Talk:Ryzen

AMD marketing has not been using the term for some years now, but there's a precise definition: it is an HSA-style processor that contains a CPU and a GPU part. GPU processing power has nothing to do with it. The Ryzen 7000 are APUs, not CPUs. And even AMD still knows this: https://www.amd.com/en/support/apu/amd-ryzen-processors/amd-ryzen-9-desktop-processors/amd-ryzen-9-7950x Trigenibinion (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed you've posted this same question in several other places like List of Ryzen processors and AMD APU. I'll be answering here since it is perhaps the most visited page out of them all.

So the website link you posted suggests it is an APU. I wouldn't rely on that as a lone source however. One possibility could be that the way the website is structured, all processors with integrated graphics go under "apu" directory, while processors without it would go under "cpu" directory or whatever it's called.

Indeed, AMD no longer officially refer to these as an APUs anymore. They use the name, "Processor with Radeon Graphics" now.

They don't market the Ryzen 7k Raphael CPUs under that name however, as the iGPU is not the focus of the product. The iGPU exists there as more of a filler and extra feature than a highlight/main feature of the product, intended for office use and diagnostics purposes, than for gaming and demanding applications, as Gamers Nexus notes in this video.

Back to the original question. This is probably what matters the most here. Do the secondary / independent sources (e.g. TechPowerUp, AnandTech) refer to Raphael Ryzen 7k series as CPUs, or APUs?

AP 499D25 (talk) 03:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

It is irrelevant what the press calls them. They are technically APUs, which is a term AMD invented to refer to CPUs with an integrated graphics accelerator (the IGPs in Geodes are not accelerators). You can use OpenCL on the Raphael iGPU. Trigenibinion (talk) 04:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"It is irrelevant what the press calls them." - they are independent, reliable secondary sources, as mentioned here.

You may think that it's an APU according to some document from 13 years ago, but for all we know AMD does not use that term anymore, there are no valid, up-to-date reliable sources out there to support the notion that Raphael is an APU, and so far all of these latest sources I can find, call them a CPU.

It's also worth noting the iGPU on Raphael uses quite a different layout to that of other Ryzen processors with integrated graphics, the CPU is a chiplet packaging type and the iGPU is located in the I/O die. Whereas, the 'APU'-named processors have a gigantic iGPU and the CPU CCX all on one monolithic package. Actually nevermind, from a block diagram perspective it's the same overall.

@Denniss do you have anything to say?

AP 499D25 (talk) 05:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC) edited 05:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The press is not reliable and this is a term invented by AMD at that time. You cannot have a definition of an APU based on an arbitrary understanding of what a "big" iGPU means. Possibly that's why AMD does not market them anymore as such. It does not matter if an APU is monolithic or chiplet-based. Trigenibinion (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay I understand that (and as I explained with struck text above, the 'electrical' layout seems to be same), however, give me a source, whether primary (AMD) or secondary, that calls Raphael an "APU". I would like a recent source and not something from over 10 years ago.

According to AMD marketing we should not be using the term 'APU' on Ryzen and newer processors at all anymore, however the reason why we continue to do so on the articles, is because sources like Anandtech or Tweaktown call them such.

I've noted that nowadays these reviewers, journalists and the like use 'APUs' to differentiate CPUs with high performance iGPUs from CPUs that are primarily used with discrete graphics cards.

But if you can't find or give source for "Raphael is an APU" then it is considered original research. AP 499D25 (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

In their original definition, AMD talked about "balanced" and "discrete-class", which is vague. They also talked about HSA, so technically Llano would not be an APU (and neither would be Intel's CPUs). You cannot move the goalposts with a new definition. Trigenibinion (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Definitions can change, which is why I would try to find a recent source than an older one.

Re: "The press is not reliable" - you can call them unreliable but they meet the WP:RS criteria for reliable source. Those sources have been used throughout many Wikipedia tech-related articles for years with no problems. AP 499D25 (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

It would only be acceptable to make the definition more general by removing any ambiguities.

