Judge Allows Lawsuit Over AMD's FX Processors to Continue

[dalekphalm]

8 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I'm not aware of any time that AMD directly compared their FX-8350 to the i7-5820k.  Care to share?

Indeed - by that argument, Intel should sue every single ARM SoC manufacturer because there are 8-core ARM SoC's that are clearly slower than an i7-5820k.

[Dabombinable]

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

It'll be interesting to see which way this goes.  I agree their marketing was crap and on that score they'll likely lose, but I also think the loss would be unfair like I thought the 970 loss was unfair.

 

 

My main gripe with the FX series was that it physically couldn't work at its listed core count in most programs. You could argue that the FPU doesn't matter (the still functioning 386 DX-40 I have is an example) but when the majority of programs make use of the FPU its still kind of essential, and it should have at least had them so that the FPU could run parallel instructions (aka significantly toned down SMT).
As it stands, for what was offered the die size was kind of absurd.

[Samuelmusick]

Sorry posted in the wrong area

Edited January 24, 2019 by Samuelmusick

[mr moose]

51 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

I'm not aware of any time that AMD directly compared their FX-8350 to the i7-5820k.  Care to share?

He didn't say AMD made the comparison, he said the comparison was made using the information provided by AMD.  Which is actually something a lot of people do, especially on these forums where they compare specs to specs to attain an idea of performance difference.

 

 

[Jito463]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

He didn't say AMD made the comparison, he said the comparison was made using the information provided by AMD.  Which is actually something a lot of people do, especially on these forums where they compare specs to specs to attain an idea of performance difference.

Actually, he said they "believed directly as a result of AMD's marketing materials".  I'm curious what "marketing materials" led them to believe that the FX-8350 was superior to the i7-5820k, especially given that - as I said - I've never seen AMD directly compare the two.

[mr moose]

Just now, Jito463 said:

Actually, he said they "believed directly as a result of AMD's marketing materials".  I'm curious what "marketing materials" led them to believe that the FX-8350 was superior to the i7-5820k, especially given that - as I said - I've never seen AMD directly compare the two.

That does not mean AMD did a comparison, it means they got their information for their comparison directly from AMD.

 

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

That does not mean AMD did a comparison, it means they got their information for their comparison directly from AMD.

So perhaps he could enlighten the rest of us as to what "marketing materials" led to this erroneous conclusion.

[straight_stewie]

While I guess that it's *maybe false advertising, this is the definition of a frivolous lawsuit and it pains me every time a judge lets something like this move forward.

 

AMD can still win. If they switch to arguing about what the definition of a "core" is, of which there isn't a solid one, even in industry, and certainly not in law.

Seriously, there is no standardized definition of "core" in this context, and if AMD gets a smart lawyer they can do two things: Win on that point, and have a chance at defining what a "core" is in such a way that it protects manufacturers from such frivolous litigation.

 

 

[mr moose]

24 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

So perhaps he could enlighten the rest of us as to what "marketing materials" led to this erroneous conclusion.

Maybe he will, but I dare say it will be similar to the alleged marketing material in this lawsuit.

[Curufinwe_wins]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

He didn't say AMD made the comparison, he said the comparison was made using the information provided by AMD.  Which is actually something a lot of people do, especially on these forums where they compare specs to specs to attain an idea of performance difference.

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Jito463 said:

I'm not aware of any time that AMD directly compared their FX-8350 to the i7-5820k.  Care to share?

 

 

Meaning that my friend... ignoramus as he was... seeing material about AMD FX's chips being “first native 8-core desktop processor” and “the industry’s first and only native 8-core desktop processor for unmatched multitasking and pure core performance with ‘Bulldozer’ architecture.” was hooked on the scam. [Two quotes that show up on every marketing material for the 8350 on every retailer.]

 

 

So fool as he was... he looked at the spec. oh look at that AMD FX 8350, higher clocks, higher cores... makes sense (to him) then how it might have 'unmatched multitasking and pure core performance'.

 

 

example of how egregiously marketed these chips were.

http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/SearchTools/item-details.asp?EdpNo=4904560

Hey look at that! That bs quote shows up as well here.

 

Oh wait there is more!

 

https://www.amd.com/en-gb/products/processors/desktop/fx 

 

AMD STILL deceptively markets FX chips on their own website.

Though at least there, they include footnotes on how they justified themselves (for core/clock speed comparisons), but no justification for any performance claims.

 

 

[Arika]

1 hour ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Snip

This is why you never trust marketing material ever and always wait for independent testing 

[dalekphalm]

10 hours ago, Arika S said:

This is why you never trust marketing material ever and always wait for independent testing 

Especially since by their very nature, cores are vastly different in almost every aspect between differing architectures - especially between differing architectures created by separate engineering and research teams.

 

The fact that in one generation, an NVIDIA CPU "core" is faster than an AMD one, doesn't mean much of anything besides different architectural choices.

 

Same goes with a Exynos ARM SoC vs an Apple A-series ARM SoC. Even though it's using the same basic instruction set (ARM), the architectures are pretty different, and therefore between generations, one "core" might be faster than a core from a competitor. And that might flip with the next generation.

 

There's no doubt at all that Bulldozer was an architectural dead end. They had an idea, and the idea massively failed. That doesn't mean they lied about having 8 cores. They did. Those cores were just different (and inferior, on an individual basis) to similar AMD cores.

 

Also, Why the fuck is the claimant comparing an FX-series CPU (architecturally unchanged since 2011) to an i7-5820k which was released in 2014? No shit a 3 year newer, considerably more expensive CPU is going to perform better than a 3-year old "mainstream" (both in pricing and performance) CPU.

 

That would be like arguing that you thought a 1990 Toyota Century (V8 engine but less than 200 HP) should be faster than a MX-5 Miata (tiny 4-cyl engine). Sure, the engine has "more cores" (more pistons) but it's nowhere near as fast.