AMD SUED!

[Sparru]

16 hours ago, mr moose said:

It's not silly, people are just getting confused about the point. Performance becomes a comparative qualifier when any company makes a quantitative claim regarding the size or number of core components.    AMD claimed it was the worlds first 8 core processor, but if it only runs on four cores because it's shared FP, L2 cache and prefetch then the marketing about it's performance is misleading (they did not state that there are only 4 FP processors and 4 L2 cache modules). Hence consumers being lead to believe that it would have performed faster had it been what they claimed.

No it is. Again there's no such performance measuring unit as core, hence it can't be misleading marketing material. Otherwise you could sue AMD because their 2700X isn't as fast as i9-9900k both being 8-core. GTX 970 was completely different since it claimed to have full amount of memory at the rated speed when it didn't. It's not unclear how fast 256-bit 224GB/s GDDR5 is. CPU architectures change constantly, hence 1 core isn't X speed and 8 cores 8*X speed. At best you could draw a comparison to the same line of CPU's and all the FX CPUs work the same way.

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, Sparru said:

No it is. Again there's no such performance measuring unit as core, hence it can't be misleading marketing material.

There doesn't have to be defined performance metric for cores.  

 

Quote

Otherwise you could sue AMD because their 2700X isn't as fast as i9-9900k both being 8-core. GTX 970 was completely different since it claimed to have full amount of memory at the rated speed when it didn't. It's not unclear how fast 256-bit 224GB/s GDDR5 is. CPU architectures change constantly, hence 1 core isn't X speed and 8 cores 8*X speed. At best you could draw a comparison to the same line of CPU's and all the FX CPUs work the same way.

 

 

If you run an FP heavy load on an FX you will only see 4 cores operating.  . Consumers were promised 8 cores but they are only getting 4 in that workload. why? because there are only 4 FP cores and the L2 cache is shared along with the prefetch.   It doesn't matter what you define a core to be, if the end result could have been better with 8 FP cores as the consumer was told it had then the consumer has an argument.  That's why it doesn't matter that there is no definition of a core or performance metric specific to a defined core.  In fact if there was such a metric/definition this likely would even be a thing. 

 

It was exactly the same as the 970, all the ram modules all were rated to the speed advertised and where all on the card, but if you tried to use that last .5GB because the L2 cache was shared it would tank and perform like it had a lower speed chip in it.  The hardware was there as advertised, but it didn't perform like it due to sharing cache,  the FX had 8 cores as advertised, but it didn't perform like it due to sharing FP, and cache.

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I'm not saying I'm not at fault at all.  I was going off bad sources at the time on youtube, the people over exaggerating on here, and in other communities.  It is my fault for believing the exaggerations and bad benchmarks at the time.  I learned from that mistake.

I think that's just par for the course in tech,  There are very few night and day upgrades from the last 9 years in tech.  But many people will still claim that if you are replacing a processor made in 2010 with one made in 2015-6 then it will be a huge upgrade.  The reality is it's not huge for the end user experience, but it is an upgrade.   This is why I have't upgraded my 3550 yet.  I know that if I buy anything ryzen or 8th gen Intel it will be an upgrade (durrh) but even over that period about the only thing I would notice would be rendering performance if I went the Ryzen route.  Either way I can guarantee that if I start a thread asking is X processor a good upgrade from the 3550 everyone will claim huge improvements.

 

 

[TempestCatto]

49 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

That's not the point.  The point was that you keep saying you need an expensive motherboard.  Well, I didn't with a CPU that actually stated it needed those expensive boards.  The 8350 never actually stated nor required a 990 or 990FX board.  In fact, my clocks were limited to 4.8 when I went to the more expensive board.  I could do 4.9 on the cheapo 970.  You can use an 8350 with any 970 chipset board.  However, if you want an actual decent OC you might wanna go to the 990 or 990FX boards.  However, it doesn't require it.

Well as long as you have good vrm's, you don't need the chipset with the biggest numbers. Your 990FX board probably had inferior vrm's compared to your 970. I had my 8320 on both chipsets, haven't oc'd on either but never had a problem with either. Again, it's mainly vrm's.

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I mean Intel has been doing mostly minor upgrades for years because they didn't exactly have a reason to do a massive upgrade in performance since AMD wasn't really competing that well.  The 4790k was indeed a decent upgrade in other workloads outside of gaming for me.  I did go from the 4790k to the 1950x for the actual increase in multicore, but I think I slightly downgraded on single maybe.  But, the point of the upgrade was more for specific workloads, not gaming, and the price was 675 USD at the time. 

 

Intel constantly did little upgrades over the time AMD had nothing then released Ryzen, which was about he same as where Intel had gotten to. Showing that both companies are at the edge of their design/production abilities.

 

 

[Coaxialgamer]

Not this garbage again... 