The tech press consists mostly of journalists, not engineers and computers scientists. The mainstream press has also shown to be unreliable on other subjects. Trigenibinion (talk) 07:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

So you can not show a source claiming that Raphael is an APU? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Definitions can change. One prime example of this is Intel 10nm Enhanced SuperFIN / "Intel 7". Recently, the 10ESF / Intel 7 node was moved/added to 7 nm process article and all wikilinks of it on articles were changed to 7nm process instead of 10nm. A huge heated debate was sparked at the talk page because of it. The concluding consensus was that there's nothing about the chips that are actually "7nm" nor "10nm" in size, it's all marketing anyways, Intel changed their definition of process node densities with 10ESF being considered Intel 7 / 7nm class, and so it was decided that whatever class they now market it as shall take the form on WP.

It was known before Intel's marketing change that their 10nm was similar to TSMC's or GF's planned 7nm. Trigenibinion (talk) 13:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you provide link to the AMD document or whitepaper or whatever going over the definition of an APU as you claim? AP 499D25 (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

But they are APUs. Here is a list of APUs listed as such on the AMD website. APU Specifications Earnulf Gery (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Here is the imprecise definition: ^[1] Trigenibinion (talk) 13:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I had actually already found that document on google a few days ago before. I just don't hold it in high regards due to WP:RSAGE.

Re: "The tech press consists mostly of journalists, not engineers and computers scientists." - I don't see how the handful of sources out there like that call it a CPU, explicitly violate the WP:V and WP:RS criteria.

I'm honestly now not sure which side to take, the numerous recent secondary sources calling it a CPU, or the old official AMD document from 2012 which according to its definition is an APU, so I have listed this at third opinion request. AP 499D25 (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

No, according to the official, imprecise definition it would be a CPU, so the media would not be wrong in calling it like that. It is just not them who specify the meaning of technical terms (given its imprecise nature I would now say this is a marketing term, as I think it was previously called). It can however, run FS2020 at almost 30 fps at very low settings, so it is not exactly weak (99% GPU, 1% CPU). Trigenibinion (talk) 02:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I have completely disregarded the notion that the definition of an APU is a CPU with "powerful" integrated graphics. I can see that from a block diagram / technical viewpoint, the layout of Raphael is pretty much the same as any other 'APU'.

Now it's just up to the interpretation of the sources' definition of an APU to decide on this one. AP 499D25 (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Just going by FP, the Raphael iGPU is only about 25% more powerful than Bobcat's. Trigenibinion (talk) 05:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I just saw it can run GTA V at 40 fps in Full HD, at least when walking/running. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I saw the same kind of figures for the GT 740 DDR3. Many people are still mistakenly buying the GT 710 and 730 DDR3. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Some DDR3 cards are misleadingly listed as GDDR3 and DDR4 as GDDR4. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I just saw there are 32-bit versions of the GT 710 and 720. The 32-bit GDDR5 710 is not much better than the 64-bit DDR3. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Let's not get too off-topic here, this is a talk page meant for discussing changes and improvements to be made to articles, and not for discussing a topic.

When I made those "Raphael iGPU has not enough performance" edit summaries, I did not realise or totally forgot that there exist 'APUs' with even way less performance than Raphael's iGPU!

For example, the A4-7300, pretty sure that thing's a small fraction of Raphael iGPU's performance.

I now understand pretty much any AMD CPU that contains a fully-featured GPU (i.e. with full 3D graphics, video decoding/encoding, compute capabilities) can be considered an 'APU'.

