Talk:List of AMD graphics processing units

Need to add also the GFX numbers

Since AMD GPU architectures have numbers to represent their instruction sets used in various domains, it would be great to have them in the various tables of this page. See for example https://llvm.org/docs/AMDGPUUsage.html to have an idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkeryell (talk • contribs) 13:03, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Missing Radeon™ Pro W5700

The information for Radeon™ Pro W5700 is at https://www.amd.com/en/products/professional-graphics/radeon-pro-w5700 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhaisman (talk • contribs) 2021-09-22T18:44:18 (UTC)

Radeon 600 series (architecture, codenames, dGPUs)

I believe the Radeon 620 and 625 are GCN 3rd gen (TSMC 28nm) and not 4th gen (GF 14FF). Also it would be nice to add missing codenames.

Since 600 series is single table (desktop & laptop), maybe additional footnote (for 630 and RX 640) could be added.

At AMD radeon-630 radeon-rx-640 are listed as discrete and mobile. Based on videocardz there are 10 GPUs in total (3 discrete, 7 mobile), same names but different SP.

I'm still experimenting with templates, not confident enough to edit, so i gonna leave this here (maybe someone else can edit it).

Rando717 (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

IGP (3xx series) ...only 3 GPUs?

Looking online on sites like GPUZoo, TechPowerUp, UltimateRetro, VGAMuseum, ...etc

There appears to be more from IGP 3xx series (chipset integrated). Stuff i found so far have multiple names/codenames like:

IGP 320/320M (RS100/A3/U1/Cabo) - Oct 5th, 2002

IGP 330/330M (RS200/RS200L/Wilma) - May 1st, 2002

IGP 340/340M (RS200/RS200M/Wilma) - Oct 5th, 2002

IGP 345M (RS200/RS200M+/Wilma) - Oct 5th, 2002

IGP 350M (RS200 revB/RS200M revB/Wilma) - Oct 5th, 2002

IGP 380 (RS380) - this one could be 'Radeon X600 Pro' related, and not IGP 380?

...anyway can't see any 3xxM mentions on article (or 345M/350M), so I gonna leave this here (in case it helps someone).Rando717 (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Page too big?

This page nearly crashed Chrome on my phone (Pixel 5a). Would it be worth the undertaking to mitigate that e.g. split into separate pages? 217.180.201.169 (talk) 00:01, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Recent changes to table style/layout

Following recent changes to RX 5000, RX 6000, RX 7000 and Pro series tables. I wanna start discussion about table style, those templates are used here aswell (and so far all tables more or less followed same design).

So my questions about the new layout are:

1. Why is adding extra colored row (increasing table height) better?

2. Why is changing primary source from cite templates (with dates) to external links (prone to Link rot) better?

3. Why is splitting release date & price to 2 cols (increasing width) better?

4. Why is splitting arch & fab to 2 cols (increasing width) better?

5. Why is splitting memory type & bus width to 2 cols (increasing width) better?

6. Why is there extra refs column (increasing width)?

Those are main differences with new layout.

Pinging: @CristoCalis: to start discussion. Rando717 (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

1.) The branding row at the top reduces the width of the model column as there isn't a full name like 'Radeon RX 7900 XTX' or 'Radeon Pro WX 8200' in each row.

2.) The primary source should always be linking to the product specifications on AMD's website as that it is the most direct and reliable source. Having a simple external row in the model column reduces width since there is not the [1] reference at the end of the product name which takes up unnecessary space. Simple external links have been used for Intel tables like their Arc GPUs or Core processors and they work fine. There seems to be no problems there. It is less likely that official product specifications from AMD and Intel are removed from their websites, and even in the event that there is aa link rot, the link can simply be replaced with an archived version.

3.) The release date and price have been split as they are two separate details. Sometimes the release date can be shared between multiple GPUs like the RX 7900 XT and XTX so the release date can be rowspanned rather than having the same data repeated in the table in multiple cells. Additionally, the price column having the (USD) label also reduces width as a price does not have to contain '$999 USD' and '$899 USD'.

