Talk:List of AMD graphics processing units/Archive 2

Table of "Southern Islands (HD 7xxx) Series" at bottom is a little bent out of shape
I'd just like to say that the bottom indication for the contents of the table (Model | Launch | Codename | Fab) at the section "Southern Islands (HD 7xxx) Series" is not aligned right. Just the bottom indication, though. At the top the indication is right, at the bottom something appears to have gone askew. I tried to set it right myself, but can't seem to figure out how to adjust a wikitable. Perhaps someone who's a moderator can make an adjustment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.167.15 (talk) 20:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Mobility FireGL/FirePro series table
section Mobility FireGL/FirePro series

There is a column missing in the table, so that the values on the right side of the table don't fit where they belong.

For example the fillrates for a FirePro M5950 are not 17.4 and 57.6. Correct are 5.8	and 17.4. And Config core is not 5.8. It's 480square(96x5):24:8 (as in the column before). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.96.244 (talk) 10:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

FireMV vs. FirePro
I have an old ATI FireMV 2250 that is no longer listed in this page, but there is now a "FirePro 2250" listed. Assumine they are the same card, please indicate that "FirePro" is simply an AMD/ATI re-naming. Ian! (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Title

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of AMD graphics processing units → List of AMD graphics processing units – This is one of several articles that I think are all mistitled for the same reasons. Please see the centralized discussion at WikiProject_Computing. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Procedural close discussion spread over 4 talk pages. If you want a multimove discussion, please use the appropriate template and close this discussion, if you want separate discussions, please close your centralized discussion -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

April 14, 2014 edits; R100 & R200 tables.
I did some editing on the tables for R100 and R200 cards to get each row to only take up one line. Making the table compacter and easier to read, I hope.

Did a bunch of smaller edits because I'm not that good in messing with purely "code", I need to see the results in between.

NitroX infinity (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit; apparently, I forgot, Wikipedia tables adjust to screen-width. It looks good on my 1920 pixels, less pixels and it's 2 lines for rows again. Oh well, I'll let the regulars decide if they like it.

NitroX infinity (talk) 20:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

HD 63xx Codename columns
I'm pretty sure that the HD 6320 is a Wrestler architecture (at least that's what it's telling my os. And the Blog article linked for the HD 6310 is explicitly stating that its codename is Zacate (maybe the columns switched?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.4.109.210 (talk) 02:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

PEG v. PCIe x16
It is my understanding that PEG is proper usage for the PCI Express Graphics slot (functionally different than simply a PCIe x16 slot). Is this accurate? If so, should this be changed in this article, and all other articles (nVidia GPU's etc.)? Sahrin 16:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

--

"PEG" is an improper term, "PCI Express x16" is simple a standard PCI Express Bus with 16 lanes; it can be used for any peripheral. High-end Graphic Cards can take advantage of it's bandwidth and architecture, more than any other device.--Satsuki 18:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * PCI-SIG website uses PEG to denote graphics usage of an x8 slot used for graphics processors. The reason I propose using PEG in the place of PCIe x16 is because the slot is physically an x8 slot and electrically an anything between x1 and x16 (someday x32) slot.  PEG clarifies it as a PCIe x8 slot for graphics.  If anything, using your definition we should use PCIe x8, but I think that is also a misnomer (as typically the end user envisions it as an x16 slot, because electrically that is what it is).  Again, I suggest we change PCIe x16 references to PEG for clarity or robustness of the information.  Sahrin 01:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * PEG Link Mode, read. I think using "PEG" would confuse everyone. "PEG Link Mode" is a term used for overclocking the video card on specific mobos, which isn't standard. "PCI-e x16" is the correct and standard term for the interface these cards use.


 * PCI-e x16 is the correct name for a physical and electrical x16 slot, which not all of these graphics cards use (either on the "slot" end or on the "connector" end). Saying PCIe x16 is akin to saying "USB 2.0" for every single USB device in existence - when in fact, not every USB device is 2.0 standard.  PEG describes graphic use of PCI-Express, PCIe x16 describes a standard for a connector - for any purpose.  Not saying I disagree we should use PCIe x16, but I think your justification is invalid.  Sahrin 13:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal
I feel that as of 2014 the term "PCIe (version) x16" has become pretty standard and that "PEG" has fallen into disuse. If there are no objections I say we remove this section of the Talk page. --ParoXoN (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

CPUs
What happened to the pages Comparison of Intel Central Processing Units and Comparison of AMD Central Processing Units? I can't believe that I have to use answers.com instead of WP. <<-Which sucks because you can not do a quick comparison between models, I would hardly call the new stuff a "comparison" as it gives no info other then names unless you open 50 windows
 * They were deleted in favor the more detailed lists that are now seperate into processor categories we now have "List of Pentium 4 Processors, List of Pentium D Processors etc etc.

Proposal
I don't think this has any relevance to the list of AMD GPUs anymore. If there are no objections, I propose we delete this section of the Talk page. --ParoXoN (talk) 20:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

AMD 6790
I'm not sure if this is real or not, though some sites like NordicHardware are talking about a release date of 31st of March for the 6790 - a card to compete with the Nvidia 550Ti.