Now, I'm just waiting for third opinion to jump in and decide what's the best way to go about this. Maybe it might be good to discard use of the term 'APU' entirely altogether. AP 499D25 (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The difference between Raphael and Bobcat is that the former would not be considered "balanced" (what for?) and that the latter would have been "discrete-class" over ten years ago. Trigenibinion (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I have now seen the press calling Dragon Range APUs before and after the announcement, using the terms APU and CPU interchangeably, and even calling the iGPU an APU. Trigenibinion (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes there are sponsored articles or pieces that are not written by the journalists of a publication. Trigenibinion (talk) 01:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Hello Trigenibinion and AP 499D25, I am responding to the third opinion request in this matter. This is a disagreement where, while there may be an underlying substantive argument to be had, Wikipedia sourcing policies constrain the result on the page. My third opinion is that CPU should be used instead of APU. Secondary sources have been cited to support the CPU argument. The sole source for the APU argument is a primary source document published by AMD itself and its presentation suggests it was used for marketing purposes. The age of the source (a little over a decade) does not trouble me as much as the limitations of using primary sources when secondary sources are available. The latter are preferred from an encyclopedic standpoint. Thus, I suggest using CPU in this instance. I hope my third opinion is useful to you both, and I wish you luck in the collegial resolution of your disagreement. JArthur1984 (talk) 17:51, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Note that AMD lists the same chip as "with Radeon Graphics" or not depending on whether it is a mobile or desktop part (the iGPU is provided on both). Trigenibinion (talk) 20:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It may be that AMD requires the mobile parts to always be paired with a dGPU. It certainly does not want to mislead people buying/building desktops. Trigenibinion (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

AMD could just require a minimum number of GFLOPS, VRAM specs, and API levels from the dGPU to not get into bundling problems, but they could not say Radeon. Still leaves room for AMD Advantage. Trigenibinion (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

There is now the question of whether these 2 CUs are enough for SmartShift RSR. Trigenibinion (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Desktop chips announced 4 months ago (Mendocino) are not listed anywhere. There's a ton more laptop chips that got announced yesterday. Because of the mix of cores that these have, should we list them under Ryzen 7000 with a column for cores or list them under their Zen generation? ~~ 2001:56A:7A37:DC00:EC88:71A7:248:3E51 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The article currently group the Ryzen models by their first digit (Ryzen 1000 then Ryzen 2000 then...), you can see that currently the Ryzen 3000 section group Matisse Zen2 and Picasso Zen+. This can change, but before that the first Mendocino models should be put in the Ryzen 7000 section. I have created a Mendocino section, so Wikipedia:Be bold. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

It's worth noting Mendocino mobile APU template does already exist, as shown here. I've noted that on this Ryzen article the CPUs are grouped by Ryzen #000 series, but on List of AMD Ryzen processors it's grouped by the Zen core generations.

A major issue I'm seeing here is the incoherency of templates and especially their naming. A lot of the templates are named very randomly, for example Ryzen 3000 desktop APUs is named so, but 4000 desktop APUs are named 4000G series. To make matters even worse I've seen at least one duplicate template that looks EXACTLY the same as the other, which is this and this.

Some of the templates being split up make sense, for example with the 5000 series mobile APUs there are both Zen 2 and Zen 3 based models, there's a template with both Zen 2 and 3 models in it for the Ryzen article, but for the Zen 2, Zen 3, and List of Ryzen processors articles the templates for Cezanne and Lucienne are separated.

AP 499D25 (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello guys!

I'm intending to make the two following changes to the article, with full reasoning explained below.

Change #1: categorisation of the various products in the lineup

Currently the hierarchy of the product lineup section of the article is arranged like this:

Ryzen x000

. . CPUs / APUs

. . . . Desktop / Mobile

I have an idea, that the arrangement shall be changed to:

Ryzen x000

. . Desktop / Mobile

. . . . Codename (e.g. Renoir)

We need to ditch the CPU/APU naming / categorisation system completely. It's a big recipe for confusion with some of the latest released products such as Dragon Range and Raphael, which contain fully-featured integrated GPUs, although not powerful ones at that. But the full capability of the iGPU means it could be technically considered an APU. There's even conflicting info from the secondary sources about whether Dragon Range is a CPU, or APU – compare and . By referring to them using codename it would eliminate this major potential for confusion. It would also make it easier to compare features between desktop products or mobile products such as Raphael vs. Phoenix Desktop, and Phoenix Mobile vs. Dragon Range.

