Template talk:AM4 chipsets

Computing Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The AMD webpages fairly scream the point that B550 enables PCIe 4.0. I looked a bit but was not 100% sure that this is limited v4.0 function from the CPU chip and the chipset only provides additional v.30 lanes. Too busy to dig deeper right now. I would appreciate an authoritative read of this issue.

Dale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AC65:7100:20E0:9288:4C10:591D (talk) 00:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B550 supports PCIe4 lanes from CPU but does not provide PCIe4 lanes itself. --Denniss (talk) 07:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thought that might be the case. I appreciate your confirmation of my nebulous assessment. However for most use cases of user workstations, no more would be needed. This is true for my X570 one year in. Thanks for the answer -- Dale

this should be updated with an annotation. it'll be very confusing for people who will come here in 2-3 years when looking for used parts and checking chipset/CPU support Nestea Zen (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's already such a note next to the PCIe lanes heading --Denniss (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But no explicit mention of pcie 4 GPU lanes. where's the reference that explains that annotation (a)? ref 7 just has one line on it. there isn't even any differentiation between chipset and CPU lanes Nestea Zen (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AMD should be embarrassed for making people hunt down their specs on news websites. Their documentation is practically non-existent. so how do we reflect this picture in the template? https://www.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2020/amd-chipsets-b550/amd-b550-chipset-block-diagram.png // https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/3582-amd-chipset-differences-b550-vs-x570-b450-x470-zen-3 Nestea Zen (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That chip supports 2933 MHz ram. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.103.254.11 (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really doesn't. The DRAM controller is in the Ryzen SoC. There is no connection between the Promontory chip and the RAM. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I called the CPU/APU link UMI based on history, but based on all the references I'm reading it's a plain PCIe x4 connection. I suppose this should be renamed. Thoughts? Dbsseven (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right now X399 does not fit in this table as it is not an AM4 chipset. Does anyone have any thoughts/objections if I were to move this article and rename it "Zen chipsets" (or something similar)? This would make it more inclusive and avoid a separate section/table on the

Should the "chipset-less" A300 be added, now that at least one motherboard (used in the ASRock DeskMini A300) makes use of it? It's a little odd, because it's not an actual chip – more accurately, it's the absence of one – but it has a part number so I think perhaps it should. The four PCIe v3.0 lanes that would normally connect to an X470, B350, etc. are available for other purposes, such as an additional M.2 socket. 87.75.117.183 (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to add it as I believe they are relevant information, especially since it's actually used in an actual product. Nathanielcwm (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added it as Knoll activator. It is not a chipset, but just a

I2C dongle that signals the processor to activate its features. The A300 is Knoll signalling no-overclock, and X300 is Knoll signalling yes-overclock. Erkin Alp Güney 18:04, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Looking at the graph for LGA 1151 and comparing it to this is very awkward because this one puts features on columns and chipsets on rows where as the LGA 1151 graph puts it the other way around. Should the graph be changed for consistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.24.241 (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this for sure is a weird graph and information. this has been copied from wikichip most probably. the funny thing is wikichip doesn't have a table for intel chipsets. pcie 4 is supported on b550 but no mention of that in the zen 2 chipset table. very confusing information. it would help if there was info on amd.com as there is on intel.com. AMD's product documentation sucks Nestea Zen (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Intel chipsets also uses horizontal tables tho. But I agree that having the chipsets on the x axis looks better. Nathanielcwm (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should this chipset be listed as supporting 3rd gen now? MSI motherboards with the word MAX in the title seems to be 3rd gen ready - https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/A320M-A-PRO-MAX — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finnfather (talk • contribs) 14:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a few motherboards by ASRock and MSI with A320 do support them with an experimental BIOS, however, not to full power limits, as power regulators in A320 boards are generally not capable of CPU power figures that high. Erkin Alp Güney 18:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a proposed new design for the table that is not too wide and shows all information in a clear manner