Like I siad, not sure if it's real or not, would love some more insight on this card. Not stats or prices, so if it does turn out to be a ghost I wouldn't be surprised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.43.71 (talk) 03:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's real: http://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/graphics/desktop/6000/6790

Proposal
Since the card is real, I propose we delete this section of the Talk page. --ParoXoN (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of OEM
Shouldn't we remove the OEM cards from the list, as they are just re-branding of the previous generation? Jørgen88 (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree the guys who buy OEM products probually arn't all the clued in to be able to make that connection. Instead I think that it should be listed in the notes that it is re-branded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.171.190 (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

For completeness I think it makes sense to keep the OEM models in the tables. Anyone referring to this page in the future, wondering about the details of the card they just pulled out of an old desktop, might want to easily locate the product by name. (Rather than referring to the references/comments to find out it was a rebadge of some older processor.) --ParoXoN (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Radeon Mobility Updates (x1900)
Fujitsu Siemen (EU Division) is releasing a laptop(AMILO Xi 1554) with a Radeon Mobility x1900 256Mb XT/XTX. Not much information has been released. Updates for the ATi video card list needed soon. http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=29358, http://laptoplogic.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17759, http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/home/products/notebooks/amilo_xi_1554.html. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SatsukiMikata (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

Proposal
The X1900 Mobility has all its information completely filled out in the appropriate table as of this comment. Propose removal of this section of the Talk page. --ParoXoN (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

OpenGL 4.4 Support
Since the final Catalyst 14.4 (april 2014) driver release many AMD cards have OpenGL 4.4 support. If we trust reports gathered by glcapsviewer this includes but is not limited to R9 29x, 6800, 7800, 5700 and 5800-series, and probably many more. 83.177.182.9 (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I heard about OpenGL 4.4 Support as well, but the only supported cards I know of are Graphics Core Next-based GPUs (which I just updated in the article). (See here: https://twitter.com/AMDRadeon/status/459821068690411520 ). I have not touched the mobile area, since I'm not really familiar with the mobile chips and feature support. Would be great if someone could find out for sure which GPUs truly support 4.4, which 4.3, which 4.2 and so on. Seems like much of the information has changed over time due to improved feature levels via driver updates. Paxnos (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * After posting here, I contacted AMD Customer Care and asked about OpenGL 4.4 and which GPUs (codenames) support OpenGL 4.4. I received an answer today, including a link to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL#OpenGL_4.4 So it seems like glcapsviewer got it right. I updated my AMD ticket to ask whether the information in that article is absolutely legit (meaning: All GPUs newer than and including Evergreen supporting 4.4) and will report back once I get that confirmation. Then we could think about updating the table, I guess. Regards Paxnos (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2014 (UTC)


 * AMD confirmed this. "Yes the desktop graphic cards from HD5000 to R9 200 series are support OpenGL 4.4 when 14.4 driver installed." Paxnos (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there a good way to site Paxnos' email in the table? AMD's website still lists older OpenGL versions. (4.1 and 4.3 mostly.) ParoXoN (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi ParoXoN, I thought about it and I didn't find a reliable source to "back it up"...until now. Sadly, AMD doesn't seem to keep their own product specs up to date. But Khronos has a list of OpenGl (4.4) conformant products which should back it up. It includes all AMD (and the other companies') products featuring that OpenGL version. You can also switch navigation if you need confirmation of other API support, like OpenCL. (Little off-topic: AMD has started adding OpenCL 2.0 support, so those changes to the table will be coming soon as well: http://support.amd.com/en-us/kb-articles/Pages/OpenCL2-Driver.aspx) The list: https://www.khronos.org/conformance/adopters/conformant-products/#opengl Paxnos (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Wii U "Latte" GPU
Why the page says that it is 160SP 8TMU 8ROP? That is a rumor. "Reference 63" Eurogamer http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/df-hardware-wii-u-graphics-power-finally-revealed techPowerUp http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/1903/wii-u-gpu.html They says that Wii U GPU is 320SP 16TMU 8ROP. That is elucidated with GPU die shot image analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maricolle1993 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Table of contents
Who turned the table of contents into an unusable piece of crap? What was wrong with the previous layout? Could jump directly to a certain gen and that was all fine and dandy. Kehool (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Gotta agree. Not a huge fan of Wiki-asd-97's edit, however it was getting quite long. A cleanup is kinda needed. Maybe this page should be broken up into three separate pages (Desktop, Mobile, and Workstation). It would definitely help with page loading times. Charwinger21 (talk) 03:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The new TOC is a nightmare for navigation. 180.200.156.33 (talk) 00:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

What the hell... it's gotten even worse now. Where are the upcoming GPUs? And why are GPUs all over the place but not where they're supposed to be? Why are 7790, 8870 and R9 GPUs under the same category? Could someone please revert this to the way it was before it all went to shit? I'd do it myself but I'd probably just make it worse.. at least I have the good sense to realize this and not to try and "improve" the article unlike certain other people... Much obliged. Kehool (talk) 10:07, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Radeon R7 250E
There have been references to a Radeon R7 250E that is a rebadge of the Cape Verde PRO-based Radeon HD 7750, which imporves upon the performance of the Oland XT-based R7 250. Though I've been unable to find a direct reference from AMD, XFX sells a card with this reference: http://xfxforce.com/en-us/products/amd-radeon-r7-series/amd-radeon-r7-250e-core-edition-r7-250e-znp4

