AMD Agrees To Pay Out $35 Per Chip Over FX Marketing Lawsuit

[leadeater]

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Because AMD didn't advertise those the same way. Otherwise we would likely be looking at them included in the lawsuit or even separate lawsuits.

They most certainly did market them the same.

 

 

 

 

"Unbeatable 6 core Technology" which were handily beaten by 4 Intel cores.

"SIX Real Cores for massive computing performance"

"More cores, More performance, Very affordable"

"Six-core processors for a new era of content creation"

 

Need I dig out more marketing spin?

 

5 hours ago, mr moose said:

Again, that is ignoring what was claimed versus what was delivered.

Actually it's sticking specially to what was claimed with no assumptions or inference beyond the exact words used. What was claimed was multi tasking, not gaming, not light threaded works loads, not anything other than multi tasking. Can you materially show this is not the case? Can you show that consumers were actually deceived, beyond not doing due diligence which would be grounds for consumer protections to kick in.

 

But hang on what was the actual filed complaint again?

 

Quote

"In claiming that its Bulldozer CPU had '8-cores,' AMD tricked consumers into buying its Bulldozer processors by overstating the number of cores contained in the Bulldozer chips," the lawsuit's paperwork reads.

 

"In fact, the Bulldozer chips functionally have only four cores — not eight, as advertised. Notably, AMD built the Bulldozer processors by stripping away components from two cores and combining what was left to make a single 'module.' But by removing certain components of two cores to make one module, they no longer work independently. As a result, AMD’s Bulldozers suffer from material performance degradation and cannot perform eight instructions simultaneously and independently as claimed.

 

"Average consumers in the market for computer CPUs lack the requisite technical expertise to understand the design of Defendant’s processors, and trust Defendant to convey accurate specifications regarding its CPUs. Because AMD did not convey accurate specifications, tens of thousands of consumers have been misled into buying Bulldozer CPUs that do not conform to what AMD advertised, and cannot perform the way a true eight core CPU would (i.e., perform eight calculations simultaneously)."

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/amd_sued_cores/

https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/08/27/amd-eight-core-settlement.pdf

 

Quote

 Plaintiff Dickey allegedly saw representations of AMD’s CPUs that said they were “‘the industry’s first and only native 8-core desktop processor for unmatched multitasking and pure core performance.’” 

Need I point out that this is the words of the plaintiff not actually AMD and it's his interpretation and recollection.

 

So we have specific filed complaint directly about the shared FPU and marketing claims from the plaintiffs understanding, not actual direct examples of the problematic marketing. I can say AMD said many things, but did they?

 

I'll invite you to actually go look at AMD bulldozer marketing and review guide materials and compare those to the wording of the filed complaint.

Spoiler

 

 

 

If there was significant market deception why is it that only a single private class action lawsuit has been filed? Where are all the consumer protection authority investigations in any of the hundred odd countries that exist, or at a minimum the EU, AUS/NZ, USA, Canada etc. There are none, it's just some pissed off guy which I don't actually believe, my belief is this was nothing more than an educated opportunistic law suit and the plaintiff was never deceived and knew full well what the product was before purchase. 

[spartaman64]

15 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

It was half performing cores in quite a few use cases, the FX 8 cores were beaten by dual core i3's and locked quad core i5's, except for some apps that could see the 8 cores or were optimized for how the bulldozer cores worked. I agree with you, a company should be allowed to have inferior products, except AMD was marketing their product as being superior compared to the competitor yet for the tasks most people bought them for the performance was worse. It's like buying a V8 pickup truck but you can only use 4 of the cylinders unless you're towing a large trailer.

we should sue amd for advertising threadripper as 32 cores

[Trixanity]

3 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

If there was significant market deception why is it that only a single private class action lawsuit has been filed? Where are all the consumer protection authority investigations in any of the hundred odd countries that exist, or at a minimum the EU, AUS/NZ, USA, Canada etc. There are none, it's just some pissed off guy which I don't actually believe, my belief is this was nothing more than an educated opportunistic law suit and the plaintiff was never deceived and knew full well what the product was before purchase. 

School is in session.

[Curious Pineapple]

I'm glad I live far far away from this bullshit, unfortunately the bullshit is starting to spread.

[mr moose]

10 hours ago, leadeater said:

They most certainly did market them the same.

 

 

 

 

"Unbeatable 6 core Technology" which were handily beaten by 4 Intel cores.