4.) Like with release date & price, architecture and fab is two different data points that can vary across GPUs. For example, the Radeon Pro WX x200 series has the same GloFo 14LP fab that can be rowspanned while they have different architectures of GCN 4 and GCN 5. It is not necessary to have 'GloFo 14LP' repeated in multiple rows when it can just be placed in the table once and rowspanned.

5.) Same with release date & price and arch & fab. Memory type is shared between multiple GPUs so it can be rowspanned rather than having it repeated in each row unnecessarily above the respective bus width. If two GPUs share the same bus width but use a different memory type, then the bus width can be rowspanned across the two GPUs while the memory type is not rowspanned.

6.) The refs colummn is to reduce clutter in the models column which can sometimes contain up to 4 references on the same product. It makes the most sense for the one link in the product to be for AMD's website rather than being clumped together with other secondary sources like TechPowerUp or VideoCardz.

I understand your concerns about making the table too wide but the problem is that sometimes in the pursuit of making the table narrower also comprises the information in the table. It is not efficient to to have repeat information in the table being clumped in with other data. The table is easier to read when information is clearly defined and laid out. CristoCalis (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

1.) Is branding row for product segment or just Radeon? There are some odd names like Vega FE as part of initial Radeon PRO series (Honestly entire Vega arch. product naming is bad, but it is what it is).

What about multiple product lines inside same table/series like 300 series (R5 300, R7 300, R9 300, R9 Fury...ignore Pro Duo inside that table).

Side note: Did you try looking at tables (with colored rows) with dark mode enabled (wiki feature)? It's something else...

2.) Even primary sources tends to change sometimes, one example I can think of is Radeon 610. Look at features on live link (GCN 1, 28 nm) and than look at archived link (GCN 4, 14 nm). Can't check at glance for any changes (if there is no retrieved date), you have to open each link.

AMD product pages "shrink" (no the best word to describe it) over time, until spec tab is the last info remaining (especially on CPUs, unless using full spec product links). I don't think AMD tables should be compared with Intel or Nvidia.One difference is that AMD articles are using templates where Intel and Nvidia are (mostly) using separate tables within each article(or lists page). IMO Intel have more "permanent" links for product specs (try and find Pro Duo (Fiji) specs page...there is driver page, but no specs only for Polaris. I wasted good portion of time looking for archived ref...I gave up).

3/4/5.) I gonna sum those 3 it up, similar topic...I understand, but isn't better option to maybe move single/repeating info outside?

If all products are made on 14nm or use GDDR6, how about note above/outside table?

But than again if "branding" rows are used (more than one) it sortof prevents that. One (unrelated to this topic) example would be Ryzen 3000 series with 6 branding rows and 2 identical columns (fab/memory).

6.) Tbh I don't think products should have more than 3 refs. One primary (if available), one with more spec and to confirm primary source (usually it is TechPowerUp or NotebookCheck for mobile),

last one as review/launch date/price info (Tom's Hardware, AnandTech or similar). Also old announcement cites for products that already launched should be removed. I don't think ref(s) col is needed if there are 2-3 refs, you can place refs behind codename (if model name is taking more space).But that is just my opinion. Rando717 (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

1.) The branding row has been used for Ryzen CPUs to show product segmentation but Radeon does not generally have segmentation like Ryzen 3, 5, 7, 9 so only one branding row at the top would be required. For a specific case like the RX 300 series, branding rows could conceivibly be used to clearly separate the R5, R7 and R9 families within the table.

3/4/5.) On moving data out of the table, I don't think that would work because of the use of templates. It also does not seem to be worth it to have a long list of bullet points in the table just for teh sake of having two less rows in the table. Some of those bullet point lists can also be very tedious to read such as when they say someting like "All products feature __, except __, __, __, and __". The use of bullet points could also look weird depending on where else the template is used except for the dedicated page for a certain set of GPUs.