It must be added as well, that other brands omit the E and sell it as a R7 250, as can be seen from this article: http://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2559/radeon-r7-250e.html --Richard Wolf VI (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

AMD Rx 3xx
The rumor mill is kicking into high gear now, might as well get a jump on creating a conservative section, these are not WP:RS by any measure And some older sourcing The following is WP:OR, but given it's based off physical limitations, I believe this would fall under WP:CS
 * http://videocardz.com/54013/amd-fiji-xt-spotted-at-zauba
 * http://wccftech.com/amd-20nm-gpus-horizon-tsmc-ramps-20nm-production/
 * http://wccftech.com/amds-generation-fiji-xt-gpu-spotted-shipping-manifesto-radeon-r9-300-series-production-ramping/
 * http://www.tweaktown.com/news/41040/amd-rumored-to-be-testing-next-gen-gpus-internally-known-as-fiji-xt/index.html
 * http://videocardz.com/52302/amd-radeon-r9-390x-cooling-pictured
 * http://wccftech.com/codenames-amd-volcanic-islands-pirate-islands-crystal-series-detailed/
 * http://www.tweaktown.com/news/40339/amd-to-release-its-radeon-r9-390x-early-next-year-20nm-with-hbm-tech/index.html
 * Neither the PCI-E 3.1 nor 4.0 specifications have been released as of time of writing. It is safe to assume they are not included on this generation of GPU
 * The DX12.1 specification hasn't been released nor mentioned at all by Microsoft — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.142.154 (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Should we have this table up yet? There is hardly any leaked information regarding these GPUs. F0rteOC (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You could take it down if you like, it'll just go back up in another 2-3 months. I figured might as well put the framework up and update it as more leaks. 67.188.142.154 (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hell I just checked my newsfeeds, another leak, but it's rumor tier again: http://wccftech.com/amd-fiji-r9-390x-specs-leak/ As I said, the mill is getting in high gear; I'm not comfortable adding these to the article, but the frame should be up and ready for when something credible hits. 67.188.142.154 (talk) 07:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The table in it's current form makes no sense. If the Trinidad chip is a rebrand of Curaçao or Pitcairn, why did it almost dupoble in size, go from 1280 "cores" to 2048, and otherwise have specs of a full Tonga? I think the best thing to do is fill the table with TBA, and change the fabrication process to 28nm, as 20nm has been confirmed again and again that won't fit the needs nor yields of GPUs.

What that is known is that R9 390(x) is Fiji. There are some rumours that say there will be rebrands, and some that say there won't be. What that is likely is that Tonga will se new life, perhaps as an R7 370, with a Hawaii-like design running GCN 1.2 or newer being very likely. 178.17.146.218 (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

370 possible error
The 300 series may have an error.

The R9 370 is listed as 1536 SP but a rebrand of Curaçao/Pitcairn. This cannot be the case Curaçao/Pitcairn are maximum 1280SP. The 1536SP card from the HD7000 series (7870XT) is in fact a cut down Tahiti. There is no 1536SP Curaçao/Pitcairn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.218.73.51 (talk) 13:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

AMD Rx 3xx OEM?
Reverted 125.254.43.66 because I don't think this is WP:OR, however, you could argue it's WP:SYNTH
 * http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/graphics/desktop/oem/r9#3
 * http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/graphics/desktop/oem/r7#3
 * http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/graphics/desktop/oem/r5#3

Proposal: AMD Rx 3xx is an OEM series, akin to the HD 8000's; the next retail series is the Rx 4xx. Alternatively we'll need an OEM Rx 3xx section.

Evidence #1: The above links contain information on "300 Series specs", a further look at the specs shows they all have similar featuresets and core counts, but a few differences:
 * R9 380 = R9 285; same clockrate, same bandwidth
 * R9 370 = R7 265; same bandwidth; clockrate is 50 mhz faster
 * R9 360 = R7 260; clockrate is 50 mhz faster, bandwidth is 125mhz faster
 * R7 350 = R7 250; same clockrate; 25 mhz slower memory
 * R7 340 = R7 250; much much lower clockrate, 25 mhz slower memory; core of a 250X, clocks of a 250
 * R5 340 = R7 250; much lower clockrate; note there appears to be a typo, it says 6 CU but 320 shaders, 6CU corresponds to 384
 * R5 330 = R7 240; higher clockrate

Evidence #2: The URL contains /oem/ as a directory in it, infact on the http://www.amd.com/en-us/products/graphics/desktop page, if you click "AMD Radeon™ HD 8000 series graphics (OEM)" link, it takes you to the first link above.

Evidence #3: The naming convention AMD chose here contradicts all prior known information, and doesn't make sense in the greater picture. If the "390" is meant to be a chip with much higher performance than the 290, then the resulting performance gap and the "390" and 380 would be massive. It'd make more sense if the 380 specified were sold as a "370", but this isn't the case.

Evidence #4: There is precedence, the HD 8000's were an OEM only series released just prior to the Rx 2xx series.

