Template talk:AMD processors

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


I have removed the company logo from the template as per our fair use policy, which bans the usage of fair use images outside article-space. Thanks, Johnleemk | Talk 16:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove SSE5?[edit]

The reference to SSE5 has only historic interest because it has never been implemented, but replaced by XOP, etc. I think SSE5 should be removed from the template. The SSE5 page should of course be preserved for the sake of people who want to know where SSE5 has gone, but there should be no reference to it from the template. Afog (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geode and Alchemy[edit]

Where should Geode and Alchemy be put in this template? Alchemy sold to Raza, and Geode is in production... What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 09:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of template[edit]

Can somebody just put a list of RISC, VLIW or any type of discontinued (PLD ROMs, Cartridge...etc). = = I suck at AMD history. I will organize them, don't worry I expanded the Intel template from this to this with neutral POVs. --Ramu50 (talk) 03:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that if the expansion involves the inclusion of AMD branded platforms and certifications, this template loses its meaning as a "processor" only template, then it should be renamed as something like Template:AMD and possibly a merge with Template:amdsock. -- (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why make it complicated? -- (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomadik STn8820 citation. --Ramu50 (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have never heard of ATI has been doing intellectual property licensing for its Imageon line of handheld processors? When AMD acquired ATI, the company made the handheld processor line under the AMD brand, and continues to license their product IP to other mobile phone processor companies such as Broadcom, the STmicroelectronics deal you mention above is another example for this case, by getting and implementing the OpenGL ES 2.0 capable graphics IP from AMD (originally ATI). If you include that in the template, then you should include Broadcom MSM7000 series processor because that also contains similar graphics IP from AMD/ATI inside the chip. -- (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


To First I never added any stuff about Intel on the AMD template. Before I even edit this template, I already renamed the MIDs (Intel) article, because there was no citation and absoultely no article on the webpages will would find Intel invented the term. MID refer to any type of Mobile Device, regardless of their purpose, shape, architecture, whatsoever. Since the first OLPC netbooks uses AMD Geode it is a MID. Netbook is a type of laptop/notebook which is a MIDs. It may sound stupid and weird to say that laptops/notebooks are MID, but MID devices use both Intel 32/64 AMD and ARM architecture, such as Pentium M, AMD Geode, Intel Atom and the ARM is eveywhere. Thus laptops/notebooks can be classify as Mobile Devices, just because they have different form factors doesn't mean they are excluded as a MID.

Second do not use term like uP, uArch. Wikipedia is not your instant messaging application. Also I didn't say Fusion and Bobcat aren't CPU+GPU, I recognized therefore I bracket them to make it easier to understand

By the way what the heck is uP. Microprocessors?

Also please don't use this article, I think you'll create more confusion between NexGen and AMD Next Generation Microarchitecture. Also AMD itself have its own defintion of NextGeneration which is also use by reviews, please don't define it yourself. I suggest you either improve the article (with history...etc if you wish to do so) or delete it. AMD NextGeneration currently refer to Puma and Kite platform. --Ramu50 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