6.) I still don't think that refs should be placed in the middle of the table because it can get in the way of data and makes the table less readable. Having a small refs column for one or two secondary sources makes the table way more readable since all of the references are placed together, out of the way of the information itself. References are intended for verification so they should not become a feature of the table when they are placed in the middle of cells with other data. For example, if you look at the filmography tabkle of some actors/actresses like Genevieve O'Reilly or Maya Hawke, there is a small references column that makes the table look neater and does not get in the way of the information itself. CristoCalis (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I reverted all Radeon Pro, RX 5000 and RX 6000 series table style changes.

Since CristoCalis / Halvleder was blocked and there was no proposal or consensus about it.

This talk page is linked inside most templates (inside template doc) to discuss table layout and style. Rando717 (talk) 09:28, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

@Rando717

I have reverted changes to the table layouts by the latest sockpuppet accounts and IPs yet again. (Note to anyone who wants to make big changes to table layout: please discuss here first before making them, next time.)

One thing I'm not sure on, is the putting of MB (megabyte) and GB (gigabyte) units in each table cell, rather than just in header only. Currently RX 6000 series has units inside each cell, while RX 7000 and RX 5000 series have them in header column only.

It would be appreciated if you could leave your thoughts on this matter.

Additionally, but this one is optional to discuss, let me know what you think of row hover highlights.

AP 499D25 (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@AP 499D25 Sorry for late reply, I totally forgot you pinged me here.

In my humble opinion:

1.) MB/GB should remain inside header to save some width, plus there is free space(row) for it inside header.

2.) I would also move W (watts) outside cells. That extra W expands TDP col. on mobile tables with ranged values. Unless default sorting is enabled than it doesn't matter, TDP header/col is gonna expand anyway.

3.) About row hover, I liked it at first but it doesn't really work with merged cells(rows).

The time it takes to figure out what row is highlighted...you can already do it "manually".

I am partially guilty of it for GeForce 20/30/40 articles. Someone added it on 30 series, so I added row highlight on 20 series, than it got copied to 40 series and RX 7000 ...and now we are here.

I don't like it. It works with normal tables (no vertically merged cells/col). For example on Transistor count table, you can easily navigate row highlights and quickly see info of each gpu chip. Without need to decypher merged rows or breaks inside highlighted row due to other merged rows. Rando717 (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the response.

1. Personally I prefer having the MB and GB units in each SKU's cells, like how it is at Template:AMD Radeon RX 6000, as it makes it quicker and easier to figure out that this is the Infinity Cache size, this is the VRAM, etc. With the units in the header only, I have to jump my eyes up and down between the header and the item cells a lot, I don't know if this number is PCI-E lanes, I don't know if it's cache, or actually the memory size. Units for things like bandwidth and clock speed can be put away in the header cell no problem, as the numbers presented are often unambiguous - for example 1053.8 is never going to be the amount of VRAM or even TDP, it's almost certainly gotta be bandwidth or clock speed. And those two things are quite far apart each other, too. Because the Infinity Cache and Memory info are so close together, it can get quite confusing for me whether this number is the cache amount or the memory amount without the units in each cell.
2. Hmm, I'm not sure if I quite like this. If I'm not mistaken, numbers with an endash between them will be broken up if the table can't fully fit in the screen width without part of it going out of view.
3. "it doesn't really work with merged cells(rows)" that's what I noticed with this feature too. It seems most people are fine with it as it's staying on the tables it's been added on. Don't feel guilty, some of the tables had row hover highlights removed before only for it to be added back a few months later. Which means that there is a consensus in favour of it here. @Wikkiwonkk what do you think? Any thoughts on this third point here?