Evidence #5: News sites are picking up on it:
 * http://www.techpowerup.com/212258/a Also supports my proposal
 * http://www.anandtech.com/show/9241/
 * http://techreport.com/news/28231/
 * http://wccftech.com/amd-launches-radeon-r9-380-
 * http://www.hardware.fr/news/14203/amd-lance-radeon-r9-380-370-360-oem.html
 * http://vga.it168.com/a2015/0507/1726/000001726673.shtml

I'll be expanding the Rx 3xx section by adding a table after I post this. 67.188.142.154 (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

GFlops/W
The GFlops/W are obviously calculated as max. GFlops/TDP, which is absolutely incorrect. There is no indication that a GPU will use its exact TDP when being used as a GPGPU. The GFlops/W is not in any spec sheet either, so i request the column to be removed. --79.251.138.122 (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * +1 Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

2015-06 memory size
I suggest to move the memory size column in the Memory column. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on List of AMD graphics processing units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://support.ati.com/products/pc/ragexl/xpert98_ragexl.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

GCN 1.x
@Visite fortuitement prolongée:

Please show me an official document from AMD where the GCN 1.x denomination is used. It is a fiction by you guys. --188.106.27.177 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Please show me an official document from AMD where the GCN 1.x denomination is used." →‎ I can not. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "It is a fiction by you guys." →‎ No, it come from reliable sources such anandtech.com and hardware.fr . Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Since when are anandtech.com and hardware.fr owned by AMD? Both belong to the "you guys" camp. NOTHING OFFICIAL! --188.106.27.177 (talk) 13:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "Since when are anandtech.com and hardware.fr owned by AMD?" →‎ I don't know. Actually, I did not know that anandtech.com and hardware.fr are owned by AMD. Tell me more about that. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

GCN: See mesaDriver Features and Hardware Levels of Radeon https://www.x.org/wiki/RadeonFeature/#index6h2   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.31.234 (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC) With new driver Crimson actual 16.5.3 only GCN-Cards are Supported for new Features like Vulkan 1.0. since Catalyst 15.7 also OpenGL 4.5 for all GCN-Cards available. All terascale2-Cards can OpenGL 4.4 with driver Catalyst  14.4+. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.31.234 (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

See also AMD Documenta http://amd-dev.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/media/2013/07/AMD_GCN3_Instruction_Set_Architecture.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.31.234 (talk) 00:29, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

R400 GCN version
This pages calls newest generation (polaris) a GCN 1.3, while Graphic Core Next article here on wiki pages and most reviewers call it a GCN 2.0 or GCN 4, I think that it should be changed here too.--Robin WH (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no clear, consistency of what version number the 4th generation of the GCN is. Even AMD themselves list it as simple "GCN 4th generation". So until we get a clear version number, I say leave it as is. EDIT: After reading the talk page on the GCN article, the whole version numbering was completely created by Anandtech & is not use anywhere officially. I will go through & update the templates to reflect this info. #FF9600  talk 19:36, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Split
I strongly disagree with splitting the article into multiple pages and strongly belive that it is highly useful exactly because ALL entries are on a single page. This split was just done, by User:Tiarapantier with no discussion here, to this and the equivalent NVIDIA and Intel GPU pages. Reverted. Concentrate2 (talk) 19:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

OpenGL 4.5 now for all GCN Certified by Khronos for win7 to 10 in jan 2017
See https://www.khronos.org/conformance/adopters/conformant-products#opengl  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C53F:B9E8:C5DC:13CF:6B25:E20B (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Table Width
The tables are too wide. I suggest dropping the Clock Rates, Fill Rates, Processing Power and Bandwidth (memory) columns. At least for later generations of cards (HD 2000 and above). Manufacturers release variations with different gpu and memory frequencies so the values in those columns only apply to the cards that use stock values. The only things shown in the tables should be fixed specifications, not specs that can differ. NitroX infinity (talk) 23:09, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously the specs refer to the AMD reference cards / design. Furthermore if we would drop all this information there would be very little of interest in these tables... However I agree that the tables are way to wide, hence I proposed and implemented an new layout, which narrowed the tables a lot. However we might still need to cut some columns (API?, see also Template_talk:GPU_Chipset_Table)... --Wikiinger (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Boost values (was:For consistancy)
AMDs offical site says RX480 is upto 5.8TFLOPs but the number here says 5100. I did alot of the earlier entries myself using boost clock for the performance calculations since boost clock became a thing. It might be an idea to either provide both sets of performance numbers or to update either one to just us base or boost. More of a consistancy thing probually dosn't matter to much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.111.133 (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2016 (UTC) Note: that I changed the headers of the tables accordingly, however I didn't calculate all the values - feel free to hop in here. :-) --Wikiinger (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right and there is now a new table layout to cope with both values. The idea is to state the performance of boost clock in brackets and below the base clock performance.

Rx 300 table width
This table has become far too big! It exceeds the page width at 100% on a 1920-pixel wide monitor. 125.254.43.66 (talk) 03:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest to delete the GFlops/W column. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I should add that it doesn't "unwrap" the cell contents until you zoom out to 70% on the same 1920-pixel wide monitor. Many of the other tables in the article are similar.  There is far too much information in them for a single table. 125.254.43.66 (talk) 02:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It should hopefully be better now. I think we can drop transistor counts and die size too if we wanted since they don't seem too interesting(?)--Kyousuke.k (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you.
 * The Fab process, Transistors count and Die size columns are more about the chip itself than the video card, but since the pages are named "List of ... graphics processing units" and since the tables are not too wide now, I suggest to keep them.
 * Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It still is definitely too wide. ScotXW tried shrinking the font sizes, but it is bad form and is a violation of wikipedia policy. We should look into potentially moving some of the information out of the table, and into the header instead (not sure which parts though. Fab size, bus type, and API support might be good fits, and it may make sense to remove launch MSRPs entirely). Alternately, we could break it into two sets of tables per product line, one for the card specs, and one for the API information. This would allow us to fit in even more information (if needed), and if broken up in a sensible manner, could substantially improve readability. Something like this (still needs to be tweaked):


