Template talk:AMD custom APU

Incorporate custom GPU table

On List of AMD graphics processing units#Console GPUs is a table of custom AMD GPUs, which are also probably custom APUs? It would be nice to merge both table here and use this template on List of AMD Accelerated Processing Unit microprocessors and List of AMD graphics processing units. Wikiinger (talk) 09:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Not all of the console GPUs are APUs, many are graphics only. The ones listed here are the APU products (CPU+GPU). Though the slighly different Xbox One S APU is absent on the List of AMD graphics processing units#Console GPUs table, and can be added there. Dbsseven (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok, but the Console GPUs table list also APUs which are mentioned here. To make it clear to the reader which are discrete GPUs and which are integrated APUs, the APUs should be removed from the console GPU table. Wikiinger (talk) 19:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with removing this content. The console GPUs are included in the console APU silicon, and many/all have no discrete GPU equivalent. Simply removing this information would be a disservice, removing valuable comparative content. A bit of prose in the Notes column of that table would be a much better solution, IMO. Dbsseven (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to remove, but move the content. Namely according to the AMD "nomenclature" we have in these articles, where everything discrete is a GPU (or CPU) and everything integrated an APU. Hence e.g. the "scorpio" wouldn't be listed under custom GPU, but custom APU. (And the custom APU template has a GPU section, so no information would be lost). Wikiinger (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I understand what you're getting at, but I still would disagree with removing content from the List of AMD graphics processing units#Console GPUs. I understand your purpose of having the article being purely GPU products. But in this case I believe it would make both articles less clear and complete than duplicating information. (And your example about scorpio is not accurate, as Scorpio is listed not only in Template:AMD custom APU, but also in Jaguar (microarchitecture), which is focused on CPU architecture, and discussed in the Xbox One article focused on the product. Having it included in the GPU list appears appropriate. Similar duplication is also used for the other console APUs and GPUs.)

In this case (re)moving the APU based GPUs from List of AMD graphics processing units#Console GPUs would diminish the reader's ability to easily compare AMD's console GPUs in a single place. Again, many of these APU based GPUs have no discrete equivalent. Also, while some information may be duplicated on the APU table, this console GPU table contains some exclusive information relevant to this table (APIs, etc). Dbsseven (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't care so much about the strictness of the article(s), but more about the strictness of the tables. In contrary - I would place the custom APU table below the custom GPU one in that same section (Console GPUs). Because currently that evolutionary step, from discrete chips/silicon to an integrated die/silicon, is completely unobvious to the reader. And I consider this evolutionary step an important one, hence this is my main gripe with the current one-table solution.

So that evo step happened between Latte and Liverpool and it is totally not apparent from that table (even more so it says under "Bus interface" "integrated" everywhere), so for me that GPU table is plain wrong or misleading at best.

Comparisons can be done within each table (which is IMHO more appropriate), but also across tables since they are in the same section. If you think there a columns missing in the APU table, we can just add them. Wikiinger (talk) 13:19, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the move from discrete to integrated GPU is un-obvious and should be noted. However, I believe creating a second table is unnecessary, and possibly confusing. These are GPUs and therefore meet the categorical restrictions for the List of AMD graphics processing units article and the Console GPUs section (though these GPUs happen to be incorporated into APUs).

I still think this could be more clearly and simply addressed by adding a note in the "Notes" column of the current table. What about adding a note of "Integrated in APU" as appropriate? Dbsseven (talk) 13:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, this is not about creating a second table, since this table is already here and serves a purpose on its own, but about splitting the table. And as said above I would put this table also in List of AMD graphics processing units#Console GPUs.

