Template talk:AM5 chipsets

Sort by release date
This template currently shows the newest chipsets at the top. Please revert the sorting order to show the oldest chipsets first, as in Template:AM4 chipsets. - 177.32.61.128 (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * If you look at AM4 template, it's not sorted by release date at all (neither is AM5 template).For example X570 chipset was released before A520 and B550 chipset.
 * Sorting is by "entry" level from low to high end (basically from A > B > X). AM4 template is aditionally grouped by series: 300 > 400 > 500 (Zen > Zen2 > Zen3 launch). No A420 chipset was ever released.
 * Check AM4 chipset table on AMD site (ignore OEM/PRO models) it's basically sorted the same, but inverted.
 * [AMD Socket AM4 Chipset] Rando717 (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're right. Sorry for pinging you. -- 177.32.61.128 (talk) 05:02, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's no problem, at first glance it does look sorted by date. :-) Rando717 (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Table is too wide
I don't know how important the chipset count, and especially chipset links are to the average reader to be worth taking up a huge amount of screen width. After all most of us are probably here to read the PCI-E lanes and SATA ports provided by the chipset as well as CPU gen support. I honestly linked how it was with this revision. The USB support may be easier to read in the current revision but I don't know how much so to the point the extra width it takes up is justified.

I've tried to cut down on table width already by removing days from release dates (in line with AM4 chipsets table) and making the USB speeds detail small text. The amount of screen width it takes up is ridiculous, for what actually useful information it provides, in my honest opinion. How many people need to know about very technical info like what the interchipset link is?

Update: I have moved the less important info (chipset link, architecture) to the right for now.

AP 499D25 (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2023 (UTC) edited 13:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Update 2:
 * I have changed the presentation of the USB support back to the old format used in the revision linked above, similar to how it is on the AM4 chipsets template.
 * While the fully-expanded form of USB support presentation may have been great in readability, unfortunately it also excessively increases the footprint of the table, both horizontally and vertically. The footprint problem will only get worse as new chipsets and processor architectures come out and are added to the table, so it is quite bad when you think about the future of the table.
 * A neat change I have made from the previous revision of the table linked in original comment is I have broken up the USB support info after the "or" bit so they are on new lines. The long individual lines are placed in nowrap template so they don't get further broken up automatically when the table is being viewed on a browser window or display with short width.
 * AP 499D25 (talk) 12:54, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In response to the revert of my edit above ("update 2"):
 * The contracted down system may require a bit of decoding to know which of the count numbers correspond to what, but it's well explained in a footnote in the USB support header column. Once you get the hang of it, it's quite easy to remember. This system has been used on AM4 and some previous chipset tables for many years, without any problems or complaints.
 * If anything, I find the fully expanded form of USB support info much harder to read, due to the excessive repetition of words like "2x USB 3.2 Gen2!" in the 'additional' column, the abundant line breaks there are, and the obnoxious amount of empty cell space it produces, caused by the humongous amount of space that the text in the "additional" cells take up. Not to mention it makes other cells less easy to read as well, and especially makes it harder to compare the specifications between the chipsets at a glance.
 * Furthermore, you have to constantly add up in your head the total number of USB 3.2 Gen 2 and Gen 2x2 ports there are with this system, whereas with the compacted one it's already summed up and you don't have to do so.
 * Like I said in the Update 2 comment above, this tremendous table footprint issue will only get worse with the addition of more chipsets and processor architectures in the future. It could easily get to a point where the table will no longer fit on a 16:9 1080p display without requiring scrolling, all because of a data presentation system that is arguably exceptionally harder to read, and also immensely inefficient. Even as it is now, the expanded USB info makes for a very poor reading experience on mobile phones, tablets, and small computer displays.
 * So for these reasons, I believe that the contracted down USB support presentation system used in the Update 2 edit cited above, is vastly superior. —  AP 499D25  (talk)  11:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't want to sacrifice information by excluding it or merging it into columns with footnotes to decode the numbers. Here is a completely new design for the table that is not too wide and includes all comprehensive information. Tell me what you think about it :) JmsDoug (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response.
 * Ah, that looks like a much more "scalable" / dependable solution to me. At least it seems like so for the time being. I'm just not sure how things would pan out if AMD were to release another 10-15 chipset models and we added them to the table. Then we could be back to having an extraordinarily wide table?
 * "USB 3.2 Gen 2" isn't repeated nearly a dozen times down the USB support column, so that's a huge pro here.
 * By the way, in the "prototype" / preview of the new table below, I see that you have added "USB4" support info, which isn't there with the existing tables. As far as I'm aware, there's no native USB4 support with the 600 series chipsets. To provide USB4, motherboards would need to have a PCI-E USB4 controller for it. If there really is native support for USB4, can you provide / add a citation for it?
 * Otherwise if it's not native to the chipset, and can only be added using external controllers, then I strongly believe it does not belong in the table, since it's not part of the chipset. An explanatory footnote could be added that goes over how the chipset itself does not have support for it and thus USB4 can only be provided using an external controller.
 * Overall, aside from the points mentioned above, this new table design gets a thumbs up from me 👍. I've noticed the Intel chipset tables have their info spanned vertically too.
 * Regards, —  AP 499D25  (talk)  01:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Add A300 and X300
https://www.asrockrack.com/general/productdetail.asp?Model=AM5D4ID-2T/BCM#Specifications and https://www.asrockrack.com/general/productdetail.asp?Model=AM5D4ID-2L%2b/BCM#Specifications use X300 configuration for AM5. Erkin Alp Güney 09:05, 1 January 2024 (UTC)