 * 50.101.168.70 (talk) 03:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A couple days ago FF9600 re-implemented the font size shrinking that had been reverted, making it quite hard to read a lot of the charts. Does anyone have any comments on this proposal? 70.49.130.192 (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it looks like Wikiinger's changes seem to have shrunk the table's width enough that displaying them at full size no longer causes roll-over at most resolutions, and shrinking the font sizes are now causing a gap on the right side on many monitors. The changes already in place might be sufficient. 70.49.130.192 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The 80% font size does NOT create a gap on the right side on any of my devices. Quite the contrary it makes them almost fit in. Among them is also a HD laptop screen which I think is fairly common... Anyways I changed the font-size to 90% which I think is a fair compromise.--Wikiinger (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * PS: It would be nice if we could find an elegant solution to get rid of the API column. However two tables is IMHO not the way to go. --Wikiinger (talk) 20:46, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 90% is better (it's above Wikipedia's minimum of 85%. "In no case should the resulting font size drop below 85% of the page font size"), but it still is shrinking the data (and making it harder to read) rather than trying to fix the root of the problem (the layout of the tables themselves), which is important as Wikipedia's guidelines say that font size changes should be an absolute last resort. 70.49.130.192 (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Issues with Wikiinger's Proposed Table Changes
Since Wikiinger opted to not follow wiki norms of have proposed changes that directly affect the established tables on this article (and by proxy the tables used in the individual Radeon article main pages) on this actual talk page, I've started the discussion in its proper location. Here are my list of issues with their proposition: #FF9600 talk 20:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) It directly combines cells into things are not directly related, and therefore creates more confusion and clutter than necessary.
 * 2) The merging also creates confusion of have multiple parenthesized items in the header which also create additional confusion to others that are not as familiar with some of the terms, e.g. "Core (MHz) (Boost)".
 * 3) The merging of rows makes the reader to have to "zig-zag" when attempting to relevant data pertaining to a specific GPU. It also creates additional work to maintain the row spans and creates more potential to someone to go back & fix incorrect row spans.
 * First of all you should read and understand Template talk:GPU Chipset Table where I explained the changes I did in every detail. To your points:


 * 1) to generic, be more specific
 * 2) this is only a small price we have to take, furthermore from the values in the cell belows it is pretty obvious what is meant.
 * 3) By the merging of rows, the reader is actually able to more easily follow a GPU (row) since there are less columns to track through (often the GPU column is already out of the screen when at the API section).
 * All in all, I feel that your points are rather vague and actually not severe.


 * In contrast the old layout has font-size 80% (which is against the MOS), and doesn't even fit with this tiny font on a widescreen. Which makes it really hard to "relevant data pertaining to a specific GPU".--Wikiinger (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Your respond makes no sense.
 * It may be obvious to you, but I can easily see someone becoming confused. This is a poor "user experience" choice.
 * You're misunderstanding. Rows are the horizontal lines, while columns are the vertical lines. rowspan is a way to have the same data "span" across multiple rows. By using rowspans to have the same data span across the row is makes the data float vertically in the middle of the cell, making the reader have to go up & down when reading a single row.
 * The tables fit perfectly fine on my 1920 px wide widescreen. So I don't see your issue with fitting the data on the screen especially since 1920 px wide is pretty much standard. I really think you need to read over what I wrote and what you responded with because a lot of your responses don't make a lot of sense. #FF9600  talk 02:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Which cells do you think combine info that are not strongly related to each other? Because there are non, IMO.
 * The "new line (Boost)" info in the header is already used in the old layout for precision. By applying that very same scheme for the clockrate, the boost values align nicely in the row, which in turn increases user experience.
 * (Yeah, I confused rows and columns in my last reply.) Well, I'm open to that. OTOH you have to see that by merging rows it is easy to see at a first glance which models share features (e.g. all OGL 4.5, Architecture, etc.). For example by merging the die size, it is easy to see which models share the same die and have different binning, which wouldn't be so easy to spot otherwise. So there is clearly a trade-off.
 * Table Width - there is no point in denying that the table width with the old layout is an issue (see other discussions above). Even if it fits on your FHD display, then it does only so with 80% font-size. Furthermore you have to keep in mind that future GPU generation bring new features, which will likely further increase the table width. For example there is now a "Half" precision column and we don't know what else upcoming GPUs bring.
 * Wikiinger (talk) 10:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * None of the of them IMO.
 * Yes "Precision level (Boost)" is already used, but you'll notice in that case it doesn't have two sets of parenthesis in the header while only presenting one set of parenthesis data in the cells below.
 * Yes there is a trade-off between rowspanning & not rowspanning the data. I still believe not rowspanning the data makes it easier to read the data set for a specific chip then when the data is rowspanned. In addition, rowspanning the data creates a higher level of error when adding or updating the data.
 * Yes there is an issue with the table width, there is no denying that. By personal opinion is the data is easier to read separated like it is currently. One thing I would be open to dropping is the API sections from the table, since the entire table is purely physical hardware specs, while the API section is more software related. (Yes the physical capabilities of the hardware does play into or limit the APIs that chip supports, but still). The inclusion of the API levels also adds to an additional area of ongoing maintenance to the tables, since API support can "upgrade" over time to a chip.
 * #FF9600 talk 16:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * So you are fine with the merging of similar data (eg model-&codenam, archi&fab, etc)?
 * Look at the Fillrates "Pixel /n (GP/s) /n (Boost)" it is already there... Maybe omitting the parentheses alltogether or use italy font
 * Rowspanned data should be easier to update, since you only have to change it once (e.g. all the GCN 1.1 -> GCN 2nd gen). There is hardly any adding to these tables. I really like the rowspanning on the Arch/Fab and the Trans/Die column, since it adds information here, we can drop it for the others.
 * Agreed on the API. However just dropping API columns isn't sufficient for an acceptable table width (see pt 1 & 2).
 * Wikiinger (talk) 22:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I think rowspanned data is actually harder to update. Changing wholesale (ie your example of GCN 1.1-> GCN 2nd) is a rare issue, rather the insertion of a new product which breaks the rowspan is a pain to fix. I would agree that rowspans can make it harder to read across the table also. Dbsseven (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Reformating for VEGA series & on
The VEGA seires supports 8 bit "Quarter" precession at 4x rate & 16 bit "half" precession at 2x rate. It would be better if we could get 2 more coloms for those figures. Bus Interface & release price not praticuarly useful pieces of information.