"SIX Real Cores for massive computing performance"

"More cores, More performance, Very affordable"

"Six-core processors for a new era of content creation"

The closest one you have there is the top one, the second one qualifies that more cores is only in relation to previous AMD CPU's and does not reference performance, The last image has a foot note that clearly indicates not all features can be obtainable unless you have specific hardware/software.  That is a very important distinction that marketers make to avoid litigation of this type.

 

Quote

Need I dig out more marketing spin?

You can, but they need to be as specific as the claims made regarding bulldozer.  You know it is also possible that one or two slide images like that can be missed or that they may not have been used in consumer campaigns.

 

Quote

Actually it's sticking specially to what was claimed with no assumptions or inference beyond the exact words used. What was claimed was multi tasking, not gaming, not light threaded works loads, not anything other than multi tasking. Can you materially show this is not the case? Can you show that consumers were actually deceived, beyond not doing due diligence which would be grounds for consumer protections to kick in.

 

Actually what was claimed was they couldn't process 8 simultaneous threads at once.  What we are saying is that claiming 8 pure performing native cores that perform better (due to their purity), is wrong because they share so much resource they are not capable of doing either of those claims. And the general consumer is not ignorant to assume they would be better based ion that material.

 

Quote

But hang on what was the actual filed complaint again?

 

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/06/amd_sued_cores/

https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/08/27/amd-eight-core-settlement.pdf

Not sure how that changes anything I've said.

 

Quote

Need I point out that this is the words of the plaintiff not actually AMD and it's his interpretation and recollection.

:

It was AMD's marketing material and was printed on every online ad for the product (still is):

https://www.newegg.com/amd-fx-8000-series-fx-8350-black-edition/p/N82E16819113284

https://www.umart.com.au/AMD-FX-8370-Black-Edition-8-Core-Socket-AM3+-CPU-Processor-with-Wraith-Cooler_35155G.html?id=35155

https://www.overclockers.co.uk/amd-piledriver-fx-8-eight-core-9590-black-edition-4.70ghz-5.00ghz-turbo-socket-am3-processor-cp-360-am.html

 

So unless all these retailers just happened to write up exactly the same description, then no it was definitely from AMD.

 

Quote

So we have specific filed complaint directly about the shared FPU and marketing claims from the plaintiffs understanding, not actual direct examples of the problematic marketing. I can say AMD said many things, but did they?

They are direct marketing claims,  the description op the problem is enough to hold true for a false advertising case.

Quote

I'll invite you to actually go look at AMD bulldozer marketing and review guide materials and compare those to the wording of the filed complaint.

Done, I posted several links above and even your screenshots have that exact wording in them.

 

 

Quote

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

If there was significant market deception why is it that only a single private class action lawsuit has been filed? Where are all the consumer protection authority investigations in any of the hundred odd countries that exist, or at a minimum the EU, AUS/NZ, USA, Canada etc. There are none, it's just some pissed off guy which I don't actually believe, my belief is this was nothing more than an educated opportunistic law suit and the plaintiff was never deceived and knew full well what the product was before purchase. 

 

I don't know, you'd have to ask some sort of social law expert.   but the lack of other cases hardly changes the facts regarding this one.

[Dabombinable]

Well the CPU were physically incapable of acting like an 8 core in all situations. Unlike for example the Phenom II X6 1055T which actually performed like a hex core in all multi threaded situations.

[leadeater]

53 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Actually what was claimed was they couldn't process 8 simultaneous threads at once.  What we are saying is that claiming 8 pure performing native cores that perform better (due to their purity), is wrong because they share so much resource they are not capable of doing either of those claims. And the general consumer is not ignorant to assume they would be better based ion that material.

See there is the problem though, the CPU could perform 8. The wording used in the complain didn't say sometimes could or couldn't just that it wasn't capable yet it can, in fact as long as you were using 128 bit SSE you could even do 8 FP operations but since everything is optimized for Intel 256 bit FP is the go to because it's much higher performance on Intel.

 

Purity here is completely subjective and fall back on the what is a core argument, one that will never be settled and shouldn't be in court as I've explained why, stupid to want to see that happen honestly if you care about CPU technology at all.

 

53 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I don't know, you'd have to ask some sort of social law expert.   but the lack of other cases hardly changes the facts regarding this one.

It does because if it were a problem the, as you know, very good consumer protection authorities that do exist would have gotten a complaint by an AMD customer at some point, maybe multiple complaints, and if there was strong merit investigated officially. Didn't happen, any private person can sue that doesn't mean there was actually marketing deception happening. And I'm educated enough to know that if I were to do so I could present a strong enough case with the correct legal support, which again doesn't mean I was deceived only that I'm sure I could win a legal challenge.