--Ramu50 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, do not act as you are smart or what, Bulldozer is NOT a microarchitecture which include codenamed Bobcat and Fusion as its corresponding brands or products, therefore the brackets are mere meaningless. And that creates confusion.
Second, this template is NOT a repository for all processors made or sold by AMD, and there exist something called notability.
Third, UVC (Ultra Value Client) is also being sold under the brands "Athlon" and "Athlon X2", so why make things even more complicated? Why not mark explicity in the Lists as a UVC product? Or you think UVC deserves another article to be talk about?
Fourth, yes, Phenom will have future releases, if you do that why there is no mention of 45 nm Opteron processors? And why there is no mention of future Turion X2/Turion Ultra processors? You are just making further confusions by only focusing on desktop processors.
Fifth, UVC does NOT contrast ULV, if you don't know what UVC is, then don't pretend you're smart.
And last but absolutely not the least, I type "uP" and "uArch" because it is convenient to me, if you like you can always type "microprocessor" and "microarchitecture", but it's just my style, and I personally don't need you to take care of my style used in the "Edit summary". -- (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. And yes, my ISP uses Dynamic IP.
First and foremost, YOU, particularly you, are the only one in Wikipedia who is trying to make things up that is not true, like AMD NexGen. Second this template is about all prcessors made by AMD or else the name wouldn't be called AMD process. Also AMD is not a manufacturers, and also is considering itself to be fabless, so why would I care about putting things up. That being said, the statements which you just said on the following is again another hypothetical synthesis.
Also whether or not I put the Server and Workstation side of the information on the template or not, its none of your buisness. I was initally planning to be put on it, but decide not to, for now, since AMD sometimes use one processor for consumer and server usage. Also, most article doesn't have sufficient details for the general majority to understand the differences, such as Direct Connect Module which is commonly confused with Direct Connect Architecture, NUMA. My contribution toward the template of Intel processors and AMD processors Server and Workstation have already been thoroughly considered long before, you've complain and synthesize your bias knolwedge on me.
Also read the WP policy. Wikipedia doesn't approve the usage of slang nor does any article, template, portal...etc so follow the rules. The style in the case of Article's History is for everybody to read, therefore you follow the manual style of writing, that in turns doesn't give you the right to have a choice. Thus is not equivalent to a signature which allows to have a style choice. --Ramu50 (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By your efforts are really naive, that Opteron was already, before I even contribute any edits at all. ref --Ramu50 (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not AMD is going fabless, it has nothing to do with this template, the only focus in this template is "AMD branded" microprocessors, but not including microprocessors which are NOT solely designed by AMD and NOT being sold under the AMD brand, this template is NOT a repository of ALL microprocessors which to any certain degree related to AMD, a navigational template is supposed to provide links to related articles and help readers to navigate through pages, not like other informative templates which brings even more information on a certain subject.
Then, you tell me that I am the one who make up things like AMD NextGen, right? Then care to explain whether "Bulldozer" (a codename used to describe a future CPU core in development stage) is a microarchitecture? Also, explain why a general/collective term covering several items is considered "synthezied".
After that, I would like to ask did I use "µP" and "µArch" in the template? Yes? No? Why do edit summaries need to follow the manual of style? For your viewing pleasure? I have read relevant sections on manual of style page about abbreviations and there are no restrictions on these kind of abbreviations to be used in "edit summary" (except the abbreviation is being made up), while such abbreviations are oftenly used in other places all over the Internet and sometimes in technical articles such as this one. It is your problem by not recognizing these abbreviations but not mine, so it has nothing to do with Wikipedia policies.
Also, you failed to mention "future Opteron processors", but you insisted the template already has addressed the issue even before your contribution, and may I ask you where is your proof? Your reference at the end of your reply does not prove anything to me. You want to prove that the "Opteron" brand is being in use before you've made your contributions or what? That does not prove anything. And by the way, the edit you have quoted is from me (Yes, me! You may trace that IP to see if that IP and my current one is assigned to the same ISP, if you wish), so what do you want to prove from my edit to the template? You are welcomed to ask me about that particular edit and I will certainly answer those questions anytime you like.-- (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you an idoit, I already provided the Opteron link at the last sentence, the ref link read it yourself stupid, it is as plain as a click and read. The AMD NexGen you defined IS synthesis, the AMD definition is recognized by all reviewers in Alexa, so stop making stupid definition and thinking you are right, because you are not. This is not a place for your create your own project about whatever you like and redifing each detail.
The Bulldozer part, I do apologize I didn't notice for quite a while, got it mix up.
And when did I ever say edit summary is for pleasure? I wish everybody follow a manual style of way, because nobody do edit summary like with over 30 edits, each with a sentence, that is not summary. It obviously show there is a lot problems that you think need changing, so posted it on talk page instead. I am not against using "µP" and "µArch" terms but to be honest they are more commonly use by electrical engineer, not everybody is an electrical engineer here, hence that being said, you need to consider that you and me are not the only one who is allow to edit.
And by the way I am not trying to prove anything for AMD Opteron, you are the one who is not being careful at reading what on the template, so stop accusing people for nothing. And stop making stuff again, or I am reporting to you an adminstrators. I never said
you insisted the template already has addressed the issue even before your contribution, and
may I ask you where is your proof?
my sentence simply showed, that my knowledge of understanding at Servers and Workstation is good, but I am haven't been able to come up with a good plan yet. I don't need to contribute everything, everybody do the best of the best they can do and Wikipedia doesn't require to expand it.
The Direct Connect Module I was going to created initially, but it affect several other template that I am participating so I don't want to rush it. (template that be influence are CPU Technologies, Operating System and possibly Intel template)
Its totally immature. Also When you said MID should be changed to Embedded processors you didn't even care to change, yet despite that you delete it automatically without a word. Be responsible for your own actions. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are making personal attacks (idiot, stupid etc.) and assuming bad faith ("I'll report to administrators"), fine then, this will be reported to administrators. And discussions ends here. -- (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead, you are the one that started with the attitude of false accusing and not looking each things carefully before you make any changes, and you have no reason to remove the MIDs part. And as if you didn't know AMD Mobile devices aren't embedded, and Embedded processors usually connotate non-x86 architecture such as ARM, SPARC, Power....etc. --Ramu50 (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Citation for Fusion, Bulldozer and Bobcat
Bulldozer is a processor microarchitecture with 16 execution core, stated by Techradar.
I think Fusion a family name of the architecture, like Nehalem is family name of the architecture Nehalem-EX...etc.
Falcon (for HPC), Bobcat (mobile version)
  • Bulldozer is a execution core (not a standalone processor)
[1] --Ramu50 (talk) 22:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should read the Mobile Internet Device article for a revision on who proposed this idea of MID, AMD never mention the term MID, not even once in product presentations. You're the one who is being confused about almost anything by linking an AMD product and another completely different concept together and put it on Wikipedia, and create further confusion to people. -- (talk) 04:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Just to remind you that, AMD does NOT "make" MIDs, they produce CPUs (mostly mobile CPUs utilizing Socket S1) and chipsets (mostly mobile and embedded chipsets like M690E or M690T) with IGP combinations for OEM companies to implement in a notebook design (I prefer notebook because MID with AMD hardware is very limited these days). -- (talk) 04:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right that sentence got my point. It's the codename of an execution core, not the codename of an microarchitecture. Bobcat is the codename for another execution core for less than 10W applications (such as "MIDs"). While Falcon is the codename for Server processors. I thank you for your finding and I am pleased that this sentence clears up your confusions about the microarchitecture issue eventually.-- (talk) 05:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion[edit]

