AMD SUED!

[SuperCooling87]

AMD is currently on the negative end of a class action lawsuit due to their FX processors.  AMD advertised their FX processor as having 8 cores, but now the courts must decide what a "core" actually is. Unlike Ryzen, AMD's FX series had a different architecture and they have even said that with this design, they have approximately 80% of the performance of "true" 8-core processors. The argument then, is that people didn't pay for the performance of a 6-core, they paid for an 8-core. This all having been said, I personally don't think there is a whole lot to this lawsuit and I think it should be dropped. That having been said, I didn't buy one of AMD's top-of-the-line processors in 2015. What do you guys think? Links and photos below.

 

https://www.extremetech.com/computing/284335-the-garbage-class-action-lawsuit-against-amds-bulldozer-is-headed-to-trial

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-fx-processors-lawsuit-continues,38486.html

 

[S w a t s o n]

Basically a jury of 12 normies has to decide what a CPU core is. AMD went for a different approach than SMT (AMD went CMT) and it resulted in FX. If they insist only intel gets to define what a core is they should take a long walk off a short pier

[Princess Luna]

I mean it had 8 logical threads so w/e

 

FX 8350 and so on really were just 4c/8t processors but got market as 8c/8t, but like mentioned Intel marketing and AMD marketing are just different... FX is so old school who cares... people getting on class action to retrieve 20% of what they paid on these already cheap CPUs?

 

Some people are just bored as hell heh

[GoldenLag]

Tell that to Nvidia to define what a core is. Also this has been up in news before. Cuz Cuda to them aint one of FX aint one. 

 

This is of the more dumb lawsuits

[Stefan Payne]

35 minutes ago, SuperCooling87 said:

AMD advertised their FX processor as having 8 cores, but now the courts must decide what a "core" actually is.

It was a core. Only had a shared scheduler (wich they rolled back with Excavator).

 

This "Class Action" is just stupid bullshit, just the usual garbage to make a dollar or two at the cost of AMD...

[JoeCoke]

Frivolous lawsuit that's all about money. And no, I'm not just saying that because AMD is the one getting sued, if this were Intel I'd feel the same way.

[Ashley MLP Fangirl]

y tho

[Sauron]

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

FX 8350 and so on really were just 4c/8t processors but got market as 8c/8t

That's not true though, CMT was significantly different to SMT and every one of those "cores" was the same. Either they're all cores or they aren't, and if they aren't it might as well be a 0 core cpu. The argument that the modules were the actual "cores" doesn't really hold water if you use Intel's definition, anyway. And it wouldn't have been any less misleading to say it was a quad core (it would have been more misleading in my opinion). FX chips weren't great, but I don't think their problem was false advertisement.

[goodtofufriday]

I had a 9590. Meh. It served me well

[Doobeedoo]

Kinda dumb though. It was a different approach wit CMT and it would be stupid to define what 'core' is, especially by those people. 

[Wyzzy Moon]

They had 8 cores. They might not have preformed that way but it was a difference in architecture. They never lied to anyone, they had a plan and it didn't work. So they shouldn't be sued imo

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, S w a t s o n said:

Basically a jury of 12 normies has to decide what a CPU core is. AMD went for a different approach than SMT (AMD went CMT) and it resulted in FX. If they insist only intel gets to define what a core is they should take a long walk off a short pier

I don't think many people on this forum knows what a CPU core is either.

 

1 hour ago, Princess Cadence said:

I mean it had 8 logical threads so w/e

 

FX 8350 and so on really were just 4c/8t processors but got market as 8c/8t, but like mentioned Intel marketing and AMD marketing are just different... FX is so old school who cares... people getting on class action to retrieve 20% of what they paid on these already cheap CPUs? 

 

Some people are just bored as hell heh

If Intel started marking their 6 core processor as a 12 core processor, because "it can run 12 threads" then I think they deserve to be sued too.

 

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

It was a core. Only had a shared scheduler (wich they rolled back with Excavator).

 

This "Class Action" is just stupid bullshit, just the usual garbage to make a dollar or two at the cost of AMD...

No, the Bulldozer modules shared more than that. For some workloads like floating point operations, 8 core FX processors were essentially quad cores.

You can't just take out like half the core and then still call it a real core.

[Juniiii]

A 2200g similar specs to a 8350 h(4 cores 8 threads) the 8350 unpacks compressed file at a wayyyy faster rate and applications like winrar depend on cores for packing and unpacking, and it does somewhat preform like a 8 core cpu just some people suing and are on that hustle and grind

[Stefan Payne]

12 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

No, the Bulldozer modules shared more than that. For some workloads like floating point operations,

Float Point Operations are Optional on x86 and were integrated about 10 years after the first x86 Chip in 1989.

