AMD SUED!

[Chronified]

41 minutes ago, williamcll said:

Who even uses FX chips these days?

-slowly raises hand-

Doesn't bottleneck my 1050ti, no reason to upgrade.

[WereCatf]

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

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.

I don't have any sort of a good definition for what a "core" is, but, as someone who has owned a 8086, a 80286, a 80386 without a FPU-co-processor, I definitely consider all those "cores" and agree with @Stefan Payne here. In fact, I consider all sorts of microcontrollers and ARM SoCs as having "cores" as well -- it being able to run x86-code or not doesn't define if it is or isn't a "core."

 

Whether something is or isn't a "CPU-core" per se, should probably be viewed in terms of it being Turing-complete, IMHO. AMD's FX-series CPUs very definitely do fulfill that requirement.

[Chronified]

So, is this a dual-core???? With super-duper-hyperthreadding? 

[Nena Trinity]

In the olden days you did not need both parts of the modern core, now in my book its more 1.5 cores so let me ask this, should the FX-4000 be designated a Tri-core? 1.5 times 2 is 3 so lets say a FX-8000 is than a Hexa-core so what do we call a FX-6000? A 4.5-core CPU? It is no other way than calling it a Quad, Hexa & Octo-core this lawsuit is beyond dumb since if you compare the Phenom II X6 to FX-6300 are they not on par? For the most part? (yes FX-6100 faildozer was inferior we all know...)

[Hunter259]

The only argument that really makes sense is that cores are heavily time and context driven. A CUDA "core" is very different than a general purpose CPU "core" but in their contexts both are cores. A modern CPU "core" is also quite different than a CPU from 1989. At the time AMD released the FX series, the basic design of general purpose CPU "cores" had floating point and integer compute units in each core. That's the only reasonable argument I can think of against AMD.

[vorticalbox]

3 hours ago, goodtofufriday said:

I had a 9590. Meh. It served me well

I used my 8350 for a long time the only reason i got rid of it was to buy a laptop as i was moving house.

 

Over clicking it was fun but lets be honest they got pretty hot 

[Tsuki]

not exactly news.  this lawsuit has been going ever since 2015,  the only thing that's changed is that the judge denied AMDs request for dismissal. Which means there might finally be movement, until AMD finds ways to delay it even further.

 

[Syntaxvgm]

2 minutes ago, Tsuki said:

not exactly news.  this lawsuit has been going ever since 2015,  the only thing that's changed is that the judge denied AMDs request for dismissal. Which means there might finally be movement, until AMD finds ways to delay it even further.

 

yah remember when sandisk got sued for math and following standards? 

[Spotty]

1 minute ago, Syntaxvgm said:

yah remember when sandisk got sued for math and following standards? 

"The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia."

[Guest]

Seems like such a waste of time to sue over. Buy a different processor.

[GoldenLag]

53 minutes ago, Chronified said:

So, is this a dual-core???? With super-duper-hyperthreadding? 

Wow, paying 2000$ for a 8 core, 32 execution unit 64 thread CPU is a bloody scam

 

Edit: because each CCX shares L3 cache. 

[pas008]

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

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)...

You have a link on those games and numbers

Interested to know

[Syntaxvgm]

9 minutes ago, Spotty said:

"The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia."

That still hurts me physically. 

[Tristerin]

1.) Lawsuits like this will be followed up with a Counter Suit. 

2.) This is an 8 core processor.

3.) It shares resources per 2 cores

4.) It only "shuts down" a core if the dual core package it sits on has to share this resource at the same time

5.) In my experience (as a gamer only I don't workstation on this CPU) Ive never found a game that shut down a core.  I monitor my resources at all times on a separate monitor.

 

 

 

I laugh at all you people who dog this chip.  Its viable today.  You've never used one, owned one and are only good at regurgitating what you have read.

 

I can pick which PC I game on between my FX 8380 and Ryzen 7 - I love my old FX pc.

 

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

You have a link on those games and numbers

Interested to know

 

Most people can only give testimonies like myself.  I own a i5 3470 rig, FX 8350 rig and Ryzen 7 1700 rig.

 

The i5 3470 4c/4t processor is not nearly as viable today in gaming as my FX 8350, I have paired BOTH with the same GPU (HD 7850 2gb) to test this as I have options (and technically the i5 is like 15% faster).  What I found was that with older games, it was NECK AND NECK, with a 10% difference in frames either way not favoring one chip over the other.  With newer games - The FX pulls ahead in frames.  I stopped attempting to use the i5 once I realized this so no data, just the fact I have 3 choices and Id rather game on the FX 8350 than i5 3470 (its competitor at the time, 2012)

[Spotty]

1 minute ago, Syntaxvgm said:

That still hurts me physically. 

If it makes you feel any better, the PM who said it has since been replaced.