As an attempt to offer a third opinion could someone please state, clearly and with as little editorializing as possible, what the conflict is? I see personal attacks starting already and I'd like to step in if I could. Padillah (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the conflict is how to classify entries (see my comments below) and what should be and should not be included in this template. Rilak (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that neither this talk page nor the main template have been edited in almost two weeks I recommend reverting to the simplistic design from 19:26, 22 June 2008. It's clean and only mentions the necessary information. Unless I misunderstand, this is not a template for everything AMD, it's just a list of processors. So let's keep it a simple list of processors. I would do the revert but I'd like someone that knows chips to do it right. Padillah (talk) 13:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually mostly been fixed now before you posted. I wonder though, does "AMD processors" refer only to actual processor products or everything related to the processors such as microarchitectures and technology? I more than willing to remove the classification of processors though, it just clutters the template. Rilak (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that, in as much as the template is named "AMD Processors", it should be about AMD Processors. If someone wants to rename it or if the consensus is to accept it in it's current form then that's fine by me. Padillah (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably remove the sub-categories only in that case. Rilak (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry haven't edit this template for a while, the reason I felt this template should be expanded, is I think this template improve all the misc template that is showing up for no reason, except for minor stub articles. The conflict before was mainly about, I think there are way too many people in Wikipedia that is biased on whether the product is MID or not when many reviews have clearly stated they are. They just don't use the term MID, because they don't want to lose buisness with Intel since they claims that it is invented by them, when it is not

