AMD faces class action suit over Bulldozer missrepresentation

[Guest]

If you want any semblence of decent performance you need to overclock.

No...you don't NEED to overclock. If you have a CPU that has a high clock speed, it should be fine. Something like the FX 9590 has a 4.7GHz clock speed...that would be sufficient

[Dabombinable]

No...you don't NEED to overclock. If you have a CPU that has a high clock speed, it should be fine. Something like the FX 9590 has a 4.7GHz clock speed...that would be sufficient

And guess what? It already needs an expensive cooler to run without throttling, and one of the best AM3+ motherboards. BTW, that's just an overclocked and highly binned FX 8350.

[stconquest]

No...you don't NEED to overclock. If you have a CPU that has a high clock speed, it should be fine. Something like the FX 9590 has a 4.7GHz clock speed...that would be sufficient

 

This is getting funnier by the post. 

[patrickjp93]

 

Intel is already abusing their position in the market.

 

Removing the stock heatsink from consumer grade CPUs, keeping the price of the CPU the same, and then charging 30 bucks extra for the cooler (even though the socket mount is identical all the way back to LGA 1155)?

Putting the high-end iGPUs only on CPUs that will NEVER be used without a dedicated GPU?

How about their graphics drivers that are worse than ATI's drivers from 10 years ago? I have NEVER been able to update an Intel graphics driver without first booting to safe mode and running DDU.

Intel would be forced to licence x86 to another CPU designer, who would also get to use the AMD64 licence. Maybe IBM would want to get a foot back out of the server room? I don't see Qualcomm or Samsung going x86 and nobody else has the funds to run CPU R&D.

That's not really abuse, and you could take it to court, but I'm afraid you'd lose. Intel made a solid argument by saying enthusiasts don't need them, and it reduces Intel's costs. Frankly you get the same value you ever did. You'd get nowhere in court on that one.

 

Intel doesn't even put its high-end iGPUs on its desktop high-end CPUs. They go on the mobile chips (for now). And under DX 12 you have the multi adaptor option. Frankly your argument holds no water here either. Intel is presenting you an option to use it or not. The iGPU when not in use produces practically no heat at all, and the extra silicon pulls heat off the CPU cores by conduction. Even the overclockers would not win that argument.

 

Your system's unstable. I've never had an issue updating Intel's graphics drivers.

 

IBM has no interest in the consumer segment, and Qualcomm is in no position to face the desktop space. Nvidia's the only U.S. company with any interest in consumer CPUs at this point external to AMD and Intel outside phones and tablets.

 

Samsung being foreign would be blocked by the FTC in owning x86_64. It's a national security threat. Maybe I do sometimes come across as a pretentious prick, but that doesn't change the true strength of the arguments. Intel has competed against AMD and Nvidia fairly for years. Otellini is gone. Evaluate Kirzanich on what he has done. Evaluate Intel on what it haas done recently,

[s3ns3]

I think you should think more about what is realistic, not just Intel. For example: budget gaming build $800 AUD - FX 6300 great CPU for gaming

it was great.3 years ago. now an i3 haswell is better than an overclocked fx 8xxx http://www.techspot.com/review/943-best-value-desktop-cpu/page6.html

dont forget that skylake is out

[s3ns3]

 

Intel would be forced to licence x86 to another CPU designer, who would also get to use the AMD64 licence. Maybe IBM would want to get a foot back out of the server room? I don't see Qualcomm or Samsung going x86 and nobody else has the funds to run CPU R&D.

forced by who? intel and amd has a cross-license agreement that lets them use their inventions and patents between them.the x86 license is included in that cross-license agreement. america wont let a foreign company to buy amd.and ibm would do what exactly with the x86 license? exactly nothing because there are several other licenses and patents that a x86 computer would need. and those arent for sell or whatnot.

[aneil1998]

According to WccfTech, There was an update from AMD stating that "We believe our marketing accurately reflects the capabilities of the “Bulldozer” architecture which, when implemented in an 8 core AMD FX processor is capable of running 8 instructions concurrently.”

Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-class-action-lawsuit-bulldozer-processor-core-count/#ixzz3rDK75DGC

[MEC-777]

So whats the point of this class action lawsuit?

 

To seek justice for people who bought Bulldozer processors?

 

Years after this was known?

 

Really?

 

Most likely just some guy lookin for $. 

 

It won't go through. The full details of the Bulldozer architecture has been known and open to the public or analysis since it's release. Too little too late, IMO.