 

53 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You can, but they need to be as specific as the claims made regarding bulldozer.  You know it is also possible that one or two slide images like that can be missed or that they may not have been used in consumer campaigns.

That's the problem they are the same, the complaint is using his interpretation and if you haven't noticed the marketing of Phenom II and Bulldozer is very similar. I used webarchive to view the AMD website at the time of both these products release, as that is the source of the complaint marketing, and the way he read it he could equally claim the same thing, 6 Phenom cores are not faster than 4 Intel cores and was deceived. Here it makes no difference as to whether Bulldozer has 4 or 8 cores his complaint was the performance claims made.

 

[mr moose]

33 minutes ago, leadeater said:

See there is the problem though, the CPU could perform 8. The wording used in the complain didn't say sometimes could or couldn't just that it wasn't capable yet it can, in fact as long as you were using 128 bit SSE you could even do 8 FP operations but since everything is optimized for Intel 256 bit FP is the go to because it's much higher performance on Intel.

The advertising didn't specify which tasks where better or which processors it was better than. therefore it only had to be worse than in one scenario to be false advertising.  If the ad says it's better because it has 8 cores then it has to be better than anything with less than 8 cores.  Process, or type FP or anything like that is irrelevant.   That's how false advertising laws work, they do not hinge on partials unless those partials are specifically misleading.

 

Quote

Purity here is completely subjective and fall back on the what is a core argument, one that will never be settled and shouldn't be in court as I've explained why, stupid to want to see that happen honestly if you care about CPU technology at all.

This isn't about the technology, this is about the product claims in marketing and the end result for the consumer.  words when used in sequence have a message and meaning, it is clear what AMD were trying to insinuate and the end result in their product did not match that message, ergo end result is false advertising.

 

Quote

And one of these are actually what was in the filed complaint, his wording is different, and the settlement only specifies AMD's website.

What are you talking about, the sentence is exactly the same.  no wording has changed, this sentence from the plaintiff:

" the industry’s first and only native 8-core desktop processor for unmatched multitasking and pure core performance. "

 

Appears in AMD's product description on their website and every online resellers description of the product.  What is different?

 

 

Quote

It does because if it were a problem the, as you know, very good consumer protection authorities that do exist would have gotten a complaint by an AMD customer at some point, maybe multiple complaints, and if there was strong merit investigated officially. Didn't happen, any private person can sue that doesn't mean there was actually marketing deception happening. And I'm educated enough to know that if I were to do so I could present a strong enough case with the correct legal support, which again doesn't mean I was deceived only that I'm sure I could win a legal challenge.

there are no lawsuits against lots of things, That does';t make for a solid argument against what is clear to some people as false advertising.

 

Quote

That's the problem they are the same, the complaint is using his interpretation and if you haven't noticed the marketing of Phenom II and Bulldozer is very similar. I used webarchive to view the AMD website at the time of both these products release, as that is the source of the complaint marketing, and the way he read it he could equally claim the same thing, 6 Phenom cores are not faster than 4 Intel cores and was deceived. Here it makes no difference as to whether Bulldozer has 4 or 8 cores his complaint was the performance claims made.

 

 

Similar is not the same, there is a reason the plaintiff is using a specific example and only suing for the bulldozer. Had the other examples you listed been specifically arguable there is no reason to assume they wouldn't have been included in the case.

 

And besides all that, you are still ignoring that it only takes one false claim that makes a reasonable inference (maybe not to you, but if this thread shows us anything it does to others), to be enough for false advertising.

 

Again like the coles bread issue, they lost their case claiming the bread was fresh baked, it was actually cooked that morning, And baked daily, but the inference was that the whole loaf was baked the morning of sale and not pre baked a day earlier.  False advertising does not fall apart just because some people can explain it technically.  It is about the general consumers interpretation of the manufacturers claims.

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The advertising didn't specify which tasks where better or which processors it was better than. therefore it only had to be worse than in one scenario to be false advertising.  If the ad says it's better because it has 8 cores then it has to be better than anything with less than 8 cores.  Process, or type FP or anything like that is irrelevant.   That's how false advertising laws work, they do not hinge on partials unless those partials are specifically misleading.

