Template talk:AMD Zen+ based desktop CPUs

VisualEditor

So I noticed that for me, the VisualEditor works in templates by simply changing the URL (veaction instead of action). However this depends on the preferences. If the beta feature "new wikitext mode" is enabled, it doesn't work. Click on [VisualEditor] in this page to try your luck. --Pizzahut2 (talk) 01:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

The VE has problems if table cell templates like {{tba}} are used. This is just a hint, not saying that table cell templates shouldn't be used any more. Details here: Template:Navbar-table — Pizzahut2 (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Precision Boost 2

Precision Boost 2 is working with much more finer granularity than PB1, which means it cannot be categorized in 1-2 and 3+ threads. Hence I will go ahead and update the table. Wikiinger (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New CPUs

https://www.amd.com/en/press-releases/2018-09-06-amd-reimagines-everyday-computing-new-zen-based-athlon-desktop-processors

— Pizzahut2 (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

l1 / l2 column

For L1 too there is a certain amount per core (96 KB) - ignoring the likely typo AMD made for the Ryzen 5 2600E. So perhaps L1 and L2 should be formatted the same way. Either both per core, or both showing the total amount instead. Pizzahut2 (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ryzen 2000 marketing name vs CPUs based on Pinnacle Ridge (Ryzen 5 1600 12nm refresh)

I've added a link to a refreshed Ryzen 1600 chip (YD1600BBAFBOX) based on Zen+ 12nm Pinnacle Ridge. The marketing name aligns with the Ryzen 1000 series, but the underlying technology aligns to the 2000 series. The article/template does not make this distinction clear and therefore this addition could end up confusing readers. Future artlice/template updates ought to clarify underlying technology vs marketing names to reduce confusion. I'm not sure if it is better to include this link in the Ryzen 1000 series or the 2000 series article. In either case, the distinction between marketing name vs underlying technology should be made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.148.28 (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Ryzen 1000 because this would be a Zen processor on a 12nm process, not Zen+. 217.162.74.13 (talk) 14:51, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A German site checked the chip ID code and it is the same as the 2600, but it seems they did not check the microcode version. It would still be Zen+ silicon, so I'm moving it back here. 217.162.74.13 (talk) 03:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]