What I actually intend to do for now, is I'm going to leave the tables as they are (even the inconsistency between RX 6k and 7k series templates I'm going to leave alone) and see what happens in a few months. Whether edits are made in favour of one or the other will decide the consensus here. If nothing, I might boldly make the changes I want to make. After all, moving the units into header cells are going to save what, only 10 pixels of width? AP 499D25 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

My thoughts are right in line with @Rando717's - I initially thought the row highlighting was good, I even added it to some tables myself, but the more I see it the less I like it and now regret adding it where I did. It just does not work with rowspans, and I am not referring to the obvious technical limitation where certain columns do not get highlighted. Even if it highlighted every column correctly it would be visually "messy". It frequently would not be a uniform horizontal bar of colour but something more like a column chart with positive and negative y values: some highlighting would extend up from the row, some down from the row, some would straddle the row, and as the mouse pointer moved from row to row, the position, size, and even direction of any tall highlights could fluctuate wildly. It ends up being more of a distraction than an aid. The only way I see highlighting being a benefit is if there are no rowspans. Does the benefit of highlighting outweigh the cost of not using rowspans? That is subjective, but I will point out that there are a lot of values that could be rowspanned but have not been. In the HD 7000 series table for example, the memory bus type & width, particularly in the lower half of the table, and all those 10 and 15 watt idle TDPs.

Since I am here, I will chip in my thoughts on units: they should be in the header row. The only exception being mm² for die size and that is only because it shares the column with transistor count. If they were separate columns I would put the mm² in the header (please note that I am not even remotely suggesting that they should be separate columns). - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Regarding row hover highlights, I didn't know what to think of it, if it was good or not, and so wanted to hear some feedback about it, as I wasn't sure what to do about some tables having it and others not. Seeing that the feedback here is against it, looks like I will be removing it from the tables then.

On the topic of 'rowspanned'/merged tables, it's quite interesting in general to see the "evolution" of CPU and GPU model tables as you look at them through the generations. Oh, how the R300 tables don't even have broken up text in the header cells to reduce width. Some of the tables not having merged cells being among one of the many little inconsistencies seen here. Take a look at old AMD Athlon II and Intel Core 2 list articles, not a single CPU models table in those has merged cells. Those tables could take advantage of row hover highlights certainly... Or they could take good advantage of merged cells (or perhaps common features out of the table into a bulletpoint list above it, like with the current layout of the Ryzen CPU tables). But hey, looking at the talk pages and edit history of both articles, looks like no one has complained about the current table layouts of both articles. I guess RHH would be the more minimal of the two changes that could be made over there.

Now, on the topic of memory units: isn't it quite confusing when you look at 32 without a MB next to it (only in header cell), thinking to yourself "wait a minute, is that 32GB of VRAM that GPU model has right there?" This is the big reason why I don't like the units being tucked away into the header cells, it is quite easy for me to mix up cache amount and the VRAM amount. By having the units next to them it makes the distinction between the two very clear in my opinion, as we are obviously light years ahead of graphics cards having only megabytes of VRAM, but probably still light years away from GPUs having 1 GB, 4 GB, 64 GB of cache. But these are just my thoughts and if units being in header has the majority of support, then so be it.

AP 499D25 (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Position and style of the template navbar

For those sections that use templates, there is inconsistent type and positioning of the template navbar.

1. The most common is the navbar with mini=y (V·T·E) below the template table, aligned left, at relative position x=0px, y=-15px. I don't know what this looks like for others, but for me the -15px y puts it partially into the table. This is frankly ugly. Example: List of AMD graphics processing units#Radeon HD 5000 series

2. The next most common is the navbar-table ([VisualEditor] [view·talk·edit]) above the template table, aligned left. Example: List of AMD graphics processing units#Radeon HD 7000 series

3. And then there are one or two that use the mini navbar below the template table, but aligned right. Same problem of it being partially in the table.

I'm guessing the -15px y used for #1 and #3 is for compactness, putting it at 0px followed by a linebreak is noticeably more spaced out. But using a negative offset feels like something that will not reliably work for every viewer. If I had to pick a style it would be above the table, navbar with mini=y, brackets=y, and style=float:left, eg. {{navbar|AMD Radeon HD 5xxx|mini=y|brackets=y|style=float:left}}.

- Wikkiwonkk (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts.

