AMD SUED!

[Drak3]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

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.

Man, Intel's been doing single core CPUs for a LOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNGGGGGGG time.

[mr moose]

Just like in the other thread, people are getting hung up on what they think constitutes a core,  this lawsuit hinges not on individual technical definitions but on comparative multi core performance and misleading marketing material.   

 

In my opinion (and it is just that an opinion), I studied CPU design many moons ago (full disclosure it was a time when the z80 was still viable and the most common processor in the market was the 486 (which also was the first to have an integrated FPU).   I would not call it a full core, because each core shares an FPU and L2 cache, I would call them partial cores.   It to me is exactly the same as the GTX970 ram issue.

[Demonking]

8 hours 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)...

 

6 hours 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)

Just get ryzen or upgrade to it if you want AMD. 2500k beat it then and still does, same with the 2600k. 

 

 

 

[Stefan Payne]

1 minute ago, Demonking said:

Just get ryzen or upgrade to it if you want AMD. 2500k beat it then and still does, same with the 2600k. 

Do you even read what others posted??

 

But hey, I can do that too and show that the FX8350 is awesome? Don't believe me, watch the Video:

 

 

[Tristerin]

55 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Do you even read what others posted??

 

But hey, I can do that too and show that the FX8350 is awesome? Don't believe me, watch the Video:

 

 

Going to steal this video.

 

I tell people...and they don't listen lol.  Its a damn fine CPU, especially one I bought in 2012.  My Ryzen 7 1700 is amazing, but I wont upgrade my personal gaming rig until there is a reason to.

 

Did I mention they have a soldered IHS?

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, valdyrgramr said:

I think the problem is that there is no strong set definition of what a core is.  Well, outside of some form of  1. in that link.  From there it's a pretty loose guideline for what a manufacturer has to follow.  On top of that, you have who going up against Dr. Lisa Su? I mean she is close friends with the head of IBM too, so like this case "could" go in her favor more.   Lisa has an engineering background, and having support from a company like IBM could help her out.

You missed my point, the case doesn't hinge on the definition of a core, as you said it is loosely defined by many different people,  The case hinges on marketing and product representation.    If it can be argued the product doesn't perform like true 8 cores as marketed (e.g because the consumer was using a FP heavy workload or L2 cache was for what ever reason retarding the CPU to that of 4 cores) then AMD will loose, just like Nvidia lost even though it has the full 4GB of ram they advertised it as having.

[Dabombinable]

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

Do you even read what others posted??

 

But hey, I can do that too and show that the FX8350 is awesome? Don't believe me, watch the Video:

 

 

That's when paired with an R9 280.....think GTX 1050 levels of performance, it was also from over 5 years ago=.

[Stefan Payne]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

That's when paired with an R9 280.....think GTX 1050 levels of performance, it was also from over 5 years ago=.

Doesn't matter at all.

It shows that there are situations in where the Performance of the FX8350 is better than Sandy and even Ivy Bridge.

And in some (rare) cases can compete with Haswell.

[TempestCatto]

I have an FX8320 right now. Lemme tell you, this shit ain't no damn 8 core chip. That said, while it was false advertising, at least AMD haven't done that since (at least to my knowledge) So I don't see the point in this lawsuit. Will this perhaps set a new standard? I don't think so. I think it was already set when FX came out. This has been a debate since FX was even announced, and since FX, I don't know of a cpu maker saying they have 420 cores when in reality it's only 69 real cores and the rest are logical (again, to my knowledge. I live under a rock so forgive me). Some people argue it is 8 core, while others argue it's only 4. It is indeed only 4, and was marketed as having 8. But that was ages ago, we're so far past that point in time it's now archaic. My only question is, why wait so long to file a lawsuit? The chips aren't worth a bag of chips themselves, so what's the fucking point? Whomever it is that's filed, they clearly have nothing better to do. This is just like Hollywood, you waited way too long...

[79wjd]

8 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

That's when paired with an R9 280.....think GTX 1050 levels of performance, it was also from over 5 years ago=.

It was also shown to be complete and utter nonsense even then. I forget why and I don't care enough to re-watch it, but I remember that video being disproven every time it was posted years ago. 

[Blademaster91]

7 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Doesn't matter at all.

It shows that there are situations in where the Performance of the FX8350 is better than Sandy and even Ivy Bridge.

And in some (rare) cases can compete with Haswell.

It does matter because the FX cpu would likely bottleneck on anything more than the equivalent of a 1050, while using twice the power of a Sandy Bride or Ivy Bridge CPU.

[79wjd]

4 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

It does matter because the FX cpu would likely bottleneck on anything more than the equivalent of a 1050, while using twice the power of a Sandy Bride or Ivy Bridge CPU.

Yeah, but after nearly a decade the FX8350 became almost as good in many scenarios and a bit better in a few. If that didn't make it the better buy back then, I don't know what would.

