| Latest revision |
Your text |
| Line 9: |
Line 9: |
| | * Don't be a jerk | | * Don't be a jerk |
| | * Don't bite the newcomers | | * Don't bite the newcomers |
| − | * Off-topic discussions are allowed but should be kept to a minimum | + | * Off-topic discussions are allowed but should be keep at minimum |
| | * If a topic has its own article, comments should be posted on its talk page | | * If a topic has its own article, comments should be posted on its talk page |
| | | | |
| | <hr> | | <hr> |
| − |
| |
| | = Discussion= | | = Discussion= |
| | | | |
| Line 142: |
Line 141: |
| | | | |
| | [[User:Barry Rountree|Barry Rountree]] ([[User talk:Barry Rountree|talk]]) 23:33, 12 July 2018 (EDT) | | [[User:Barry Rountree|Barry Rountree]] ([[User talk:Barry Rountree|talk]]) 23:33, 12 July 2018 (EDT) |
| − |
| |
| − | :Hey Barry, this is actually a real pickle for us. The connection isn't made explicit because the info doesn't come from ARK. Understandably, like Wikipedia article, people expect every article to reference lots of external sources. Unfortunately for us, we mostly curate our own information based on direct information (i.e., directly from the primary source - Intel, AMD, whichever) or, alternatively, in cases where we attend IEEE conferences and obtain the information from the presentations and possibly through an interview with the presenter (that's the case for some of our microarchitectural pages).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :With that in mind, our processor information almost always comes the same way - the company sends us this information as part of their media information they send out to tech websites. Some parts of the specifications are derived based on the underlying architectural details of the chip (e.g., cache structure), while some parts of the specifications we actually go the extra mile to personally request - in Intel's case it can be code names, turbo frequencies, part numbers, etc.. All that info comes directly from Intel as opposed to ark (we usually have more info than ARK too). To be clear, this is not limited to Intel. This is true for AMD, ARM, and anyone else who announces chips (e.g., Cavium's recent {{cavium|ThunderX2}} and Qualcomm's {{qualcomm|Centriq}} - those chips are not even listed on their website at all).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :Basically, this boils down to the reference section just saying "Intel/AMD/Cavium/et.." or "Directly from Intel/AMD/etc.." which seems to confuse people more than it helps. But that's literally the reference for us. We actually do write that for non-spec pages such as Cavium's {{cavium|Vulcan|l=arch}} just for the sake of having some kind of reference. But it looks just as silly.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :I am open to suggestions on how to address this. --[[User:David|David]] ([[User talk:David|talk]]) 07:35, 13 July 2018 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::Just to elaborate what David meant by "direct information". The most common case is when the company sends the information via email (he is usually assigned a PR contact) and might be in the form of press deck or press video briefing. Many times (since we are pretty technical), the briefing is not detailed enough, so we end up with a series of back-and-forth emails asking for additional information/clarifications. Sometimes a phone call is involved or he attends an actual press event. --[[User:At32Hz|At32Hz]] ([[User talk:At32Hz|talk]]) 07:46, 13 July 2018 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::: Here is an example from today https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/1482/intel-launches-desktop-xeon-e-their-fastest-entry-level-workstation-processors/ --[[User:At32Hz|At32Hz]] ([[User talk:At32Hz|talk]]) 22:27, 13 July 2018 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::: Hi [[User:At32Hz|At32Hz]], [[User:David|David]].
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::: I'm a computer scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and I publish a fair amount on power-constrained performance optimization in high-performance computing. For my particular needs, I have to be able to cite primary sources. That can be *pers. comm.* (personal communication) if need be, but the general practice there is providing a name and company affiliation. Trying to decorate every fact and figure with a cite, however, is overkill and not that helpful.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::: Instead, I'd like to see a "Bibliography" section that listed the relevant public documentation (perhaps NDA as well, noted as such), and brief discussions of which aspects of the article needed further, non-public sourcing. For Intel processors, that might be pointers to ARK, the specification updates, the datasheets, the NDA external design specifications and BIOS Writers' Guides, and conference presentations. Just telling readers that those documents exist can be a huge help, and if a particular claim (e.g., "P-state requests only set a ceiling") are based on conversations, I know not to spend my time digging through the docs looking for that particular factoid.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::: Adding this information would be a nontrivial amount of work, and I'd want to update most of the (say) Intel processor articles myself to see if it's doable prior to asking anyone else to follow suit. So all that said, if I were to begin adding bibliography sections, would that be seen as useful by other folks here?