[Tristerin]

My FX 8350 rig in my sig at 1600x900 settings on High in Anthem - my CPU gets to 78% (sitting between 40%-78% the 8 cores fluctuating during gameplay) utilization max vsync'd at 60 fps....not sure the problem here

[Stefan Payne]

6 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

I'm not saying I'm not at fault at all.  I was going off bad sources at the time on youtube, the people over exaggerating on here, and in other communities.  It is my fault for believing the exaggerations and bad benchmarks at the time.  I learned from that mistake.

Yeah, same with me and one of the worst Socket A Boards I ever had:
ASUS A7V. Because the Priomise Chip couldn't be switched  offf.

And in Earlier Versions of the BIOS not even the Promise BIOS could be switched off...

and IIRC it wasn't really mentioned in the Review.

6 hours ago, 79wjd said:

The FX series absolutely struggled at higher refresh rates compared to even a locked i5 (and i3 in many cases) -- including 1% minimums.

THe 1% Minimums weren't that bad in many cases, just look at the Links I've provided. I mean really look at it and not just from 100m away...

and low latency gaming is kinda a niche market. Most people don't really care about it and live happily with 60fps, in some cases even 30fps.

But if you do care about it, you usually don't save on your components either....

a low latency gamer would save up to get at least an i5-4670k and a higher end Graphics card like GTX 680 or Radeon HD 7970 and not use an FX with a GTX 660 or Radeon HD 7770...

 

 

Sorry, but what you're saying here is completely bullshit as you don't have any feeling for the price or the price sensitivity or the Upgrade Path...

Because the AMD FX were rarely combined with higher end Graphics cards. So we're talking about some older Fermi ones (ie GTX 560) or AMD Radeon 6870. or newer ones were combined with AMD Radeon HD 7700 or maybe 7800 Series. For the nVidia Side we're talking about maybe a GTX660.

 

You have to see the system in context, but you're talking about out of context stuff...

 

I myself got an FX8350 - and not everything at once. I first got my Board (ASUS Sabertooth 990FX, sadly version 1.0) because I had a Phenom X4 955BE at the time...

Sadly I sold the FX and kept the Phenom 955BE...

 

The normal AMD FX User at the time used the FX8k Series mostly for Upgrades and the common chips were 4k and maybe a 6k series one.

And not everyone wanted Intel at the time...

 

You're really overreacting on the FX Series. Its not as cut and dry as you claim it is. And many people were happy because they don't care about 100fps vs 150fps...

5 hours ago, TempestCatto said:

Well as long as you have good vrm's, you don't need the chipset with the biggest numbers(...) Again, it's mainly vrm's.

exactly and the Problems were caused mainly by one or two revisions of the Asrock 970 Board. I remember that If I read about Problems with Throtteling it was mostly the ASROCK 970 PRO ones.

The other ones were (mostly) fine.

[Mira Yurizaki]

While I can't speak for the plaintiffs of the case, I can provide a plausible explanation why they define a core the way they do and think AMD's way of defining a core is misleading. The focal point comes from :https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20040913-00/?p=37883

 

Quote

Note that even with a hyperthreading-aware processor, you can concoct pathological scenarios where hyperthreading ends up a net loss. (For example, if you have four tasks, two of which rely heavily on L2 cache and two of which don't, you'd be better off putting each of the L2-intensive tasks on separate processors, since the L2 cache is shared by the two virtual processors. Putting them both on the same processor would result in a lot of L2-cache misses as the two tasks fight over L2 cache slots.)

 

As some backup, this is what each module in the Bulldozer and its descendants looks like.

AMD claims each "Integer Cluster" is a core. But notice they share the same L2 cache. You could conceivably run into an issue described in the above if you treated each Integer Cluster as a separate, physical core rather than something similar to an SMT logical processor.

[TempestCatto]

7 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Most people don't really care about it and live happily with 60fps, in some cases even 30fps.

I get motion sickness above 30fps, so if I can lock it there, I'm set. Now, I realize I'm a special case, but still an example of a happy 30fps gamer.

[79wjd]

9 hours ago, Stefan Payne said:

Yeah, same with me and one of the worst Socket A Boards I ever had:
ASUS A7V. Because the Priomise Chip couldn't be switched  offf.

And in Earlier Versions of the BIOS not even the Promise BIOS could be switched off...

and IIRC it wasn't really mentioned in the Review.

THe 1% Minimums weren't that bad in many cases, just look at the Links I've provided. I mean really look at it and not just from 100m away...

and low latency gaming is kinda a niche market. Most people don't really care about it and live happily with 60fps, in some cases even 30fps.

But if you do care about it, you usually don't save on your components either....

a low latency gamer would save up to get at least an i5-4670k and a higher end Graphics card like GTX 680 or Radeon HD 7970 and not use an FX with a GTX 660 or Radeon HD 7770...