Come now you know that actually isn't true or how it works, AMD Zen, Intel's own products. The huge array of other product marketing outside of CPUs or computers. Finding a case where something is inferior isn't the same as disproving the specific marketing claims. If that is how you truly want to play it then I see no reason to continue, because that is just not how marketing works in reality or false marketing litigation up held by consumer protection authorities. Even those authorities weigh issues against reasonable and rational consumer thought and investigation, because there is a difference between poor decision making or ignorance and deception and we all know this.

 

And it was very clearly stated on AMD's website that the FP scheduler was shared and could either perform a single large operation or two, as I highlighted earlier in the screenshoot. This information was stated, failure to read is not deception. So even a lay person could figure out that if two could work together as one then 8 / 2 = 4.

Or operating separately with each core. Hmm if it can do 1 per core and there is 8 that must mean it can do 8, but what about this teaming together part? Guess that means half of 8?

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

This isn't about the technology, this is about the product claims in marketing and the end result for the consumer.  words when used in sequence have a message and meaning, it is clear what AMD were trying to insinuate and the end result in their product did not match that message, ergo end result is false advertising.

The claim is it can do 8 and it can do 8, there is situation where it can do 4 and as such declared. Ergo not false advertising because information was disclosed.

 

21 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Again like the coles bread issue, they lost their case claiming the bread was fresh baked, it was actually cooked that morning, And baked daily, but the inference was that the whole loaf was baked the morning of sale and not pre baked a day earlier.  False advertising does not fall apart just because some people can explain it technically.  It is about the general consumers interpretation of the manufacturers claims.

Literally the bread was not baked when being claimed, literally Bulldozer can do 8. These are not similar at all.

 

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What are you talking about, the sentence is exactly the same.  no wording has changed, this sentence from the plaintiff:

" the industry’s first and only native 8-core desktop processor for unmatched multitasking and pure core performance. "

 

Appears in AMD's product description on their website and every online resellers description of the product.  What is different?

Yea sorry just woke up, thought it was different and he was using a summation of two separate claims, re-checked after posting. I removed it from my post but you were already replying to the original.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Come now you know that actually isn't true or how it works, AMD Zen, Intel's own products. The huge array of other product marketing outside of CPUs or computers. Finding a case where something is inferior isn't the same as disproving the specific marketing claims. If that is how you truly want to play it then I see no reason to continue, because that is just not how marketing works in reality or false marketing litigation up held by consumer protection authorities. Even those authorities weigh issues against reasonable and rational consumer thought and investigation, because there is a difference between poor decision making or ignorance and deception and we all know this.

 

And it was very clearly stated on AMD's website that the FP scheduler was shared and could either perform a single large operation or two, as I highlighted earlier in the screenshoot. This information was stated, failure to read is not deception. So even a lay person could figure out that if two could work together as one then 8 / 2 = 4.

Or operating separately with each core. Hmm if it can do 1 per core and there is 8 that must mean it can do 8, but what about this teaming together part? Guess that means half of 8?

The claim is it can do 8 and it can do 8, there is situation where it can do 4 and as such declared. Ergo not false advertising because information was disclosed.

You are totally ignoring the part were they claimed it performed better because of the number of cores. Remember they said it was "unmatched in multitasking AND pure core performance" ergo it only has to perform worse than something with less cores to be false advertising.  they don't even need to argue the technical definition of a core.   

 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Literally the bread was not baked when being claimed, literally Bulldozer can do 8. These are not similar at all.

The difference is only in interpretation.

 

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yea sorry just woke up, thought it was different and he was using a summation of two separate claims, re-checked after posting. I removed it from my post but you were already replying to the original.

 

that's o.k. 

[leadeater]

45 minutes ago, mr moose said:

The difference is only in interpretation.

Let me put it this way, if half the bread was baked on the day and half baked the previous day and I was claiming all the bread was fresh baked you can disprove this and I would be guilty of false advertising. If however I place two sets of bread beside each other in the fresh bread section and had the date and time of when it was baked on each one then it would not be false advertising, as is carried out in supermarkets here. You could still complain if you didn't read the label but that is on the customer, sure I might listen to the complaint and put some kind of divider between the bread to give a visual cue there is a difference but I don't have to.

 

45 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You are totally ignoring the part were they claimed it performed better because of the number of cores. Remember they said it was "unmatched in multitasking AND pure core performance" ergo it only has to perform worse than something with less cores to be false advertising.  they don't even need to argue the technical definition of a core.

And this can cut vegetables better than a trained chef.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmXMP0boZYA

 

Having actually used the above item, it's rubbish, it does not take 1 second to slice things. It can, but not always, so false advertising?