Having the 'mini' navbar is more beneficial to the average reader, as it is a minimal visual distraction and very out of the way. But, due to its small size it will probably attract less editors, especially newcomers, some people may not even notice it's there at all, and get confused when all they see is just double curly brackets saying Radeon x000 series between them.

The navbar-table is more "editor-focused" / "wiki-beneficial" / however you want to put it, as it is clear to read, easy to spot due to the big non-abbreviated text and it even has a VisualEditor shortcut button so you can edit the template using VE in just a single click, thereby more likely to attract editors' attention (this makes it more in support of "Wikipedia is a wiki" model). The disadvantage being it's a bit of a visual clutter to the eye, especially if you're reading through a list article with over 30 tables.

From what I've seen, the mini navbar is most commonly used on very small items like small tables, portals, stats boxes, while the navbar-table is more often found on very large tables/templates. Though I myself have hardly seen a use of navbar-table outside of these odd certain AMD GPU tables that have them.

Now, for the position of mini navbar: Having it on the bottom left corner seems the best to me, as it's not a distracting spot to put it at (as opposed to top), and tables and content are aligned to the left of the screen by default always as we know it. I've seen on some tables the navbar is placed all the way on the bottom right in an odd location, I found this only works if the table is set to fill up the entire screen width (I believe it's class="wikitable center").

In conclusion, I'm not sure what to say here. For me, I'm in moderate preference of the mini navbar. But like I said above, it's harder to notice and thereby less editor friendly. For the position of mini navbar though, I'm in strong support of having it in the bottom left corner, per the reasoning above.

In regards to the navbar being slightly in table, I think this happens if the table can't fit in the viewer's screen without items being broken up inside. For me, the majority of the tables with mini navbar appear fine on my 1440p 16:9 display with 125% UI scale (effectively 2048x1152 desktop resolution). AP 499D25 (talk) 12:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Only once I noticed broken navbar (bottom left) while editing template, I think it was on 600 or 500 series article. For some reason navbar clipped down (like 2 rows) inside efn notelist. But 99% of time I have no issues with navbar on 1920x1080 with Firefox or on mobile Firefox. As for alignment, position and style:

1.) Left or right? It should be on the left side, makes sense if table is not centered (across entire page).

2.) Above or below? I prefer below table. I am ok with above position if it fixes clipping issues, but it might look off or crowded.

3.) Style? I prefer mini, but I would like if brackets are enabled, to highlight it a bit. Default full style might be user friendly but imo it takes too much space.

4.) There are few navbar templates/shortcuts (navbar, navbar-table, view, vte, v), but all of them achive same thing more or less.

I would suggest changing old tables to Template:Navbar. Rando717 (talk) 15:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Reply to you and @AP 499D25:

No matter what I do - adjust window size, zoom, CSS scaling - the partly in-table V-T-E does not change. This might be triggered by a combination of browser (Firefox ESR for me), screen resolution (3840x2160), and pixel density (163 ppi).

I did a lot of experimenting and it seems that VisualEditor + templates = potential foot-gun, so I'm hesitant about putting that option right up front. For those that insist on using it, it is only one click away once on the edit page.

Unfortunately, navbar, because it is in a div, sits well above the top of the table. See List of AMD graphics processing units#Radeon HD 5000 series for a particularly noticeable example of it looking very isolated (the preceding unordered list is followed by a <p><br></p>). How does navbar-table get around this? It is just a wrapper around navbar that in addition to adding a VisualEditor link sets the style position:relative and bottom:-11px. So adjusting the position of the navbar isn't the kludge I thought it was. Well it still is a kludge, but when used above the table it seems to be a widely used and reliable kludge. In the example of the HD 5000 it does not change the amount of vertical space between the list and the table though, it just moves the navbar down in that vertical space. The vertical space problem - the <p><br></p> - is tied to the list. I have not done any navbar vertical positioning changes while that problem is still there (a solution could be to have plain lines of text that start with a ' • ' ({{bull}}) instead of a list)

I am now leaning heavily to having view·talk·edit above the table on the left with the -11px positioning. To highlight it a bit we can either go with just brackets [view·talk·edit] or something that indicates what the links act on, eg. "AMD Radeon HD 7xxx: view·talk·edit" as I have set on List of AMD graphics processing units#Radeon HD 7000 series.