I feel that just adding a single note is not obvious enough / doesn't represent that big step adequate. Wikiinger (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Scorpio L2 Cache amount

Can someone please correct the Scorpio's L2 Cache value from 2x 2mb to the correct 2x 4mb? (aka twice that of the other console APU's). I've tried, but it won't stick for some reason.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooe (talk • contribs)

@Cooe: Could you provide a cite for this 2x 4mb value? The currently cited sources clearly state 4mb total (aka 2x 2mb). Dbsseven (talk) 15:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. It was the GPU L2 that was increased not the CPU. Had sources stating it was the L2 CPU cache that was increased to 4mb per block as the "Jaguar customizations" mentioned, but it appears they were mistaken as to which component of the APU this L2 cache increase belonged too. Haha nvm then, nothing to see here :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooe (talk • contribs) 10:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

cores/modules

@Wikiinger. See you have modified the PS4 Pro to "two modules with 4 cores each" based on the Jaguar (microarchitecture). While this is a reasonable guess, it is not supported by any source I have see (and none cited). You might have noted that Jaguar supports "up to" 4 cores per module, but "up to" does not necessarily mean that the PS4 Pro APU was designed by using the maximum number of cores per module. (Also within the Jaguar spec would be a quad-modules of 2 cores each, among others.) Without a cite the "two modules with 4 cores each" is Original Research. In the absence of a reputable cite, I believe the "8-core" language should be used. Dbsseven (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, for me it is the other way around. That there are 4 core jaguar modules is a proven fact. That there is a heavily customized jaguar architecture with 8 cores per module - no sources for that. Furthermore in the sources it is only listed with "8 cores", the module count is omitted. So "8 cores" doesn't even contradict "two modules with 4 cores each" (there are eight cores in each case). However interpreting those "8 cores" as eight cores per one module is Original Research in my opinion and that with no sources whatsoever.

Also keep in mind these hardware specs are often released from (or went through) marketing people, which basically don't care about technical details. Wikiinger (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi Wikiinger. You are right that there are 4-core Jaguar modules, however there are not only 4-core Jaguar modules. The description is up to 4 cores, this language means that less than 4 cores are also valid configurations (and products with fewer cores per module have been produced).

I believe you misunderstood in my earlier example. I was not stating that there is an 8-core module. My example was "4 modules, with 2 cores each" would also fit the Jaguar spec and the cited core count of the PS4 Pro. (I am not stating this is correct, but rather it also fits with what is cited.) Without a cite defining the module number of the PS4 Pro APU, asserting that the APU is a dual module of 4 cores each is original research.

And you may be right that marketing people might be less rigorous. However the standard for inclusion in WP is Verifiability, which is absent in this case. Dbsseven (talk) 17:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Sigh, well I find your examples quite hypothetical, but I guess in theory you are right. So, what I can live with would be either ""8 cores"" (in quotes that is, to make it clear it's a literal stat) or "unk. module count with 8 cores total" or "8 cores w. unk. module count" or something like this. I leave that up to you. Wikiinger (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit conflict due to non-Jaguar custom APUs

Needs some consensus whether other architectures (e.g. Zen based custom APUs) should be included or not.

Also not sure how the different focus of the articles should be handled. This template is transcluded in a general article about APUs (List of AMD accelerated processing unit microprocessors) and into one which is specifically for Jaguar only (Jaguar (microarchitecture)).

Maybe the best solution would be to rename this template into "Jaguar APUs" or something similar, because then no one would have a problem with the template being transcluded in both articles. In the "List of APUs" a second table could be added (maybe without using a template) for "Other APUs".

— Pizzahut2 (talk) 00:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This table / template is intended for 'all' AMD custom APUs and is not limited to specific CPU or GPU architectures. The idea here is to get an overview / progression of custom APUs in one table, which wouldn't be possible if it is tied to specific architectures.

That this table is fully embedded in the Jaguar is due to historic reasons (to a certain point there where only jaguar custom APUs). To fix this issue the table should be reomved from the jaguar article and replaced by a link to List_of_AMD_accelerated_processing_unit_microprocessors#Custom_APUs Wikiinger (talk) 16:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The reason why I removed that Chinese console is simple; the article is about the Jaguar microarchitecture, not about consoles making use of AMD apu's or hardware (because then the XBox 360 should be included for the Xenos gpu). If you want an article about consoles that make use of AMD apu's and/or hardware, you should make a seperate page for that. The table on this page is only to show the different consoles, and their specifications, that make use of the Jaguar APU's (imo). NitroX infinity (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This is still an issue on the Jaguar (microarchitecture) page. Best solution is likely to fork the template into one for all AMD APUs, and one for just Jaguar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.52.130.137 (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2020 (UTC)