 

So what is pure core performance? A measure against the competition? Or a measure of the actual capability of the core. Do I test a Ford by actually driving Holden? And multi tasking, can I disprove that by using a benchmark that tests multi threading? Nonspecific generalized marketing claims are actually allowed, now I'm not actually saying it wasn't unreasonable for this person to make the logical leap that since it has 8 cores it should have great performance but that is being done by the purchaser not AMD. If you don't check out the competition for the competing products and their claims and you make no effort to check such claims then you did not make a reasonable effort to make an informed purchase.

 

As long as you can prove a claim is reasonably true then it doesn't matter if you can find cases where it is not true. So was the claims being made unreasonable and/or was pertinent information withheld?

[TempestCatto]

Man there's so much flaming happening right now. If anyone finds out how to claim your prize, kindly let me know. Even though my 8320 allowed me to play GTAV on mid to high settings at 60fps, free money is free money 

[Dabombinable]

32 minutes ago, TempestCatto said:

Man there's so much flaming happening right now. If anyone finds out how to claim your prize, kindly let me know. Even though my 8320 allowed me to play GTAV on mid to high settings at 60fps, free money is free money 

But not smoothly...

[TempestCatto]

19 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

But not smoothly...

On the contrary, it actually was mostly smooth. That is until modders starting messing in the lobby. That or lots of explosions.

[NumLock21]

On 8/27/2019 at 8:12 PM, quakeguy said:

Does that include FX-4300 (Vishera) CPUs as well?  Because I have an FX-4300 and FX-8350.  I just made $70 by doing nothing!

No, you got a bit of the money back that you've paid for them cpus.

[mr moose]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Let me put it this way, if half the bread was baked on the day and half baked the previous day and I was claiming all the bread was fresh baked you can disprove this and I would be guilty of false advertising. If however I place two sets of bread beside each other in the fresh bread section and had the date and time of when it was baked on each one then it would not be false advertising, as is carried out in supermarkets here.

 

They all said they were baked fresh daily, the issue was they were half baked at the factory and finished off at the supermarket.  So technically they were correct in saying baked on the day of sale, however the inference was a complete bake when that did not happen.  The inference here is 8 cores that are unmatched and pore performing.  We know they are easily matched and not pure cores as far as the general consumer is concerned, ergo false advertising.

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

You could still complain if you didn't read the label but that is on the customer, sure I might listen to the complaint and put some kind of divider between the bread to give a visual cue there is a difference but I don't have to.

The only thing the label said was baked fresh daily.  Which is technically true, but it conveys a different message to the consumer than what actually happens.   So while you can argue technical truths about a product til the cows come home, the actual message conveys a different understanding to the consumer. 

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

And this can cut vegetables better than a trained chef.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmXMP0boZYA

 

Having actually used the above item, it's rubbish, it does not take 1 second to slice things. It can, but not always, so false advertising?

 

If they can't reproduce that claim then sue them.  Because that would be  a fairly classical case of false advertising.

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

So what is pure core performance? A measure against the competition? Or a measure of the actual capability of the core. Do I test a Ford by actually driving Holden? And multi tasking, can I disprove that by using a benchmark that tests multi threading? Nonspecific generalized marketing claims are actually allowed, now I'm not actually saying it wasn't unreasonable for this person to make the logical leap that since it has 8 cores it should have great performance but that is being done by the purchaser not AMD. If you don't check out the competition for the competing products and their claims and you make no effort to check such claims then you did not make a reasonable effort to make an informed purchase.

It simply conveys the inference that the cores are not mixed or contain unnecessary parts.  Each core can operate cleanly without interruption from other parts (if it shares the thread handler and L2 cache then I would argue that is not true). 

 

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

As long as you can prove a claim is reasonably true then it doesn't matter if you can find cases where it is not true. So was the claims being made unreasonable and/or was pertinent information withheld?

Except that it's not true,  the marketing specifically claims "unmatched"  if another product is an equal or better than that claim is untrue.  There is no qualifiers in the material to differentiate between conditions, so the statement that the cores are unmatched is either true or false, I think you'd foolish to try and claim the bulldozer cores were unmatched. This is why that was target for the case.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

The inference here is 8 cores that are unmatched and pore performing.  We know they are easily matched and not pure cores as far as the general consumer is concerned, ergo false advertising.

