Talk:Socket SP5

Socket SP6 is not successor to SP5
@CristoCalis

Socket SP5 vs SP6 is sort-of akin to Socket G34 vs Socket C32; different sockets/platforms to serve different segments (one for smaller businesses with lesser requirements and smaller budget, the other for high performance).

I think it's still wrong to call SP6 a "successor", even though it comes after SP5, as to imply so means it replaces the previous generation. @Erkinalp9035 has a point here.

It's a bit like calling iPhone 14 Pro successor to the iPhone 14, just because it came a month after.

So instead, I think it would be more right to write down in the article that there exists SP6 socket for lower-end server customers, just like in the socket G34 article linked above, rather than to call it "successor". AP 499D25 (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, SP6 replaces sTRX4 and sWRX8, not SP5. Erkin Alp Güney 15:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's something more I wanted to add.
 * Do the sources used in the article say that SP6 is a successor to SP5? Do AMD themselves call SP6 a successor?
 * If no to both, and especially if at least one of the sources call it a parallel socket (which goes against SP6 being a successor), then calling SP6 "successor" falls into the categories of unverifiable and original research. AP 499D25 (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have just skimmed through all the references in the article, as well as several new sources about the SP6 socket not used in the article, and absolutely none of them explicitly call Socket SP6 a "successor" to SP5. I am thereby declaring all claims of SP6 being "successor" in this article original research and removing all claims of it.
 * If you have multiple new reliable sources claiming that SP6 is a successor to SP5 then you are free to oppose me here, per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. AP 499D25 (talk) 04:01, 3 April 2023 (UTC)