[Syntaxvgm]

1 minute ago, Spotty said:

If it makes you feel any better, the PM who said it has since been replaced.

but it went forward, they crammed it in there all right. 

[pas008]

9 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

1.) Lawsuits like this will be followed up with a Counter Suit. 

2.) This is an 8 core processor.

3.) It shares resources per 2 cores

4.) It only "shuts down" a core if the dual core package it sits on has to share this resource at the same time

5.) In my experience (as a gamer only I don't workstation on this CPU) Ive never found a game that shut down a core.  I monitor my resources at all times on a separate monitor.

 

 

 

I laugh at all you people who dog this chip.  Its viable today.  You've never used one, owned one and are only good at regurgitating what you have read.

 

I can pick which PC I game on between my FX 8380 and Ryzen 7 - I love my old FX pc.

 

 

Most people can only give testimonies like myself.  I own a i5 3470 rig, FX 8350 rig and Ryzen 7 1700 rig.

 

The i5 3470 4c/4t processor is not nearly as viable today in gaming as my FX 8350, I have paired BOTH with the same GPU (HD 7850 2gb) to test this as I have options (and technically the i5 is like 15% faster).  What I found was that with older games, it was NECK AND NECK, with a 10% difference in frames either way not favoring one chip over the other.  With newer games - The FX pulls ahead in frames.  I stopped attempting to use the i5 once I realized this so no data, just the fact I have 3 choices and Id rather game on the FX 8350 than i5 3470 (its competitor at the time, 2012)

Sources

Personal testimony means nothing

Only shit i can find gives the win to i5

But nothing on which games fx winning on modern games

I will look later too

But making statements on things means you should have info available to those statements

[Tristerin]

6 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Sources

Personal testimony means nothing

Only shit i can find gives the win to i5

But nothing on which games fx winning on modern games

I will look later too

But making statements on things means you should have info available to those statements

 

No, testimonies are everything.  Experiences are everything.  You are looking for Technical Data so you can assume you have an understanding of how it compares.  Technical Data can only give you the numbers for you to espouse as if you have an understanding.  Considering each game is unique, each game coded differently.  Each program, the same (coded diff).  I can only give you my testimony which is that the FX is the better chip in my Use Case scenario for gaming, and lite Adobe/CAD stuff.

 

So you can dismiss this all you want, but I bet you read reviews (testimonies) before buying something.  Raw data is only part of the picture.

 

Why would I use this chip when I have the i5?  LOL  Because the i5 is throttled being a 4c/4t chip anymore.  THROTTLED.

[pas008]

53 minutes ago, Tristerin said:

 

No, testimonies are everything.  Experiences are everything.  You are looking for Technical Data so you can assume you have an understanding of how it compares.  Technical Data can only give you the numbers for you to espouse as if you have an understanding.  Considering each game is unique, each game coded differently.  Each program, the same (coded diff).  I can only give you my testimony which is that the FX is the better chip in my Use Case scenario for gaming, and lite Adobe/CAD stuff.

 

So you can dismiss this all you want, but I bet you read reviews (testimonies) before buying something.  Raw data is only part of the picture.

 

Why would I use this chip when I have the i5?  LOL  Because the i5 is throttled being a 4c/4t chip anymore.  THROTTLED.

Ok i like to know where

With records of what and where things exceed or not

Not just random verbal shit with unknown variables

[yian88]

Wasnt this already posted? or was that reddit i cant remember now which is which.

Pointless sueing, those are 8 core processors period. There is no definition of what is an actual cpu "core"  it could be interpreted in favor or against AMD, regardless FX were 8 core CPU's.

[Tristerin]

15 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Ok i like to know where

With records of what and where things exceed or not

Not just random verbal shit with unknown variables

Random verbal shit.  Gotcha.  Have a nice day.

[leadeater]

6 hours 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

It was 8 cores worth if you were doing INT calculations, 4  cores with doing FLOAT. What hit AMD and users was that vectorized code became a bigger thing at the same time and so applications started wanting float math not int.

 

Edit:

Also if we are going to run with the CMT cluster argument then Ryzen/Threadripper/EPYC is only 2 cores, 4 cores or 8 cores due to CCXs.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, Chronified said:

-slowly raises hand-

*smacks hand down*

[Fnige]

"One always jumps at the sign of free money"

[Stefan Payne]

6 hours ago, pas008 said:

You have a link on those games and numbers

Interested to know

Sadly I forgot to bookmark them and can't remember what those games were.

But I know that it was the Russians, who found it out (=gamegpu.ru).

 

And there were a couple of games where the FX8350 was on par with Core i7-4770K, though that rarely happened (like one or two games). It happened more that the 8350 competed with the i5 Haswell...

 

The timeframe, I think, was around the last Battlefield Game (the one that implemented Mantle)...

 

But then again, BD needs optimized code to run well. Wich it doesn't get these days...