I'd suggest putting bus interface above the table seeing it changes at most once per a generation. I'd suggest deleting the price information all togeather it's not revelant for very long & having it as a retrospective serves little value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.215.130.97 (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Until VEGA is released everything is hearsay, we will not reformat anything till then.
 * Half precision (16-bit) is already in the table. Never heard of "quarter" precision.
 * Release Price is a very useful information to rank the different cards (also cross-vendor), even more so in retrospective. No way we are gonna drop this.
 * API columns are about to be dropped (since it is not so much HW spec). However we need yet find a way how to advert it.
 * Wikiinger (talk) 13:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"Radeon Rx" vs "Radeon RX" confusion
In the english Wikipedia we have used "Radeon Rx" (lower case x) to denote the variants of the Radeon series, i.e. R5, R7, R9. Which worked fine so far. However with the 400 Series AMD introduced a new variant "Radeon RX" (upper case X), which is confusing when reading through the articles and already produced some confused edits. Also I noticed that the newer AMD Radeon 400 series article omitted the "Rx" in-between (contrary to the AMD Radeon Rx 300 series and former). Shall we backport this scheme to the earlier articles as well? Other suggestions to avoid the confusion? Wikiinger (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I changed now most of the occurrences of "Rx" (wherever possible) to "R5/R7/R9" to minimize confusion. Wikiinger (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Whither Vega?
I wonder at what point the new Vega GPU should be added? I'm not trolling, and I did not edit the article page. The thing has been released...

70.65.117.140 (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Alternative Layout for Boost values
Here is a suggestion for an alternative Layout. I removed the "(Boost)" text from the header and put it in a sentence as footnote. This makes the header much clearer, otoh people need to read the footnote first to understand the two values. Thoughts? (Also I exchanged the brackets with italic font (debatable).) Wikiinger (talk) 10:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

☑ Done. Wikiinger (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Plot generation from this data
I'm creating plots of various technology trends sourced from the AMD and NVIDIA list of GPUs: https://owensgroup.github.io/gpustats/ I hope this is useful for the community. The plots are automatically generated from direct parsing of the AMD/NVIDIA pages. I welcome suggestions of improvements and other plots that could be useful.

Three notes I wanted to make for folks who edit this page:
 * 1) Consistency across tables (and to the tables on the NVIDIA page) is very helpful. It is much easier when a column in one table is labeled the same way as the identical column in another table. The source code shows there are lots of special cases I had to handle.
 * 2) It is helpful when columns describe what they do (and don't have to resort to a footnote). If a column is labeled X but actually its contents are X (Y) or X Y, where Y is in italics (for instance), that's troublesome.
 * 3) There's some discussion here about providing too much information on this page. From my point of view, this is the best single place to put information, and I am happy to see more information rather than less.

Also posting on NVIDIA talk page for feedback there. --Jowens (talk) 17:43, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed an interesting project. However note that the Wikipedia scope is different. Especially in this context here, we are trying to bring as much hardware relevant information as available in a human readable form which fits on one screen.