The 8 were unmatched, the cores were also pure unless you want to start the argument of what is a core again. Who are you to say what is and is not a core and there are 8 of a lot of core components as to what is a core and even the shared FP is able to be used for 8 128bit FP operations. If you are going to question the purity of the cores then you're going to need to define what a core is and we can all have our opinions of what that is but opinions are only that.

 

Yes the AMD cores were not 100% pure Intel cores, they still aren't today.

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

It simply conveys the inference that the cores are not mixed or contain unnecessary parts.  Each core can operate cleanly without interruption from other parts (if it shares the thread handler and L2 cache then I would argue that is not true). 

They do not share schedulers for INT, there are one for each core. Only the FP scheduler is shared but is capable of issuing two 128bit operations to two separate 128bit FP execution units. It's just too bad that most things are either Intel optimized for 256bit FP or other restrictions in the architecture mean unless the software is well optimized for bulldozer you'd end up with only 1 FP operation per cycle not two. Shared L2 means literally nothing by the way and has nothing to do with anything here.

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

If they can't reproduce that claim then sue them.  Because that would be  a fairly classical case of false advertising.

But  AMD can reproduce the claim.

 

Fair and reasonable is a measure for false advertising and consumer protection, or else I'll bring out my Xeon examples from the time frame that has both 8 cores and 10 cores and disprove every single claim AMD made, even the only one with 8 cores.

[meenmeen1103]

Semantics and shenanigans. Language such as: more, faster, best, super, massive, optimum etc is commonly accepted as just general marketing gibberish when used in a statement that doesn't make a clear and direct comparison to a competing product. That said, it would be great if manufacturers stopped using such language to bloat their products appearance but it has always ultimately fallen onto the consumer to research what is expected of a product based on real comparisons. 

[mr moose]

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The 8 were unmatched, the cores were also pure unless you want to start the argument of what is a core again. Who are you to say what is and is not a core and there are 8 of a lot of core components as to what is a core and even the shared FP is able to be used for 8 128bit FP operations.

 

 

Not according to AMD, this was the first "true" 8 core remember. the first with 8 "native" cores.  they are truly separating this from all other processors. And if you think working on a technicality that they meant all cores were matched to each other then you are ignoring what they claimed.   If you asked a 1000 people in the street what  unmatched meant in the sentence "unmatched multitasking and pure performance" meant they would tell you it was the best performing product.

 

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

If you are going to question the purity of the cores then you're going to need to define what a core is and we can all have our opinions of what that is but opinions are only that.

You don't need to define what a core is to accept pure as an adjective.   It means unadulterated and not effected by mixed ingredients (in this case each core can function 100% on it's own).

 

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yes the AMD cores were not 100% pure Intel cores, they still aren't today.

Huh?

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

They do not share schedulers for INT, there are one for each core. Only the FP scheduler is shared but is capable of issuing two 128bit operations to two separate 128bit FP execution units. It's just too bad that most things are either Intel optimized for 256bit FP or other restrictions in the architecture mean unless the software is well optimized for bulldozer you'd end up with only 1 FP operation per cycle not two. Shared L2 means literally nothing by the way and has nothing to do with anything here.

Your not describing an unmatched and pure core, your describing a core that share resources and is easily beaten by existing 4 core processors.  Almost exactly what AMD said it wasn't

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

But  AMD can reproduce the claim.

No they can't Intel processors of the day matched their performance easily.

20 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Fair and reasonable is a measure for false advertising and consumer protection, or else I'll bring out my Xeon examples from the time frame that has both 8 cores and 10 cores and disprove every single claim AMD made, even the only one with 8 cores.

 

Fair and reasonable seems to be the bit you are striving to ignore.  I keep saying that false advertising hinges on what the general consumers interprets from the claims.  It is fair and reasonable to assume form their exhibit sentence that the processor does not have an equal because it has 8 "native" cores.  No one needs to know what native means to find out that a 4 core part from Intel was just as good, when they were told nothing was.

[leadeater]

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

Fair and reasonable seems to be the bit you are striving to ignore.  I keep saying that false advertising hinges on what the general consumers interprets from the claims.  It is fair and reasonable to assume form their exhibit sentence that the processor does not have an equal because it has 8 "native" cores.  No one needs to know what native means to find out that a 4 core part from Intel was just as good, when they were told nothing was.

And yet you are not being fair and reasonable towards actual CPU designers, actual industry processionals that designed an 8 core CPU using a different approach than had been done before and in all your wisdom can declare over top of these experts that they in fact did not create an 8 core processor. It has 8 native, not very good cores, that can in total be capable of performing well. Pure core performance does not have to mean that those individual cores must actually be the best performing cores on the market, that is your interpretation of it. Had they meant it as literally as you are trying to do then one would actually say it, however AMD did not actually say the cores themselves were the best performance cores on the market.