Change #2: Tables and presentation of information

So the way this article is currently done, it shows every single table for every AMD Ryzen CPU ever released. There also exists a separate List of AMD Ryzen processors article. I propose that we get rid of the tables on this non-list Ryzen article, and replace them with a short summary list of features, going over just what architecture it uses, range of core counts, clock speed, and iGPU information. And then have a "main article" linking to the relevant section of that List of Ryzen article. Much like what you see on AMD Phenom and AMD Athlon II. This would save so much article space, make it easier to read through and compare info at a glance, leaving all the full in-depth details to a dedicated list article.

There have already been several proposals in the past by other editors to do the same thing – remove the tables and leave them to the list article, and make this one a 'summary' article – all of which can be found in the first archive. The one named 'Remove lists of processors' is one worth reading through.

AP 499D25 (talk) 13:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC) edited 12:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

AMD Athlon 3000G & 300GE are both Raven Ridge based with 14nm manufacturing technology. 300GE => https://www.amd.com/en/product/8986 3000G => https://www.amd.com/en/product/8956

... but Athlon PRO 300GE is Picasso based with 12nm manufacturing technology. 300GE PRO => https://www.amd.com/en/product/8896

... so feel free to correct these mistakes since I'm not able to do it (explanation below).

Here is Athlon 300GE missing => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_AMD_Athlon_processors Here are the references links wrong => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(first_generation) Here is the references link wrong => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen%2B — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.eight.a (talk • contribs) 15:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC) Here is the manufacturing technology Athlon 3000G wrong (the reason is CPU-Z is reporting 12nm although 14nm is correct) => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryzen#Desktop_3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.eight.a (talk • contribs) 15:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

PS: I was not able to find the right pages to edit nor find the links to references. The link to Athlon PRO 300GE is not working anymore. At some pages the info is more or less correct elsewhere it is not. k.eight.a 15:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K.eight.a (talk • contribs) 15:39, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Keep in mind this is the Ryzen article, so this article only goes over and lists Ryzen processors; Athlon processors aren't covered here but instead on its own article, Athlon.

So where it says "Ryzen 3000G" in this article, it's only referring to the Ryzen 3000 G-series of processors; it does not include Athlon 3000G. Does that make sense? — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I just made some changes to the lead section moving most of the text to the history section as it was mostly a timeline of releases. I'm new to editing here so if someone with more experience could review my changes that would be great. Thanks! Bbf242 (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you did pretty great definitely, resolving the lead section being too long problem. However though, I did miss the background information that gave a lot of context about the introduction of the Ryzen series and Zen architecture, especially in relation to AMD's previous FX series and Intel's Core series, and another editor below has recently shared the same thoughts too but with more zeal, so I have now actually put it back but under the history section (split into 'background' and 'release' subsections). — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Basically the subject line. The complete removal of the entire first part of the "History" section of the article discussing the critically important historical context of Ryzen & Zen in regards to the CPU market as a whole has made the article significantly worse. 🤷

Now literally nowhere in the article does it explain how bad things were for AMD before Ryzen/what the market was like (and how things had gotten to that point), what was on the line with its release, and how the CPU market was MASSIVELY changed because of it.

The "History" section is now merely a basic regurgitation of each Ryzen generation's performance improvements, which completely lacks the critical historical context needed to understand Ryzen/Zen and its impact/importance. Cooe (talk) 05:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I have split the history section into two and re-added the deleted background information there. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello friends.

I think I found a duplicate source.

I am reading and comparing the article again to translate it back into Portuguese, creating a new updated version, and I believe I have found a repeated source.

Reference 8 and 9 are the same, could you check this?

The title of 8 is: The AMD 2nd Gen Ryzen Deep Dive: The 2700X, 2700, 2600X, and 2600 Tested

The title of the 9 is also the same, as well as the link too www.anandtech.com/show/12625/amd-second-generation-ryzen-7-2700x-2700-ryzen-5-2600x-2600

The real difference is the access date. Elder N (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done, I have removed the duplicate reference, thanks for pointing it out. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Santosh098 (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Easy Edit for ryzen to the Amd India website link on the article.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 11:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)