Something else I have done for the HD 5000 and HD 7000 templates is, in addition to the comment in the source about where to discuss changes, added a Consensus box (wrapped in noincludes) to the top which points editors to this talk page and a documentation box (also with the same consensus box) at the bottom (HD 5000 already had it). And I added the same consensus box to their respective talk pages because why not. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Wikkiwonkk:

Out of curiosity, how does the Radeon 600 series (article / list) table & navbar look at your end?

This table and navbar position is more of a example, without float:left. I noticed the gap between table and notelist is way smaller when using float:left, but it also pushes first note slightly to the right (about 1px).

Removing float everything stays in place, but it creates extra gap above and below navbar. So in this example I moved table and navbar down, also added relative position to both. Although there is now small gap at the top above the table, at least on my end. In my conclusion issues (if any) are maybe due to using float, but I am not 100% sure. Rando717 (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes I see the difference. Just in terms of correctness, floats should not be used to tweak things. I initially thought using float:left with navbars above the table fixed some problems, but later when testing scaling I discovered that if there was enough horizontal space in my browser window the navbar suddenly moved to the left of the table, or more precisely the table moved up and to the right of the navbar.

Repositioning the table seems like a worse solution than repositioning the navbar - better to reposition the small thing than the big main content of the template/article. Clearly this is a well-known irritant because navbar-table has that -11px built in.

Part of me thinks "if navbar-table has it built in, then it is okay to do the same adjustment manually to navbar", but another part of me thinks "stop focusing so much on minor format adjustments, focus on content". I am reminded of students spending half an hour trying to decide which font to use before they have even written a single line of their essay.

So I say we should get the big questions answered and implemented first:

1. navbar above or below the table,
2. V-T-E or view-talk-edit,
3. "highlight" it with brackets, template title (eg. as with HD 7000), or other.

- Wikkiwonkk (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Here's my final thoughts:

The navbar should be located below the table, should be "view-talk-edit", and highlighted with brackets, if that's possible. This seems to be the most balanced approach in my opinion (for both editors and readers) – not too in-the-way, yet easy to spot and click on.

I'm against having a title next to the navbar (e.g. "AMD Radeon HD 7xxx"), as it just appears as visual clutter / jargon in the average reader's view in my book, and I believe it might confuse newbie editors who don't know what templates are or how they work.

Response to Rando717: the navbar on the Radeon 600 series template looks fine to me, displays correctly, apart from taking up a few lines (pixels) of extra vertical space.

Also having the consensus notice at the top of HD 5000 and HD 7000 series templates is a great idea. Noinclude tags so it doesn't appear when transcluded on the actual articles. Yet, it is clearly visible right there at the top. I've noted pretty much all of the other templates (Ryzen and APU processor templates as well) have the centralised talk page consensus notice down inside the template documentation, where it is less obvious and visible, and honestly, I want to know what percentage of people actually notice and read the template documentation? I happen to forget / ignore it 90% of the time. Though I do get the hang of discussing at the list article talk pages to centralise the discussion and garner more attention from other editors.

Hmm, I wonder if the positioning system of navbar-table is different to that of navbar, would be interesting to know.

Indeed, VisualEditor isn't perfect with editing tables, and sometimes introduces little issues (such as handling line breaks using actual regular line breaks, instead of the more suitable <br /> tag which you cannot insert from VE). That, together with the VisualEditor notice in the template documentation, I'm going to agree on not displaying it upfront.

