Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMD Family10h

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AMD Family10h

AMD Family10h (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Mere renamed article, cut and pasted most of the infotmation from old revision of AMD K10 article, and renamed all K10 to "AMD Family10h", citing that AMD K10 is a future chip, whereas AMD official admitted that K10 is actually third-gen Opteron and Phenom quad-core processors, and is recorded by other source [2], therefore the starting of another article is redundant. Did not follow the way that the article should be merged to articles such as "Phenom", as the previous AMD K8 article did to Athlon 64. May also raise the issue that this user (User:Dr unix) has a track record of doing so User talk:Dr unix and may have messed other AMD processors pages related with "K10". The user has also started a page, AMD Family 10h (at time of writing requested for speedy deletion) and redirect to AMD Family10h, which I see is a next place to do the same after the AMD Family10h article is deleted. AMD64 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you are talking about something you are as familar with as you should be in order to be making this decision. Unfortunately it requires some knowledge of commercial microprocessor design. Lets address a few points. AMD has offically branded the microarchitecture for Opteron "Barcelona" and Phenom as "AMD Family 10h" processors. See as an example the offical AMD document 'Optimization Guide for AMD Family 10h Processors' at http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/40546.pdf. "AMD Family 10h" is the offical AMD wording used in 'AMD Processor Recognition Application Note For Processors Prior to AMD Family 0Fh Processors' at http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/20734.pdf I could go on, but I think that makes a sufficient case that the Wikipedia entry speaking on the microarchitecture of the Opteron "Barcelona" and Phenom processors should be "AMD Family10h" or "AMD Family 10h" depending on your tastes of spelling.

Now to address that Family10h and K10 are two different things. That is harder to do using only publically available sources. But I think I provided you with some references that should help. One is that Andy Glew worked on the K10 project. He worked in AMD's Sunnyvale, CA design team. AMD alternates processors between Sunnyvale, CA (K6, K8) and Austin, TX (K5, K7, K9 (while it was called that - now Family 10h/Barcelona/Greyhound[1][2])). Andy was working on a processor that is still years away. It takes 5-7 from the time you start to design an x86 processor until it sees the light of day. The things talked about in Andy's CV are things toyed with for K10. None of them are in Family10h. Second too many folks seem to think that design decisions do not change when designing a processor. The very original K8 design was nothing like what AMD brought to market as the K8 in 2003. Design decisions are revisited due to changing marketing requirements, changes in direction by competitors, man power, time to market, experiments, etc... The Family10h/Barcelona/Greyhound< processors were designed by the Austin, TX team. That adds to the public evidences that K9->Family10h. Also the time from Microprocessor Forum 2003 features (http://www.dvhardware.net/article2023.html) to September 2007 adds more evidence that AMD Family 10h is not K10. There are also comments in the AMD_K10 talk page referring to K9/Greyhound and K10 in a manner showing they are two different entities[3]