Citation of MID [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2002_April_8/ai_84508719 Innovative Alchemy Au1100 Processor from AMD Sets New Standard for Mobile Internet Appliance Market ]

AMD don't invest in embedded systems, embedded systems have been separated from mobile application from a long time. Nowadays they are generally use for low-requirement such as LCD screen on the refrigerator, DVD players, dishwashers and many home appliances.

China MID report. Brand owners including Toshiba, Lenovo, Aigo, ASUS, BenQ have decided to launch MID product solutions based on Intel, AMD, TI and ARM in the second quarter of 2008 according to tremendous business opportunities on the MID market

I already found this long time ago. I just didn't want to argue with annoying who keep using IP address when he have a main account, that is totally disruptive, was going to report him, but nevermind. --Ramu50 (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Am286 is pre-8086?[edit]

Really? An AMD "clone" (I use the term casually) of the Intel 80286, which is the successor of the Intel 80186, which is the successor of the Intel 8086 is pre-8086?

Seriously! I would edit this out myself, but due to conflict, I would rather wait. Rilak (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, but the problem is the groups are limited to pre-16bit and post-32bit so this 16 bit processor gets left out in the cold. I was ready to do the edit for you (even I can see that's not right), but as I looked for a group to put it in I couldn't find one. The groups must be contiguous, they must start right where the last one ended. Gaps can't exists or you end up with this situation right here. Let's start some discussion on what the groups should be. My suggestion, by bit:
8bit, 16bit, 32bit
We may have to split those up due to the preponderance of 32bit chips and whether dual-core 32bit chips are regarded as 64bit or truly 32bit. But that's my start. Which direction would you go to close the gap? Padillah (talk) 12:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was in fact thinking of reverting User:Ramu50's edits to the template to this revision: [2], which I think is better as Ramu50's edits have resulted in odd classifications such as the placement of AMD K5 and AMD K6 in the microarchitectures group, even though they are discontinued microprocessors and should belong in the discontinued group, and more seriously, the removal of entries such as Am29000. Rilak (talk) 13:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta say, with this being an info-template for the bottom of a page I'd like to keep it simple like that. We don't need to convey microarchitecture and FSB speeds and sockets and all the other yadda. Just a simple list - What is, what was, what will be. Boom, done. Padillah (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Btw, I've noticed that MMX (instruction set) and [[SSE4] are entries in the instruction set group, which is rather baffling as both of them were developed by Intel... A revert to the pre-conflic template is looking good. Rilak (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true Intel only developed SSE4.1 AMD developed SSE4a. Many of the SSE4.1 are even invented by Intel. They just incorporate / migrate technologies from other products on theirs. Such as DWORD is Microsoft. To be more specific, most of the technologies beyond SSE3 are not really invented by Intel nor AMD, some of them are propose by Intel Software Developer Network while AMD uses AMD Core Math Library (ACML). --Ramu50 (talk) 02:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has been corrected by another editor. Rilak (talk) 04:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Should lists be included in the template? I think it doesn't serve much purpose as people will go for the articles as they are more general, which link to the lists anyways. Rilak (talk) 07:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think they are appropriate in navboxes (unless as a "more..." link). Letdorf (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Majority of the articles I've seen that directs to a specific topics does have list and I think it is require as template are for navigation and putting See Also in every single article is not necessary. --Ramu50 (talk) 01:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Ramu50, your version of the template has not gained community consensus for a variety of reasons as highlighted by multiple editors. I would suggest you stop reverting to your version. If you think that there can be improvements to the template, please discuss it with the community first before making major changes. If this continues, it will be considered to be edit warring and appropriate action, such as administrative intervention, will be sought. Rilak (talk) 04:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right the only one not approving the template is you and the other IP address guy. So far more than 80% of template I edit, the only one I seen in Wikipedia that is against is you, Thumperward and Go ahead report to adminstrators, the template methdology I use on the following template, you and Thumperward claim most people disapprove it. Yet despite your load of craps doesn't show anything, when the exact opposite is happening in

  • Template: Intel, Nvidia, Operating System...etc.