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::: [[User:Barry Rountree|Barry Rountree]] ([[User talk:Barry Rountree|talk]]) 23:45, 13 July 2018 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::: We can definitely try to add bibliography sections that lists those documentations. We can actually create a template and automate a lot of it since a single document typically covers a whole series.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::: I want to point out that we've also tried that before and things got very complicated, mainly from the maintainability side. We're certainly willing to give it another shot. We started doing it for some of our early pages when all of a sudden Intel started removing old documents. If you check the [[Atom N270]] article, you'll see what we ended up doing - archiving the data sheet and spec update because Intel decided to purge it from their site one day. I think they eventually restored some of it after we asked them about it, but it highlights the whole issue we have with old documents/datasheets. For the really old stuff, like AMD's {{amd|K5}}, we have gone ahead and archived every datasheet ourselves because they were simply disappearing from the AMD website and they did not seem to care even after we asked. We've started to preserve Intel's optimizations manuals as well (see [[intel/documents]]) because Intel started removing the very old microarchitectures from their manuals which can now only be found in the earlier revisions and those are obviously no longer on the Intel website. This really sucks because what good is listing "Xth generation core specification update" if no one can actually find that document anymore or the document no longer covers it? So we ended up archiving it. The good thing is that for the most recent stuff, this unlikely to happen any time soon (though it's already happening with the Sandy Bridge documents), but given we have 1000s of Intel processors cataloged, there is a good chance those references will start to rot within the next 5 years.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::: If we try to generalize this procedure for other companies, things fall apart very quickly. Take for example LLNL's new Astra supercomputer which is based on the [[ThunderX2 CN9975]] chip based on {{cavium|Vulcan|l=arch}}. As far as we are aware, there are no public datasheets available and Cavium doesn't even list that part on their website. Actually, a quick search pretty much brings on our website and all our info came directly from a de-briefing from Cavium (and some from Broadcom). So I'm not sure what we would even reference in those cases. Keep in mind this is not a rare case either, it's very common. Take Qualcomm's [[Centriq 2452]] server chip as another example.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::: --[[User:At32Hz|At32Hz]] ([[User talk:At32Hz|talk]]) 09:22, 14 July 2018 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::::: The whole bibliography section sort of partially work, but only for Intel. We might be able to put some kind of an expiration date check (using a template or something) to make sure stuff isn't outdated or possibly just request permission to host those docs ourself. Cavium, Qualcomm, AMD, et al are entirely a different problem. AMD has no public documents, no specs update document, and no ark. All their info comes directly from the press deck they send us and via their pre-briefing. I wouldn't even know what we could reference. --[[User:David|David]] ([[User talk:David|talk]]) 11:15, 14 July 2018 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::::: With the understanding that this may be an Intel-specific solution, would both of you be interested in extension of what you're doing with the optimization manual page (which I like very much, btw) to datasheets and specification updates? That would solve a problem I need to address in my other work, and I'd rather the documents be archived here rather than in my git repo. I'm happy to postpone the discussion of bibliography sections until after there's a stable document archive.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::::::: [[User:Barry Rountree|Barry Rountree]] ([[User talk:Barry Rountree|talk]]) 00:35, 15 July 2018 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::::::: Is your git repo public? It might be a good starting point for us. --[[User:David|David]] ([[User talk:David|talk]]) 09:14, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Category ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | What is difference between these categories: [[:Category:microprocessors]], [[:Category:Microprocessors]]? [[User:Oleg3280|Oleg3280]] ([[User talk:Oleg3280|talk]]) 08:25, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :All pages on the site are supposed lowercase (with a few exceptions). The second category with uppercase 'M' should not really exist. I think it was created a very long time ago and we simply forgot to correct it (redirect it to the second one after correcting the links). --[[User:David|David]] ([[User talk:David|talk]]) 09:14, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :: I changes pages that had the uppercase M version and redirected the category, unfortunately there are a bunch of category that also need to be fixed. --[[User:David|David]] ([[User talk:David|talk]]) 09:19, 21 July 2018 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == Change "designer" wikidata mapping ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | Currently [[Property:designer|designer property]] has <code>wikidata id=[https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P287 P287]</code>, but I think that should probably be [https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P178 P178] instead. P287 is "designer" which has range "Human" while P178 is "developer" and has range "Human" or "organization".
| |
| − |
| |
| − | This also raises the question if the property should be named "developer" too, it is what the ChipWiki templates use (and the wikidata property).
