Talk:List of AMD graphics processing units/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Navbar for the tables

Wikiinger recently changed the navbar position (the view/talk/edit links) of some AMD related tables from upper left to lower right (bottom of table, right side of the page) and also uses the standard template instead of the customized one. He said he'd prefer a discussion here so copying from his talk page:

== Floating navbar ==

Disadvantage is that a table might not use the full width of a page, in which case the navbar isn't attached to the table. Template:AMD Epyc 3000 series is relatively slim so it can be used for testing.--Pizzahut2 (talk) 16:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Also when trying to attach the navbar to the right border of the table, it will be out of sight if the right side of the table doesn't fit into the browser window.--Pizzahut2 (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

How about this, no navbar in the articles, but a link which is only visible when viewing the template?
* Template:AMD Epyc 3000 series/sandbox
--Pizzahut2 (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
: Kinda different issues...
# The visual edit never worked for me. However I like the idea to display the visual edit only on the template page.  However the V.T.E should be accessible (but subtle) on the article page since it is really handy.
# About the floating navbar. I guess there should be some CSS vodoo to align it with the right side of the table? Another possibility might be to create an empty white row and place the navbar in there?
: PS: I would prefer to have these discussion on the article page (best candidate is List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units), since this way other editors can chime in. Wikiinger (talk) 20:33, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Attaching the navbar to the right side of the table can be achieved by putting table and navbar inside another table consisting of a single table cell with style="position:relative". But as mentioned above the problem with this is that for broad tables, the navbar is out of sight then.--Pizzahut2 (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Illustration of the issue (expires in 14 days).--Pizzahut2 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed fix A: Don't use navbar for table. Leave an edit link for the VisualEditor inside, but using noinclude tags.Pizzahut2 (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposed fix B: Set table width to 100% (like this). Wikiinger's navbar code remains unchanged, meaning the navbar is always visible, even if the table is too wide to fit into the browser window.--Pizzahut2 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

fix B looks good to me! Wikiinger (talk) 20:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Applied fix B, also added a link to use the VisualEditor.--Pizzahut2 (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Page Format

Why is the page in a non-standard wikipedia format?

Dava4444 (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

fixed. If anyone wants to tidy it further.. that would be great.. I would suggest putting the IGPs together in a Section with APUs and leaving Desktop GPU as a discrete card section, as its quicker to sort through the information that way imho.

Dava4444 (talk) 20:21, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Dava4444, it's not clear what you mean by "non-standard wikipedia format", since there is no such thing. However I reverted your change regarding the table of contents (TOC), because otherwise we end up with a lot of white space next to that very long TOC. And that long TOC is very useful since it allows you directly to jump to your graphic series in question. I especially like that it is next to the field explanations. This way you can easily jump back and forth between the table and explanations for it, this wouldn't be possible otherwise. Hope this clears that design decision. :-) Wikiinger (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey Wikiinger :)

The reason the table is on the left, as it is on every wikipedia page as it gives a uniform heading to the page catagories, I personally don't need those field explanations, and if the purpose is to inform then of course those additions are welcome, however the page is currently imho very disorienting and doesn't theme with the rest of wikipedia. have a look at the Nvidia page: [[1]]

it's clean easy to understand and I can get to the specific cards specs I am looking for in one click.

You stated 'there is no such thing'.

However there is a standard wikipedia page format in so much as, the web developer/s of wikipedia designed the categories to be on the left hand side; This is universal across all of wikipedia.. whether by design, or merely end result.. it makes browsing wikipedia for readers a comfortable and familiar experience; to not have to engage higher motor skills and a analytical state so they can stay in a meditative state while absorbing information.

Dava4444 (talk) 10:54, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Dava4444 (and Wikiinger) I very much understand your argument of consistency is very valuable for clarity, and also believe the top section of this article can be improved. And the current appearance is unusual compared to how most articles are presented. However, I would caution against stating these things are "universal across all of wikipedia". While left is the default, there is no consensus that it must be this way. In fact, looking over WP:TOC it explicitly states "The TOC can, in some instances, be floated either right or left... when it is beneficial to the layout of the article". A proposal to remove right TOCs failed due to "no consensus". (If the discussion is to be about universality of WP layout, it should be carried out on the WP:MOSLAYOUT talk pages.)