 

Yes lets crush all innovation because change is bad or scary or currently not well supported. Better yet lets fight it out in court so we end up with some nonsense legal definition of what a core is forever binding the industry to what that is, yes that it the most logical and fair thing to do.

 

The customer isn't always right, the customer isn't also always a fool either. The customer also bears responsibility for their purchasing decisions and poor decision making doesn't mean they were a victim of false advertising or deception, maybe they just failed in their own personal duty.

 

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

If you asked a 1000 people in the street what  unmatched meant in the sentence "unmatched multitasking and pure performance" meant they would tell you it was the best performing product.

And if you followed up with the next question with "Would you actually expect this $300 product to be a better performing product than the $5000 product" all of them would say no. If you also ask them specifically about each core they could also likely answer with that they expect each individual one to be the best performance but that isn't actually necessary for the product as a whole to be the best performance product.

 

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

You don't need to define what a core is to accept pure as an adjective.   It means unadulterated and not effected by mixed ingredients (in this case each core can function 100% on it's own).

Cores have undergone vast changes over the entire life of the computing industry, things have changed, what is in a core has changed, what is in a processor has changed. The mixed ingredients has always been a thing, it isn't new or been a problem until as a result a sub par product was produced but mediocrity doesn't make something less of what it actually is. I am a bad singer, if I were to sing I would therefore not be singing because I am bad at it?

 

3 hours ago, mr moose said:

No they can't Intel processors of the day matched their performance easily.

Doing what? The same task AMD used to make that claim or some other thing that actually isn't "multi tasking". 100% agree Intel CPUs performed better on individual tests across basically everything but is that actually counter to multi tasking. Multi tasking wording was used because of how non meaning it actually is, when an actual performance claim is made that pertains to something testable the conditions of the test are declared so you can reproduce it. Multi tasking is a completely abstract non thing. If we want to get technical about it computers cannot actually multi task at all, they do a series of things very quickly so fast it appears to be doing more than one thing at a time to us.

[mr moose]

Just now, leadeater said:

And yet you are not being fair and reasonable towards actual CPU designers, actual industry processionals that designed an 8 core CPU using a different approach than had been done before and in all your wisdom can declare over top of these experts that they in fact did not create an 8 core processor.

That's not true. I never said that. 

 

Just now, leadeater said:

It has 8 native, not very good cores, that can in total be capable of performing well. Pure core performance does not have to mean that those individual cores must actually be the best performing cores on the market, that is your interpretation of it. Had they meant it as literally as you are trying to do then one would actually say it, however AMD did not actually say the cores themselves were the best performance cores on the market.

It does when they are marketed as "unmatched".

 

Just now, leadeater said:

Yes lets crush all innovation because change is bad or scary or currently not well supported. Better yet lets fight it out in court so we end up with some nonsense legal definition of what a core is forever binding the industry to what that is, yes that it the most logical and fair thing to do.

 

Huh?  no one is crushing anything, it's simply addressing misleading advertising.

Just now, leadeater said:

The customer isn't always right, the customer isn't also always a fool either. The customer also bears responsibility for their purchasing decisions and poor decision making doesn't mean they were a victim of false advertising or deception, maybe they just failed in their own personal duty.

 

And?

Just now, leadeater said:

And if you followed up with the next question with "Would you actually expect this $300 product to be a better performing product than the $5000" all of them would say no. If you also ask them specifically about each core they could also likely answer with that they expect each individual one to be the best performance but that isn't actually necessary for the product as a whole to be the best performance product.

This whole case is about false advertising, not trying to figure out if a consumer can be lead by asking questions not presented in the marketing material in question.   The marketing material did not qualify price, end use case, specific loads, or anything of the nature, it simply said "unmatched multitasking and pure core performance" 

 

Just now, leadeater said:

Cores have undergone vast changes over the entire life of the computing industry, things have changed, what is in a core has changed, what is in a processor has changed. The mixed ingredients has always been a thing, it isn't new or been a problem until as a result a sub par product was produced but mediocrity doesn't make something less of what it actually is. I am a bad singer, if I were to sing I would therefore not being singing because I am bad at it?

You have argued that already,  no one is upset because it was a mediocre CPU, they are upset because it wasn't unmatched as claimed. Each core did not live up to the unmatched core experience promised.