The 8086 was released in 1979. The 80486 in 1989 (with like 20 and 25MHz, really took off a year or two later).

And even then it was optional - i486SX came with a deactivated FPU.

 

So that means that the Pentium Processor was the first generation that really came with FPU and really integrated it. And that was in 1993.

 

Quote

8 core FX processors were essentially quad cores.

are you arguing that an Intel 8086, 8088, 80186, 80286, 80386, 80486SX wasn't a "1 Core CPU"?

Quote

You can't just take out like half the core and then still call it a real core.

Yes, you can as _ONLY_ the Int Cores are the cores.

The FPU is optional, traditionally.

 

Quote

If Intel started marking their 6 core processor as a 12 core processor, because "it can run 12 threads" then I think they deserve to be sued too.

Yes, because that would be a LIE and false.

Calling the Bulldozer FX8k and 9k Series 8 Core is not.

That is something you can argue for. The example you gave is just totally bullshit.

Because its not about the Threads, its about the (INT) Cores!

Bulldozer has 2 Int Cores per Module. So claiming 8 Cores isn't false.

 

And above I've given you the reason for that.

[Emanbaird]

8c or not, they still performed the same, this is just an obvious cash grab, this just reminds me of the 3.5gb debacle a few years ago with the 970, i had 2 of them and i didn't care because the benchmarks are still the same.

 

Hopefully they will drop it.

[Spotty]

13 minutes ago, Juniiii said:

A 2200g similar specs to a 8350 h(4 cores 8 threads) the 8350 unpacks compressed file at a wayyyy faster rate and applications like winrar depend on cores for packing and unpacking, and it does somewhat preform like a 8 core cpu just some people suing and are on that hustle and grind

Ryzen 3 2200g is a 4c/4t cpu. It doesn't have SMT. The 2400g is 4c/8t.

[Juniiii]

10 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Ryzen 3 2200g is a 4c/4t cpu. It doesn't have SMT. The 2400g is 4c/8t.

Fuck I’m retarded, I bought the worst cpu, I didn’t even realize it.

[williamcll]

Who even uses FX chips these days?

[Teddy07]

3 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

I mean it had 8 logical threads so w/e

 

I see you like getting scammed

[ThePD]

4 minutes ago, williamcll said:

Who even uses FX chips these days?

Quite a few people it seems. There are questions about upgrading from FX chips or paring high end GPUs with FX chips weekly on this forum.

[S w a t s o n]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

If Intel started marking their 6 core processor as a 12 core processor, because "it can run 12 threads" then I think they deserve to be sued too.

 

No, the Bulldozer modules shared more than that. For some workloads like floating point operations, 8 core FX processors were essentially quad cores.

You can't just take out like half the core and then still call it a real core.

It's not half the core, lets be honest. FP isnt a CPU's strong point and AMD kind of bet on this (wrongly). Even using the term real core implies that only intel gets to define what a core is. The fact is that SMT is very often used to advertise the ability to run double the tasks on the same amount of cores when really we both know that's not how it actually works all the time.

At the end of the day a pathway with an ALU is a core to me.

[DrMacintosh]

Just lawyers trying to get rich. Hopefully AMD makes a good defense and they end up not having to pay these dumbasses a cent. 

[Stefan Payne]

30 minutes ago, williamcll said:

Who even uses FX chips these days?

Who bought it a couple of years back.

 

And the FX aren't too bad, not worse then Ivy-Bridge or Haswell i5, in some modern Games they even beat those two CPUs.

Problem is: It needs special treatment and optimization. If you give that to the Bulldozer Architecture it really runs well (though it still gets hindered by the garbage I/O and L3 Part at only 2GHz)...

[Chronified]

The AMD FX-8xxx /9xxx has 4 modules with 2 cores in each module.

Each 2 cores in the module will share resources (RAMBUS, CPU Cache etc).

Yes, there are 8 cores in total, but they are not separate, and are NOT hyper-threading. This is a good cost saver for AMD.

 

 

When high core-count 3rd gen processors hit with the 2nd corner die (possibly) used, will there be another lawsuit saying that they are only 2-core processors and not 16+ core processors???????? NO. So this lawsuit just doesn't make sense from a common sense standpoint.

[Syntaxvgm]

On 6/20/2015 at 4:21 AM, Syntaxvgm said:

"We may be separate cores now

but on some level

we'll always share cache. "