What a load of crap hype you are trying to create, as if you are recruting somebody against me. Like that is a really mature way to edit Wikipedia. --Ramu50 (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Padillah and Letdorf have considered elements of your edits to be unsuitable. The fact that no one has said anything on other templates does not put your actions here in better light. If you continue to make personal attacks such as accusations that I and other editors are collaborating against you, there will be administrative action. Rilak (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, I quit editing to contributions to most of the template that is corporation based. The fact is most of the corporations in the industry aren't that good as they seem. Majority of them are modifications, and the continously problem of stubs and template stub, no one care about solving them together, but only keep on making new article, putting Wikipedia as if they are a place to advertise your open source products.

Modifications list

  • Opteron is simply a high-profile form factor modification of Phenom / Athlon
  • Turon is modification of Athlon
  • Xeon is simply a modification of Core family
  • Centrino is modification of Core family

There more people to come like you that is keep on making excuses, when they can't even explain a simple topic on cloud computing, difference between MID and Embedded, difference between Server and Workstation processors. FSF founder saying immature comment on Cloud Computing Pat Gelsinger still thinking his Moore Law is right, when RAM industry already overrule him. I seen the world in better days. Such a useless endless war I been involve. Wasted --Ramu50 (talk) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State - autocollapse[edit]

Not sure if this should be discussed or if I should go ahead and do this myself, however I feel that it is necessary to have the autocollapse feature enabled on this template. Thanks! The Tech Geek (talk) 09:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the navbox has got large. I think it's the right thing to do. --Bachinchi (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and altered the setting, hopefully the impact will be graciously accepted The Tech Geek (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expert-care needed[edit]

Added Expert-care request tag. The template is a mess as far as technical accuracy goes. It not only lacks most of the proper items, but the categorization is just bogus or in some cases pure marketing. If time and heaven allows, I will hopefully take the time to make it proper. For now tagging and hoping some nice soul will come :) Ihosama (talk) 01:36, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What in particular do you disagree with? Letdorf (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Well, compared to the Intel template ... a real lot. E.g.: Am2900 fit "RISC" much better than "pre-x86"; K9 does/did not exit; many lines are not present etc. etc. Ihosama (talk) 02:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to discuss changes before you actually made them. The 2900 is pre-x86 and does not really fit into RISC. The K9 did exist, first as an ambigious project to replace K8 (cancelled) but was later reused as codename for the dual-core K8. --Denniss (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As Denniss says, the Am2900 series of ICs can't be described as a RISC CPU architecture - they didn't really define a specific architecture at all. Note that navboxes such as this one are intended to aid navigation between related Wikipedia articles, so whether they fully and fairly represent a particular topic depends on the existence of the appropriate articles. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]

comparison with other templates[edit]

In case somebody would like to know, how other people do it, please have a look at: {{Intel processors}} and {{Intel processor roadmap}}. Now even though AMD were not nearly successful enough do adopt something like Intel Tick-Tock (another great article providing information) and eventually even became a fab-less semiconductor design company by spinning off GlobalFoundries, this and the other AMD templates ({{AMD graphics}} and {{AMD CPU sockets}}) could clearly benefit from benevolent and motivated people. In the current state, not only is it obvious that less and less motivated people are working on the AMD-Templates compared to the ones regarding Intel, but sometimes it even seems efforts to make them better are being sabotaged. User:ScotXWt@lk 13:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Why both APU and Athlon X4s line is categorized as discounted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlienKnuckle (talkcontribs)

@AlienKnuckle: A fair question. I posted on another talk page previously, but AMD does not have an "ARK" type page, so it is difficult to tell what is discontinued. We should discuss here. Dbsseven (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]