Template talk:AMD processors

message: 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)
thread_title: Logo

message: 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)
thread_title: Remove SSE5?

message: 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 202.71.240.18 (talk • contribs) 09:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Geode and Alchemy

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. --203.218.192.76 (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Why make it complicated? --218.102.110.78 (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

text: 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. --203.218.111.163 (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of template 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  I'll probably remove the sub-categories only in that case. Rilak (talk) 12:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Opinion 

message: 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)
replies: text: No, I don't think they are appropriate in navboxes (unless as a "more..." link). Letdorf (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reverts 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: What in particular do you disagree with? Letdorf (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Expert-care needed 

message: In case somebody would like to know, how other people do it, please have a look at:  and . 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 ( and ) 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)
thread_title:  comparison with other templates 

message: Why both APU and Athlon X4s line is categorized as discounted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlienKnuckle (talk • contribs) 
: 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)
thread_title:  Discontinued?