Regards, AP 499D25 (talk) 04:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

"Hmm, I wonder if the positioning system of navbar-table is different to that of navbar, would be interesting to know."

navbar-table is just a wrapper around navbar that adds the Visualeditor link, puts brackets around it, and gives it a relative position of y = -11px. That's why it hugs the table so nicely, when placed above the table. When placed below the table that -11px has it down overlapping the notelist. If we end up wanting to fine-tune the position of the navbar, at least we can rest assured that we're not the first ones to use that particular kludge.

It seems that we are converging on a consensus of [view-talk-edit] (which is {{navbar|Template Name|brackets=y|plain=y}}) below the table. I have made the HD 5000 through HD 7000 (+IGP) templates consistent in that style so there is a chunk we can scroll through and get a feel for how the whole page might look.

- Wikkiwonkk (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Even with noinclude there appears to be more spacing with extra consensus template, for example on article: HD 5000 series. It's less noticeable if template links are "inline" (behind something), for example on list: HD 7000 series. That can't be applied if there is only template inside a section. Rando717 (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's because of the line breaks between the VEdit notice, the hidden note at top, and beginning of table. I'm sure if we get rid of the line breaks so those things are all on one line, the problem will be gone. Though it would be less neat and potentially confusing when one looks at / edits the template code. But that's my thought.

When the Ryzen 7k desktop CPUs template was protected because of sockpuppetry, I noticed the protection icon that had been added, wrapped in noincludes, was put right before the beginning of the table, without any line breaks. That's where I got this idea from. AP 499D25 (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Rando717 & @AP 499D25 Good spot. The linebreak between the HTML comment and the noinclude was introducing some vertical space in pages that transcluded the template. Which makes sense because the linebreak is outside the noinclude. I removed the comment since the consensus template has the same text in it, and made the noinclude-consensus-/noinclude all on the first line of the template. The HD 5000 series article looks better now. - Wikkiwonkk (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I'm going to start rolling out this "[view-talk-edit]" navbox more and more across all the other AMD GPU templates, as well as Intel Arc templates, because lately I've just come across an editor (who isn't new to editing, mind you, although not "very experienced" either) who either wasn't able to figure out how the templates work and how to edit them, or wasn't easily able to find an edit button for it anywhere, and so replaced the templates on the article with directly placed tables when trying to make changes to them. Maybe this more visible and highlighted style of navbox will make more new/inexperienced editors be able to figure out how to edit these templates, and reduce instances like these from happening again hopefully. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Better Mesa Support for older chipsets.

Recently, Mesa added a series of patches to improve support for TerraScale GPUs (again). They now support OpenGL 4.5 and OpenGL ES 3.1. Referance: https://mesamatrix.net/ as of posting ----24.208.189.58 (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Graphic output ports column

I would like to remove Graphic output ports column from all Radeon Pro products, to reduce table width.

Any opinions or objections? Rando717 (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

• Slight oppose, because it's been a general tradition for ATI/AMD workstation GPU tables to have a "display outputs" column at the end. Look at the FirePro lists in the list of workstation GPUs, a good majority of them also have display outputs info. I suppose it makes a lot of sense because workstation users will tend to have a lot of displays connected, so it's quite important info to know how many ports there are, what are the type of the ports, and how many displays are supported. Workstation GPUs are all reference or near-reference spec too, AIB manufacturers don't deviate from the reference specs much, so AIB cards will all pretty much have the same display outputs as the reference card. Gaming GPUs on the other hand, will typically only have 1 or 2 displays connected, maybe 3, and AIB manufacturers will tend to configure the available display outputs differently from the reference spec, such as AIB cards having DVI while ref ones don't, another good example is how Built By AMD RX 6000 series graphics cards have USB-C but almost none of the aftermarket cards do, instead having a third DP in their place, so it is barely useful to state the display outputs supported on consumer (gaming) GPU tables. — AP 499D25 (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

What does "1.3 possible" means for Vulkan support?

GCN 5th gen cards is listed with 1.3 support https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_RX_Vega_series

GCN 4th gen cards (which in this very article are just listed with 1.2 support) are listed here with 1.3 support! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radeon_400_series Tuxayo (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2023 (UTC)