[Dabombinable]

18 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Doesn't matter at all.

It shows that there are situations in where the Performance of the FX8350 is better than Sandy and even Ivy Bridge.

And in some (rare) cases can compete with Haswell.

It does matter, because the GPU was always the limiting factor. Meaning that it was and still is a shit cpu comparison.

And by Haswell you mean its i3 right?

[Sparru]

13 hours ago, SuperCooling87 said:

The argument then, is that people didn't pay for the performance of a 6-core, they paid for an 8-core.

That has to be one of the silliest things I've read in a while. There's no such performance measuring unit as "core". You don't buy "8 cores of performance" and instead buy whatever the CPU can output in tests. Otherwise we'd have to lock "1 core" into some sort of performance value instead of physical/logical structure.

[Stefan Payne]

19 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

It does matter, because the GPU was always the limiting factor. Meaning that it was and still is a shit cpu comparison.

Why the hate of Bulldozer?!

Why can't you be reasonably about it?!

Quote

And by Haswell you mean its i3 right?

i5-i7, depending on the game...

If the game was optimized for Bulldozer.

[pas008]

1 minute ago, Stefan Payne said:

Why the hate of Bulldozer?!

Why can't you be reasonably about it?!

i5-i7, depending on the game...

If the game was optimized for Bulldozer.

Link them please

 

[ARikozuM]

Title should be "AMD Su'd". 

[CTR640]

Why? And how is it there is FX4300 and FX6300?? Just blood suckers as usual to squeeze the dollar out of AMD since they have been successfull.

[Blademaster91]

42 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

Yeah, but after nearly a decade the FX8350 became almost as good in many scenarios and a bit better in a few. If that didn't make it the better buy back then, I don't know what would.

A Ryzen 3 or 5 CPU is cheap, and if a person only has the budget for used parts a better buy would be a Haswell i5 or i7 CPU, using the HardwareUnboxed video linked to earlier, the FX cpu hardly keeps up with a 2500K at the same clock speeds, and the 2500K often has more overclocking room.

 

[Stefan Payne]

5 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Link them please

look it up on GameGPU.

Here you have BF1 where the 9590 beats an i5-4670K...

https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-1-test-gpu

 

There are other games that are better. But you could also look it up yourself. It was around the same time.

[pas008]

5 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

look it up on GameGPU.

Here you have BF1 where the 9590 beats an i5-4670K...

https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/battlefield-1-test-gpu

 

There are other games that are better. But you could also look it up yourself. It was around the same time.

Lol your statements you back them

And you are comparing 9590 now?

Hahaha barely

Where's the 4.7 sb or ib then

if you using cherry picked shit like usual to ignorantly prove your hatred

 

[Blademaster91]

16 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Lol your statements you back them

And you are comparing 9590 now?

Hahaha barely

Where's the 4.7 sb or ib then

if you using cherry picked shit like usual to ignorantly prove your hatred

 

The 9590 just barely keeps up in that test, at 4.7 compared to a 4670K running at 3.4 in their graphs. IMO it doesn't seem like a fair comparison unless both are running the same speed.

And the comparison is pretty flawed only using a single game to compare, even in games that can use all of the FX cores it still doesn't perform like an 8 core when compared to 4 core/4thread i5 cpu's.

[79wjd]

27 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

A Ryzen 3 or 5 CPU is cheap, and if a person only has the budget for used parts a better buy would be a Haswell i5 or i7 CPU, using the HardwareUnboxed video linked to earlier, the FX cpu hardly keeps up with a 2500K at the same clock speeds, and the 2500K often has more overclocking room.

 

/s

[Stefan Payne]

32 minutes ago, pas008 said:

Lol your statements you back them

OK; since you wanted it, here some Proof that the FX can compete with Haswell (at least the i5):

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/FX-9590-CPU-257460/Tests/AMD-FX-9590-im-Test-1081286/

Click on Dirt Showdown

 

Another Benchmark, where the 8350 competes with the i5-4670K

https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/doom-test-gpu

 

Or lets look at that:

 

FX8350 beats i5-7600K

 

 

Here a compilation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMrgepXW7MI

 

 

Why so hateful, when someone shows you that Bulldozer is not as bad as you thought?!

As I said, it needs special treatment and Optimizations for the Architecture.

 

 

And lets not forget that the FX8350 was a ~150€ CPU!

https://geizhals.de/?phist=852989

 

 

 

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

And lets not forget that the FX8350 was a ~150€ CPU!

https://geizhals.de/?phist=852989

It also WAS significantly worse, and required an expensive motherboard and cooler. It was a horrible choice for gaming at the time it was released and even for the next six years or so. It's only more recent that it has started to be somewhat competitive against a 4c/4t i5 -- overclock both, and the i5 gains ground again.