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I can do the changes, I just wanted to get an approval first.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:Trygvis|Trygvis]] ([[User talk:Trygvis|talk]]) 03:47, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :There is currently no real implications to using either. It's just an early attempt to map our major properties to WikiData for programming purposes. I think the main reason we've gone with 'designer' is that it sounds more descriptive to what we're trying to define since we have a stronger distinction between 'designer' (the IP designer) and 'manufacturer' (the actual fab). To that end, developer sounds slightly ambiguous. But you can change the wikidata property if you think the later one is better. --[[User:At32Hz|At32Hz]] ([[User talk:At32Hz|talk]]) 10:34, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::Ok, I did the change. Thanks for the information. --[[User:Trygvis|Trygvis]] ([[User talk:Trygvis|talk]]) 08:34, 24 August 2018 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | == More semantic queries? ==
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I was looking at the [https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/10_nm_lithography_process#10_nm_Microprocessors list of 10 nm Microprocessors] and noticed that the table is created manually but is really a good match for an ask query.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | As an experiment I made [https://en.wikichip.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ask&x=-5B-5BCategory%3Aall-20system-20on-20a-20chip-20families-5D-5D-20-5B-5Bprocess%3A%3A10-20nm-5D-5D%2F-3Fdesigner&format=broadtable&link=all&headers=show&searchlabel=...%20further%20results&class=sortable%20wikitable%20smwtable&offset=&limit=50&mainlabel= a query] that more or less shows the same data (click on "edit query" to see the details). Similar serach for [https://en.wikichip.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Ask&x=-5B-5Bprocess%3A%3A10-20nm-5D-5D-20-5B-5Binstance-20of%3A%3Amicroarchitecture-5D-5D%2F-3Fdesigner%2F-3Fmicroarchitecture-20type&format=broadtable&limit=50&link=all&sort=designer%2Cmicroarchitecture_type&headers=show&mainlabel=Microarchitecture&intro=10%20nm%20Microarchitectures&searchlabel=...%20further%20results&class=sortable%20wikitable%20smwtable&offset=&order=ASC%2CASC 10 nm microarchitectures]. For the second search it might be useful to split it up into two tables, but it shows more of the possibilities.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | As a side note, I see that the designer property often have several values, for this table to be prettier it would probably be nice to have a "main designer"/"owner" or something similar. Or perhaps a single designer property and use a "contributor" field to list the other parties.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | --[[User:Trygvis|Trygvis]] ([[User talk:Trygvis|talk]]) 05:53, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :You can actually just do {{#ask: [[Category:microprocessor families]] [[process::10 nm]]|format=ul|limit=0|link=all|headers=show|searchlabel=something like this|columns=3}}. I just realized we are also missing a 'name' property on the ic family template (the whole template needs to be switched to our new style too). An additional 'main designer' property really makes not only here but for all other templates in order to pick the one name the subject is associated with most closely. We might just want to always make it equal the same value as the first defined 'designer' to simplify this (and pretend the main designer is always 1 value). --[[User:At32Hz|At32Hz]] ([[User talk:At32Hz|talk]]) 11:02, 23 August 2018 (EDT)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::Yeah I was thinking of just picking the first designer too and use that as a main designer. Is "primary designer" a better term for it? I can try to adjust the template if that is ok. I'm new here so I'm just trying to figure out how much stuff I can do without stepping on someones toes.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | ::I'm happy to improve the 10 nm page and friends by replacing the manually made lists with ask queries if that is ok.
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::So I've changed [[Template:ic family]] to set <code><nowiki>{{developer}}</nowiki></code> as <code>main developer</code> ([https://en.wikichip.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3Aic_family&type=revision&diff=82710&oldid=81779 diff]) and changed the 10nm page. Compare the queries {{#ask: [[Category:microprocessor families]] [[process::10 nm]]|format=ul|limit=0|link=all|headers=show|searchlabel=without main developer|columns=3}} to {{#ask: [[Category:microprocessor families]] [[process::10 nm]]||?main designer|format=ul|limit=0|link=all|headers=show|searchlabel=with main developer|columns=3}}
| |
| − |
| |
| − | :::However, the list would be prettier if the pages DISPLAYTITLE was not set. I'm not sure if it is possible to change how the list is rendered without having a special template for it. Ideally I think it would be nice to use the <code>tree</code> format, but I couldn't figure out how to nest the pages. I tried to set <code>parent=main designer</code> but that didn't work.
| |