To clean up this article, I propose the following:

• The field explanations can be replaced by links/notes in the column headers for each generation.
• Video codec acceleration can either be moved, as a note within each generation or added to the {{AMD GPU features}} table.
• It might also be worth having a discussion of splitting this article into separate desktop/mobile/workstation articles. Splitting would shorten the TOC, and might help the aesthetic issues with a left TOC.

Thoughts?Dbsseven (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions Dbsseven, sounds sensible. I agree.

Dava4444 (talk) 13:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

This has been over a month with no reply from Wikiinger. I am noting his lack of protest and going to *try* to implement Dbsseven suggestions.

Dava4444 (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Dava4444, do you even look at the articles after your edits? VCE/UVD are already mentioned in {{AMD GPU features}}. And please don't change font sizes, see MOS:FONTSIZE. Ty Wikiinger (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikiinger, you've well marked your territory with your scent.. you are putting editors off improving this article, if a mod challenges you and you need consensus.. I doubt you will have enough people still around to get that.goodbye Dava4444 (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikiinger This page is a total mess, you've turned it into your plaything. You started off OK, and I appreciated *some* of the tables but now it's some backwards mirror chimera of an abomination. It gives me a headache to try to read this now. Total joke of an article now.. Dava4444 (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

"including those by ATI Technologies before 2006"

When did the merger or takeover of ATi and AMD take place? I know for a fact that the HD6000 series was still sold under the ATi brand name, and that was well into 2012. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:09, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Analog VGA output is missing on newer cards

Newer cards like R9 290(X) don't have analog VGA output (not even through DVI to D-SUB adapter). I think it should be mentioned in the table or at least by a note.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.131.128.23 (talk) 19:30, 1 February 2017

While tables like this: https://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature/ show if the GPU has a DAC, its not perfect, as board vendors can have onboard DP to VGA converters. Kevinf28 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Another observation: The last cards to feature dual analogue VGA output on some cards, mostly via a set of 1 x D-Sub VGA + 1 x DVI-I connectors, but also via a set of 2 x DVI-I connectors, were of the HD5000 series. Later cards from the HD6000 series onwards only featured a maximum of a single analogue VGA output, either by way of 1 x D-Sub VGA connector or 1 x DVI-I connector. I don't know which series was the last to offer even that single VGA output. I think this information should be in the article. VGA connectors are still relevant today, not only for older legacy hardware but also for newer devices. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 19:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

HDCP

Hi, i am not talking or working often on the wiki, but i noticed the missing info on HDCP on some cards.

I know that the HD 4850x2 and HD 4870x2 cards had HDCP 1.2 because i used these cards and still use them for openCL and they have a label on the PCB saying that they are HDCP 1.2 enabled.

Hope this helps ^^" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TanakaO (talk • contribs) 06:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Console Section - PS5 GPU Tech Specs

I just want to point out that who ever keeps putting "boost" vs "standard" is in the wrong. There is no "standard" or base clock for the PS5 GPU. That rubbish was based on the 9.2 TF rumor from over a year ago that never was true. Also the Triangle/s rate is wrong too. It's simple math, 4 Triangles per clock * Clock Speed. Clearly some fanboy keeps reverting changes and I'm not going to compete with that stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.197.50.130 (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Need to add Radeon RX 6700XT

The spac and price for the RX 6700XT has been announced and the graphics will be available on 18 march, 2021. Please consider adding about this card to the template of RX 6000. https://www.amd.com/en/products/specifications/compare/graphics/10886,10516,10521,10526 007sak (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Radeon 520/530 are mobile only, not discrete.

The Radeon 520 and 530 are mobile chips only and should be removed from discrete graphics list (RX 500 series).

Haven't edited a page on Wikipedia in while so I'll leave it to someone else (so I don't mess up).

NitroX infinity (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)