 

Just now, leadeater said:

Doing what? The same task AMD used to make that claim or some other thing that actually isn't "multi tasking". 100% agree Intel CPUs performance better on individual test across basically everything but is that actually counter to multi tasking. Multi tasking wording was used because of how non meaning it actually is, when an actual performance claim is made that pertains to something testable the conditions of the test are declared to you can reproduce it. Multi tasking is a completely abstract non thing. If we want to get technical about it computers cannot actually multi task at all, they do a series of things very quickly so fast it appears to be doing more than one thing at a time to us.

 

AMD's claim was they performed the best ("unmatched") at both multitasking and pure core performance (which I read as the pure performance of each core, like I am sure most people would interpret), not the best at somethings but THE BEST, and they did this claim it was because they were the only one with 8 native cores.  If that was the case then there should not have been any task that Intel was better at.   When it comes to general statements in advertising, companies don't get to find the 1% case where something is true and make it sound like its true all the time.  This is why there are nearly always foot notes and caveats on advertising (the classic fine print).  Where AMD failed was in placing suitable caveats on their material and leaving it sound like the CPU was the king of the hill for everything than anything with less than 8 real cores.

 

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It does when they are marketed as "unmatched".

So you want to ignore the whole sentence and cut it down to a specific part and take part of what was ignored and add that on to the bit you want to focus on so you make it better suit your argument. 'Unmatched multitasking and pure core performance' is not the same as 'Unmatched pure core performance'. The usage of and in that sentence is a separator of two claims, remove the word pure and yes the sentence now means both unmatched multitasking and core performance. Lets play a bit of word switching, "Pure multitasking and unmatched core performance". May I ask what this means to you?

[mr moose]

30 minutes ago, leadeater said:

So you want to ignore the whole sentence and cut it down to a specific part and take part of what was ignored and add that on to the bit you want to focus on so you make it better suit your argument. 'Unmatched multitasking and pure core performance' is not the same as 'Unmatched pure core performance'. The usage of and in that sentence is a separator of two claims, remove the word pure and yes the sentence now means both unmatched multitasking and core performance. Lets play a bit of word switching, "Pure multitasking and unmatched core performance". May I ask what this means to you?

The word "and" is not just a seperator, it is often used as an additional conjunction.  The sentence grammatically can be read as unmatched multitasking and unmatched pure core performance.  That is the problem.    Maybe you didn't read it that way but grammatically it is accurate both ways.   Why do you think they put so much emphasis on that one line for the whole case?  

 

Also if you switch the words around and move the adjective to after the conjunction you get a whole different message.  Changing the structure of the sentence so it only means one thing is what AMD should have done at the start, then they might not have had any of this mess.  

 

EDIT: although I see the confusion in that because pure is an adjective too, but it does not describe performance, it describes a state.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

The word "and" is not just a seperator, it is often used as an additional conjunction.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

EDIT: although I see the confusion in that because pure is an adjective too, but it does not describe performance, it describes a state.

I agree it can be used that way but that's not how I see it being used here. I don't think the intention was either given that AMD knew that their cores were on an individual level not the best either and the actual architecture design choice from the beginning was to sacrifice aspects of core performance to increase it in other areas, likely as a deliberate choice to increase the number of cores to boast they have the most. The whole intention was to boast they have the most cores, more than anyone else, not that each of them are actually better.

 

The entire sentence to me is nothing but marketing fluff for the purpose of boasting the total number of cores, extolling the benefits in meaningless terms such as multitasking and pure (used as great amount), neither of those actually mean anything however you can easily think it means more.

 

Pure performance here reads the same way as pure energy, if you describe something or someone as having pure energy you are saying they have a lot of it. Pure core performance here doesn't mean it's the best above all else just that it has a lot of it, which I'll agree is a stretch considering how not good performing they were.

 

If you read the entire page AMD does seek to explain what is actually going on in regards to floating point and indicates that not all things are equal, if you don't see it or doesn't cause you to stop and ponder I don't see that as grounds to say legally there was false advertising going on.

 

Blind faith in marketing jargon will inevitably lead to purchases that are not best fit, this is something well understood for a while now.

[Drak3]

4 hours ago, leadeater said:

It has 8 native, not very good cores, that can in total be capable of performing well

IIRC, Bulldozer cores were actually pretty good in many usecases prior to Bulldozer's inception. Before the heyday of the FPU that happened in the same time frame as Bulldozer's release.