sorting from entry level to high-end, but I am perfectly fine with sorting from high-end to entry level.

After looking at your sandbox I wanna make few (small) suggestions:

1) On price col move USD inside header (below MSRP)

2) Break row release date and use abbreviated dates (Feb / Sep / Nov...) instead of long(wide) September / November

3) On APU/IGPU tables use only 2 GPU cols (GPU clock and CU/core count cols, remove architecture/model name/flops)

-Starting with Zen 2: AMD doesn't call them Vega GPUs anymore (just Radeon Graphics, they are still GCN5), also Pro variants don't have consumer RX prefix (take 3400G and Pro 3400G as example).

-In my opinion GFLOPS info is pointless, especially on 7000 series with 2 CUs

-GPU core config requires cited ref, easier to have only CU (Graphics Cores) col Rando717 (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also my sandbox #1 where I am (currently) applying the new layout throughout all the tables copied from list of Ryzen processors, with some of User:Artem S. Tashkinov's suggestions being implemented as well. Thanks for pointing out these tips too, I didn't know what to do for GPU model/CU count column, so what's there on that sandbox is pretty much 'preliminary' stuff, awaiting to be standardised further. I too am already removing the GPU config and GFLOPS columns from the APU tables. The Ryzen 7k desktop table will have the iGPU removed from the table entirely and instead put into the bulletpoint list, however I'll put it back into table if there's good reason to do so.

As for stuff like splitting up CPU clock GHz (as Artem mentioned) and release dates, it's a matter of tradeoff between table width and table height. However, keeping the release dates on one line and instead shortening them (and breaking the header column) seems brilliant, as it does not make the table shorter in one way to make it longer in another way, so will be implementing that as well. If you look at the linked sandbox you'll see for some of the processor models such as Vermeer Ryzen 5000, they are only one row tall which is quite neat.

— AP 499D25 (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks cool to me. My final suggestion: I'd love CPU models to be made links instead of having references to AMD website in order to 1) avoid an insanely long list of references 2) aid Google search 3) aid users who will have easier time clicking on the model, instead of its very short and tiny reference link. Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I'll leave everything else up to the others, maybe I'll do it a few months later on, as I feel quite tired at this point after all this effort and just want it done and out of the way. The edits shall go live after I figure out what naming system to use for the Threadripper tables (since they will be split up from the consumer/mainstream desktop CPU tables). A new thread will be created at Talk:List of AMD Ryzen processors for future suggestions/feedback to be posed at.

— AP 499D25 (talk) 13:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One question I have regarding Threadripper templates:

What naming standard should be used for HEDT and workstation CPU templates?

Standard 1:

Template:AMD Ryzen x000 HEDT/WS CPUs

or Template:AMD Ryzen x000 HEDT WS CPUs if slashes not allowed in title

Standard 2:

Template:AMD Ryzen Threadripper x000 Series

Standard 3:

Template:AMD Ryzen HEDT/WS x000 Series

— AP 499D25 (talk) 08:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Officially all Threadrippers are part of either AMD Ryzen Threadripper Processors , AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO Processors or AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 5000 WX-Series product line.

Based on that Standard 2 makes sense.

-Ryzen Threadripper 1000 series (or 1000X)

-Ryzen Threadripper 2000 series (if together with Pro/WX models keep it as 2000 series?)

-Ryzen Threadripper 3000 series (same as above, exclude Pro/WX from naming)

-Ryzen Threadripper 5000 series (or add Pro / 5000WX?) Rando717 (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also noted that the naming standard used across the different categories of CPUs - i.e. desktop CPU, mobile APU, desktop APU - are quite messy and not very logical (e.g. Desktop CPUs are named Template:AMD Ryzen x000 Series, while desktop APUs are named Template:AMD Ryzen x000 desktop APUs, I've even seen a desktop APU template named AMD Ryzen x000G Series), but within a category it's applied consistently however (the desktop category at least, Template:AMD Ryzen 1000 Series and Template:AMD Ryzen 5000 Series are all desktop CPUs and not anything else).

This is my idea for how the templates shall be named (hence where standard 1 came from):

Desktop CPUs: AMD Ryzen x000 desktop CPUs

Desktop APUs: AMD Ryzen x000 desktop APUs

High-end desktop / workstation CPUs: AMD Ryzen x000 HEDT/WS CPUs

Notebook APUs: AMD Ryzen x000 mobile APUs

Templates are renamable/movable aren't they, just like pages? If so then I suppose it doesn't matter too much what naming system we choose for now.

— AP 499D25 (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CPU/Motherboards burnout issue

This is worth mentioning:

https://wccftech.com/official-amd-agesa-1-0-0-7-bios-firmware-with-ryzen-7000-burnout-fix-to-release-in-early-may/ https://www.anandtech.com/show/18835/amd-issues-second-statement-on-ryzen-7000x3d-burnout-issues-caps-soc-voltages Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 10:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am already aware of this major issue, it's pretty significant enough that it has gotten media coverage, so definitely something that could be mentioned.

I had a think about it, where it should belong, and I believe it should be written in the "issues" section of the Ryzen article. All the other issues in the past with Ryzen CPUs are there instead of on the architecture articles. Plus, it's an issue with the consumer desktop implementation of the architecture (more specifically how the motherboards handle voltages with one-click mem OC), and not an architectural level fault. — AP 499D25 (talk) 01:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a mention of the issue over at Asus#Controversies, though it focusses more on how Asus responded to the problem (i.e. beta BIOSes that didn't fix the problem and also 'voided' motherboard warranty). — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a motherboard manufacturer issue, providing Bios version who overvolts certain parts of the CPU to achieve better testing results or, as they often claim, "to improve stability". This forced AMD to release an emercengy Agesa with a global voltage limit for VSOC in general and i believe VCore for the X3Ds. Asus has a decades long reputation to overvolt/overclock CPUs, in parts even with default setting.--Denniss (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and am aware this is very much the motherboard manufacturers' fault, not AMD's fault. I see why it makes sense to mention the situation on the articles of the motherboard makers', not articles on AMD or their products now.

Looks like Gigabyte is the only other company that has had these burning out troubles, though the controversy isn't nearly as big on their side (aside from a new BIOS that was supposed to fix it but didn't), so I guess nothing much to write about it on that page.

P.s. I have already heard several cases of Asus motherboards killing CPUs due to overvoltage on both various Intel and AMD platforms in the past before, dating several years back. Example sources: [1] [2] [3]. It just seems that they didn't garner much attention from the community, and especially the media, until the Ryzen 7000 catastrophes happened. — AP 499D25 (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2023 (UTC) edited 13:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bergamo and Genoa-X SKUs added to Genoa table/section?

Hi, looks like the new Bergamo and Genoa-X SKUs were added to existing Genoa table, but why? It makes sense to either make at least a new section for Bergamo with a separate table, or make it clear that the section and table currently contain Genoa, Genoa-X and Bergamo. 188.66.32.223 (talk) 10:24, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]