Now, if even still you will not accept that K10 != Family10h there isn't much more I can publically use to convince you. However, you cannot argue that the entire article should appear under an entry that matches AMD's offical branding - and that is "AMD Family 10h". So if you do not like how I created and put the majority of the K10 article's content to an "AMD Family10h" article, please tell me the preferred process for moving the article to a better and more proper article title. Dr unix (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. If so, then Athlon and Sempron article should be renamed as AMD Family0Fh, am I correct? If you see the Family10h as a BRANDING, then you're mistaken what is a BRAND. Also, the articles you listed are of 2006 and are OUTDATED, shared L2? I doubt it. That's all, I've no further comments. --AMD64 (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. Please do not use refs here...
Comment. Shared L2 is obviously a typo [citation needed], if you know much about the Greyhound history. I will email tech pubs at AMD and see if they respond. --Dr unix (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply, source please. --202.40.157.145 (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply, I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by "source please". Source for what of the several things above? Note that http://developer.amd.com/TechnicalArticles/Articles/Pages/628200631.aspx has been updated to correct the L2 typo.--Dr unix (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply. I mean sources BESIDES THOSE TWO, those you said before but still cannot present here. --202.40.157.145 (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply. What do you mean "still cannot present here"??
Comment. You are confusing too many things here. There are the processor brands. Two such brands Operton and Sempron span multiple CPU microarchitectural generations (families). For Opteron that is K8 and Family 10h (aka, Greyhound). For Sempron that is K7 and K8. Next there is the branding that AMD puts on the CPU microarchitectural generations (families). They used K5, K6, K7, K8, and now offically "Family 10h" (which comes from the result of the CPUID instruction). For K8 AMD marketing and tech pubs has loosely allowed "K8" to be used, but often uses branding such as "Revision Guide for AMD NPT Family 0Fh Processors". In the K7 days you could see phrases such as "“AMD-K7(tm) Processor”" in AMD's literature. Today, you will only see "Family 10h" as they've squashed other ways to refering to the microarchitecture. So NO, the Athlon and Sempron articles should not be renamed AMD Family0Fh. Athlon and Sempron are brands for packaged, specific instantiations of various microarchitectures. --Dr unix (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Then why not incorporate these stuff into pages like Phenom? Why start another stupid page to say about the architecture which sections in pages like Athlon 64 also covers? BTW, Athlon 64 covers only the K8 microarchitecture as per your definition of architecture (At one point the dual core stuff was referenced as "Greyhound", FYI. Maybe that also counts?). BTW the AMD Family10h is obviously not known to a normal reader with NO specific knowledge about the subject matter. Go on this discussion will likely be reopen for more discussion which now we have only two people discussing, one insisting the internal "branding" and the other is "dumb and uneducated", that's me. Right? (It's not safe to login when I am using Wi-fi, so I am that stupid guy who is confusing you of the branding.) --202.40.157.145 (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply, Please re-read what I wrote. Phenom is not an architecture. Phenom is a branding name for a packaged processor (die attached to substraight, pinned out for insertsion into a socket). AMD Family 10h (and K8, ..., K5) are distinct microarchitectures. The same exact AMD Family 10h die is used to make current Barcelona, Budapest, "Stars" processors. While right now Phenom only exists as an AMD Family 10h, there is nothing from AMD that says that future Phenom will be Family 10h. Also that ignores Opteron - which is available being based on more than one microarchitecture. So an entry on just the shared microarchitecture should exist. Perhaps any Athlon 64 microarchitecture text should be merged into the K8 entry and the Athlon 64 entry should just refer to the K8 entry. Dual-core K8 was never refered to as Greyhound. Dual-core K8 is Jack Hammer.[citation needed] AMD Family 10h isn't internal branding - it is AMD's external branding for the microarchitecture. The internal "branding" are things like Greyhound (and Jack Hammer). --Dr unix (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply. FYI, the K8...K5 are "codenames" , unlike "AMD Family 10h" as you proposed. The codenames refer to the architecture in development, also I do know Phenom does not refer to the architecture but the processor based on the architecture, so why can't we mention those in an article about a processor based on the architecture? Also it's "Substrate", NOT "substraight", you moron! You need some serious re-education in English. Also for things you claimed which is NOT backed by any source, I'll put up a {{fact}} tag beside it, so that you can actually put up the sources, instead of insisting your point without further sources to back you up.--202.40.157.145 (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Reply. Please explain how you feel K8 .. K5 were code names. K8 is an external architecture name. Hammer was K8's "code name" while it was in development. If you look at the Opteron revision guide you still see the abbreviations "SH", "CH", "DH", "JH" for Sledge Hammer, Claw Hammer, Drill Hammer, and Jack Hammer where specific die were "code named" based on the "Hammer" microarchitecture name. By chance do you work for AMD or talk with folks who do?? Phenom is _a_ processor based on the Family 10h microarchitecture, not _the_ processor... You know - it would be really nice if you'd better using your English to impart your meaning... what is the "those" in "mention those"? Do you mean completely describe the Family10h microarchitecture in the Phenom page? If so, my answer is because it would then need to be fully duplicated in the Opteron article. Additionally specifically what claims do you want more source for? Nice how you resort to childish name calling ("you moron") due to a spelling mistake. Is this because you are not well versed in this area to discuss this issue otherwise? --Dr unix (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ APL Product Features
  2. ^ Unleash the Hounds with AMD's Upcoming Quad-core Processors
  3. ^ [1]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dustitalk to me 19:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete appears to be a content fork from article mentioned in the nomination. Does not establish any significant difference between the two processors. BigHairRef | Talk 19:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.