Template talk:AMD Radeon Rx 500

RX 550 (640SP) and RX 540
There appear to be atleast two RX 550 parts. While only the 512 stream processor version is discussed in todays review, there is a listing for an 640 SP version on the AMD website. Also there is a listing for an RX 540 as OEM only. . However, I cannot find any credible secondary sources for these parts. Seems legit, but how to include in the article, especially without confusing the two RX 550 parts? Dbsseven (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you look at the Template:AMD_Radeon_Rx_300 you'll notice there are also two R9 380, but one is OEM version (see Price column). I expect that this is the same case here for the RX 550. So it is not really nice but BTDT... Wikiinger (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Half Precission column
Since the RX 400 series we carry that "Half" precission column around in addition to the "Single" and "Double". However the values for single and half so far are the same. So I'm asking is this really a new feature of the new GPUs or was this column added in anticipation of Vega (who is rummored to have special ASIC for half)? Because if it is the latter we should omit this column until the hardware is there... Wikiinger (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would wait to remove from the RX 500 template based on the aforementioned rumored Vega feature. However, removing it from the RX 400 template and adding a footnote might be appropriate. Dbsseven (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how AMD would bring Vega in the 500 line up - there are hardly any numbers left (except if they would choose the last digit-which is very unlikely). What kind of footnote do you want to add? Wikiinger (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Platform column
@ User:Sakurai_Harumi: The "Platform" section in the AMD product page merely means that they choose the same marketing name for mobile and desktop. Whether the mobile chips use the exact same configuration, clocks and memory remains to be seen. Furthermore desktop cards are denoted with TBP (typical board power) and mobile chips with TDP (thermal design power). Also there are different launch dates for the mobile and the desktop chips. So as you can hopefully see, it is not that easy to cram both in one table. And last but not least, look at the comment in the source code: " Changes to the table *layout* should be proposed and discussed first on Talk:List_of_AMD_graphics_processing_units" Wikiinger (talk) 12:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

RX 560
There appear to be to versions of the RX 560, with 896 and 1024 stream processors. I am not sure if this is exactly the same as the 560D, and have always been a bit skeptical of the quality of the 560D sources. These sources appear much more solid, but how should it be listed? Update the 560D specs and sources, or add an additional listing (under what name)? Dbsseven (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Following up, in this reference AMD acknowledges there are two different 560 products, and that on was released this summer. This suggests to me it is the 14CU product is the 560D. I'm going to go ahead and update the 560D specs per the newer sources. Dbsseven (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

The Anandtech article makes it seem like there is the region limited 560D and the two differently configured Polaris 11s both sold as 560s. --bp0 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it even worth now having two rows for the RX 560D / RX 560 (14CU)? Can this be cramped in one row? Wikiinger (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Are they the same? --bp0 (talk) 22:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Same question regarding the 560D and 560 (14CU). While the both have similar specs, I don't think we have definitive evidence they are the same product. And contrarily, we have direct evidence they are different products based on naming. Dbsseven (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Max values
I see you reverted my addition of "max" to the header on the RAM specs. I think it is worth noting that the RAM values, as DDR3 cannot (and will not ever) have the same clocks or bandwidth as GDDR5. The other specs you pointed out are (Clock, Fillrate, Processing Power) are all fixed for a single product SKU, while these RAM performance specs clearly are not. (Essentially, as it reads it is confusing as in reality the DDR3 and GDDR5 products have vastly different clocks, such that the current values look unreasonable in the DDR3 context.)

The alternative is to find the values for DDR3, but I have never seen those published. This (might) also mean a separate RX 530-DDR3 entry, or somehow squeezing DDR3 specs into the same row... Dbsseven (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 1st There have been DDR version of GPUS before (R5 240,R7 240,R7 250 and more). 2nd by just adding "max" to the header w/o any explanations whatsoever you are not really taking away that confusion (quite the contrary IMHO). The proper way IMO is to add a footnote to the DDR3 version or adding the values for the DDR3 version. And that is as separate entries see Template:AMD_custom_APU for example. Wikiinger (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with how the previous tables are labeled also then (your reference to R5 240,R7 240,R7 250 and more). To label it as "speed" and "bandwidth" when those values are variable is misleading IMO.


 * But we agree that some clarification is possible. I will make a separate line for the DDR3 product line. But I don't know of a reliable source for the memory speeds of the DDR3 products. Dbsseven (talk) 22:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Separate tables for mobile and desktop products
I would like to split this table in two: one for desktop and one for mobile products. Like we had for the Radeon RX 400 series and all before them... Wikiinger (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)