 

 

Sorry, but what you're saying here is completely bullshit as you don't have any feeling for the price or the price sensitivity or the Upgrade Path...

Because the AMD FX were rarely combined with higher end Graphics cards. So we're talking about some older Fermi ones (ie GTX 560) or AMD Radeon 6870. or newer ones were combined with AMD Radeon HD 7700 or maybe 7800 Series. For the nVidia Side we're talking about maybe a GTX660.

 

You have to see the system in context, but you're talking about out of context stuff...

 

I myself got an FX8350 - and not everything at once. I first got my Board (ASUS Sabertooth 990FX, sadly version 1.0) because I had a Phenom X4 955BE at the time...

Sadly I sold the FX and kept the Phenom 955BE...

 

The normal AMD FX User at the time used the FX8k Series mostly for Upgrades and the common chips were 4k and maybe a 6k series one.

And not everyone wanted Intel at the time...

 

You're really overreacting on the FX Series. Its not as cut and dry as you claim it is. And many people were happy because they don't care about 100fps vs 150fps...

exactly and the Problems were caused mainly by one or two revisions of the Asrock 970 Board. I remember that If I read about Problems with Throtteling it was mostly the ASROCK 970 PRO ones.

The other ones were (mostly) fine.

You're right, the FX series was sufficient for most users because they tended to pair it with weaker hardware, however for the same price you could have gotten something better. It being "good enough" didn't change the fact that it was a poor choice. And upgrading from an FX6 to an FX8 was just an all around waste of money since the performance between the two was more often than not identical in gaming.

[Blademaster91]

1 hour ago, 79wjd said:

You're right, the FX series was sufficient for most users because they tended to pair it with weaker hardware, however for the same price you could have gotten something better. It being "good enough" didn't change the fact that it was a poor choice. And upgrading from an FX6 to an FX8 was just an all around waste of money since the performance between the two was more often than not identical in gaming.

Although since the marketing insisted the FX6 and FX8 performed as true 6 and 8 cores, people could have been mislead into thinking there could be money saved and spent more on a GPU. A poor choice when you could have went with an i3 on a cheap board with the stock cooler, and save up for an i5 or i7 later and not even need to upgrade the cooling to have a better performing CPU for gaming, the money you think you'd save with an FX8 had to be spent on cooling to get any decent performance from it. And the people on Phenom II cpu's especially the 6 cores, the FX8 wasn't much of an upgrade at all for most gaming scenarios.

[Stefan Payne]

17 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

however for the same price you could have gotten something better.

Debatable, depends on the Software, what you do with it and so on...

I'd say that we will see the occasional FX user asking about new hardware up to 2022 or so.

 

Or if they ask, its because their system just died.

 

17 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

It being "good enough" didn't change the fact that it was a poor choice.

Depends, those things were usually cheaper than Intel Systems and people are still using those things

 

17 minutes ago, 79wjd said:

And upgrading from an FX6 to an FX8 was just an all around waste of money since the performance between the two was more often than not identical in gaming.

an Upgrade froman i5 to i7 is not?
Or upgrading from a Sandy/Ivy Bridge to Haswell/Skylake?

 

That's, as always, in the eye of the beholder...

 

And, as I said, those CPUs will be around for a couple of years more...

[79wjd]

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Debatable, depends on the Software, what you do with it and so on...

I'd say that we will see the occasional FX user asking about new hardware up to 2022 or so.

Again, for gaming as was very clearly mentioned.

 

And again, not needing to upgrade because the hardware was good enough doesn't mean that it was the best choice at the time -- even at the given price point.

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Depends, those things were usually cheaper than Intel Systems and people are still using those things

Again, no they really weren't they were comparable once you factored in the total platform cost.

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

an Upgrade froman i5 to i7 is not?
Or upgrading from a Sandy/Ivy Bridge to Haswell/Skylake?

Except that in gaming perfownce was virtually identical between an FX6 and an FX8 since games couldn't leverage The extra cores anyway.

 

And in most cases, an i7 wasn't beneficial over an i5 in gaming at the time when the FX series was relevant. So also, a moot point.

3 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

That's, as always, in the eye of the beholder...

 

And, as I said, those CPUs will be around for a couple of years more...

Capable? yes. The best purchase decision at the time? Absolutely not -- unless of course you have a blind love for anything AMD.

[thorhammerz]

4 hours ago, 79wjd said:

 unless of course you have a blind love for anything AMD.

Fanboys do not customarily employ rational analysis when assessing their options .

[SuperCooling87]

On 1/25/2019 at 10:18 PM, Sparru said:

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.

For the record, I don't necessarily disagree. I'm trying to put in counterarguments that I would expect to be used.