 * That being sad, there is also the Wikidata project. With Wikidata it would be possible to have all the GPU data in one central place and from there tables (or graphs or ...) could be generated for different purposes. Ofc all the GPU data needs to be entered first in Wikidata DB :-) ... Wikiinger (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, all this hardware relevant information is available right here as GPU data in one central place, from which I can generate graphs. :) I'm willing to cope with the data munging necessary to make the graphs; hopefully my comments above will be useful as others revise and improve what's currently here (and make my data munging job, and that of others, easier). Jowens (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I and other editors will certainly prevent any changes which would make your "Job" easier, but comprising the Purpose or the purpose of this article. Wikiinger (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Hope you don't really mean "prevent". I acknowledge and appreciate the purpose of this article and Wikipedia generally. I don't want to compromise that. But I think my notes above are congruent with those purposes. Jowens (talk) 14:29, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of AMD graphics processing units. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820091500/http://developer.amd.com/drivers/pc_vendor_id/Pages/default.aspx to http://developer.amd.com/drivers/pc_vendor_id/Pages/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100301062750/http://products.amd.com/en-us/MobilityGPUResult.aspx to http://products.amd.com/en-us/MobilityGPUResult.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619083209/http://ati.amd.com/developer/vendorid.html to http://ati.amd.com/developer/vendorid.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820091500/http://developer.amd.com/drivers/pc_vendor_id/Pages/default.aspx to http://developer.amd.com/drivers/pc_vendor_id/Pages/default.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080720002919/http://ati.amd.com/products/firemvseries/ATI_FireMV_2260.pdf to http://ati.amd.com/products/firemvSeries/ATI_FireMV_2260.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070217182216/http://ati.amd.com/ to http://ati.amd.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Release Prices
The release prices *are accurate* however, the cards jump in price due to mining, is there any help we can offer readers to an *actual* current price (guide price). I'm not going to edit this unless I have help as these prices are very subjective.. however the release prices are as equally (unintentionally) misleading.. can't win either way. Perhaps a 'post-mining price' column?

Dava4444 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * An interesting idea . I don't think current pricing is appropriate as by definition of a competitive market there is no single/consensus price. (see WP:NOTCATALOGUE) However, a discussion on the RX 400, RX 500, and RX Vega articles noting increased prices due to mining would certainly be appropriate/helpful. Dbsseven (talk) 16:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

there is something TERRIBLE WRONG in the calculation of "Processing Power"
FirePro R5000 (Febr. 2013) - 1267.2 GFLOPS - <150 Watt

Radeon Pro WX 7100 (Nov. 2016) - 4.15 GFLOPS - 130 Watt

How can a high end card create only about a 300th about 3 years later?!? -- 87.167.88.53 (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a typo? 4.15 TFLOPS (tera, the next unit prefix) would make sense. Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

TDP values – tampering
I just noticed that someone has tampered with the TDP values for at least the X1000 series to the HD 4000 series. I give a few examples.
 * Radeon X1950 XTX is now listed with a TDP of 268 W when it used to have 125 W. I have this card and that is simply not possible due to it only having one (1) 6-pin PCIe power connector (the 8-pin variant did not exist until sometime in the 2010s) giving it a total theoretical power draw ability of 150 W.
 * Radeon HD 2900 XT is now listed at 309 W. It was power hungry for its time, but 300+ W was out of specification for PCIe and therefor not even conceivable. Also note the idle rating of 201 W, no chip has anything like that.
 * Radeon HD 3870 was very power efficient with its rated TDP of 105 W. I remember reading this myself. This Wikipedia article now states 214 W with idle at 125 W. GPUreview.com confirms my memory and it's further confirmed by the fact that there is a number of one slot cards with this chip.
 * Radeon HD 4870 is listed at 162 W idle and 260 W max, somehow being higher than the higher clocked 4890.

I can't imagine someone being that mistaken. I suspect someone is trolling and want to substantiate the meme and myth of ATI/AMD cards being hot and power hungry. Very shameful in these times when Nvidia are on their way to get a full monopoly. I do not have the skill nor time to track down these changes to any user.

Regards Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, turned out I had some time. I have found that changes made 12:48, 7 March 2018‎ by 2a02:2f0d:12f:ffff::50e:3cdc and 11:43, 8 March 2018‎ by 2a02:2f0d:1cf:ffff::50e:5026 are only about tampering with the TDP values. Are these changes, and only these, undoable despite later edits have been made? Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 02:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, should be (unless there have been edits made to the same parts). Just try clicking on the "undo" next to the revision. HTH Wikiinger (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Memory clock column
Currently the core and memory clock rate share the same subsection, however the memory clock often actually differ by memory size. So I think it is more sensible to move the memory clock in the memory subsection, where it is also used to determine memory bandwidth: Thoughts? Wikiinger (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: Actually while am it, I would also move the Processing Power section to the left. This way all the boost values align up nicely. Wikiinger (talk) 10:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ☑ Done. Wikiinger (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm late here, but I want to say that I think it's a very good move. Mango från yttre rymden (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Table font size
Someone set some tables to giant 90% font size. This is usually 85% for well presented chip tables. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.9.156 (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Memory Frequencies vs Transfer Rates
I've spent a few moments today and yesterday correcting 'memory frequencies (MHz)' for all cards using DDR, GDDR2 and GDDR3 up to (but not including) the X1000 series (that one seems to have the correct values). They were all showing the transfer rates (MHz x 2) and not the actual frequencies.

Remember; for DDR, GDDR2 and GDDR3 the transfer rates are MHz x2. For GDDR4 and GDDR5 it's MHz x4 and I think for GDDR5X and GDDR6 it's x8.

NitroX infinity (talk) 11:38, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Dropping API column
I have added a new section "API Overview" along with this table Template:AMD_graphics_API_support, which is shared with the Radeon article. The table needs refinment on the Direct3d feature levels, but otherwise I think we are good to go and drop the API columns from the individual tables. Which I will go ahead with once I have some spare time. Wikiinger (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * ☑ Done. Wikiinger (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * With the recent edits of the individual product line templates the APIs have been removed. While I agree that it makes the table far more compact and readable, it can be helpful when comparing the feature set of multiple products within the same product line. (For example: which of the RX 400 series products support OpenCL 2.0?) A footnote might help clarify this without requiring expanding the table. (I see there is a API column on the Template:AMD graphics API support template, but this is not replicated on the individual product pages.) Dbsseven (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * First of regarding the rationale: one reason was indeed to make the table more compact and readable, but the other important reason is that the API support is not so much a HW-feature, but more driver dependent. For instance one some cards you have different API-support depending on whether you are using the windows driver or one of the linux drivers.
 * Regarding checking for the API: for the List of AMD graphics processing units there is Template:AMD_graphics_API_support, for the individual product pages the API support is stated in the infobox (at least for the newest gen). Furthermore since AMD often crams multiple generations in one product line, I fear one footnote might not be enough, which may makes things messy again...
 * With that being said, I don't see the need for such a footnote(s). However if you (or someone) want to go ahead, I would request that such a footnote is behind a template toggle such as  (with default being off), so that the footnote doesn't show on List of AMD graphics processing units. Wikiinger (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have a definitive source, but my understanding is that it isn't just a SW feature, but requires hardware support too. And in any case, it is a differentiator between products within a product line as much as other specs.
 * In any case, more I am concerted about the inherent confusion of the article stating the maximum API support (usually in the infobox), while this is not true for all products in that generation's product stack. (See AMD Radeon 400 series vs the corresponding template Template:AMD Radeon Rx 400.) This is particularly relevant for the Radeon Pro lines of products which do not have individual articles, but a single page for all product generations. I will try to come up with a simple clear footnote for the tables. Dbsseven (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * API support is both a hardware and software feature. The AMD drivers are still lagging in many cases, and in some official support was discontinued (upgrades might still come with open source).
 * The problem with removing the columns is that these templates are also included in the product pages and the infobox becomes misleading, as many people will not see the features table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.9.156 (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a problem for the product pages. Easiest solution would be: new section "API overview", put in the template -> done. Dbsseven wanted to come up with a footnote, but I think this one would be rather large...
 * Adding the API to each product (table) is just too much duplication and way too much maintenance effort, you have to update ALL those tables on every driver and/or API update... Wikiinger (talk) 12:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying about too much detail in the individual product tables. However, I am concerned about the usefulness of a API only template. Then the whole API template, with information about irrelevant generations of products, get posted on the individual article pages (like this edit recently on AMD Radeon 400 series). Thoughts? Templates of APIs for each product series might be possible, if tedious. Dbsseven (talk) 21:26, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Cell merges done in individual commits were destroyed when dropping the API columns 84.73.9.156 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This edit was exactly what I proposed above. However I agree might be a bit too much generation. But it is technical possible with templates to have one main template and to trim the output on individual product pages, see Help:Template. Wikiinger (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I have added the microarchitecture parameters to all the inclusions of the features template, but this should be modified to actually use them in a sandbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.9.156 (talk) 17:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thats not how this works. FIRST you edit the template (redesign and add the parameters), THEN you modify the template calls accordingly. I'll revert your useless but confusing edits. Wikiinger (talk) 19:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm dropping out.84.73.9.156 (talk) 21:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Scorpio ROPs
., and First, everyone lets please try to keep this civil.

There appears to be a disagreement about ROPs/pixel fill rate, so let's try to find consensus here.
 * Scorpio: The source appears unequivical about the Scorpio pixel fill rate. And from there it is WP:CALC to the Scorpio ROPs. I believe this is settled.
 * PS4Pro: None of the cited sources describe the GPU ROP count or pixel fill rate. An uncited allusion to a die-shot is not grounds for editing. And using a die-shot assumes no inactive portions of the die. Currently, I do not believe we have a reliable source for these specs. In fact some RS are explicit that we don't know these values. Dbsseven (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-ps4-pro-and-xbox-one-x-processors-compared / https://www.techpowerup.com/gpudb/2876/playstation-4-pro-gpu Matthew Smith (talk)

Merger of Release Price and Date Column
Since there will be new features/specs of GPUs in the future (half precession column got already added, possible Ray/s and ?? in the future), the gpu table will become wider and less readable. In order to keep it narrow and readable, I want to merge the release date (launch) and price column. Which I think is a pretty straightforward change. However where to place the column, right after the model or at the right end of the table? I kind of prefer the leftmost position, thoughts? Wikiinger (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ☑ Incorporated as leftmost position and back-ported till 400 series. When I have time (or someone else :) can also be applied to 300,200,etc. series. Wikiinger (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

CU Count
and fellow editors: regarding listing the CU in the config column.

While I still think that it's a redundant information (every 64 SP is one CU), I can see that it might be interesting / easier for the average consumer. Also when comparing to CUDA cores (although they don't seem to be directly comparable?).

In either case it should be displayed as clear as possible. The triple colon style (SP:TU:RP:CU) is just awful and not clear at all. See table below for a proposal, I deem acceptable, thoughts?

We should reach a consensus here, before editing the tables. Cheers Wikiinger (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
 * ☑ Incorporated and back-ported till 400 series. When I have time (or someone else :) can also be applied to 300,200,etc. series. Wikiinger (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with your format proposal. Kevinf28 (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)