AMD isn't the only one who pulled stuff.

[Dabombinable]

Many tech companies pull all sorts of questionable things, but our short attention spans leads us to forget and then jump on the band wagon of bashing when another tech company gets caught red handed.

AMD however pulled this crap for over 5 years.

[BrightCandle]

The slight that annoys me the most is the bait and switch for the 3930/3960. Intel gave reviewers an earlier stepping of the processor that was capable of overclocking to 4.9Ghz, some of them even got them to 5Ghz. The actual retail chips however were only capable of about 4.4-4.5Ghz. It took everyone a little while to work out what had happened but Intel specifically sent special made golden sample chips out to reviewers. They are still doing it, take a look at the overclocking results for Skylake and you will find most reviewers basically all getting nice high overclocks, but out in the real world its much more varied. But its not part of the specification so you can't go after them for it, but its the sort of stunt they pull all the time.

 

To me this is the reason I find the tribalism around AMD and Intel so dumb. This are companies, they are vying for your money for a product they make and sell. You shouldn't be supporting one or the other, they are just companies and in the grand scheme of things fairly poorly behaved ones.

[slightlyjaded]

The slight that annoys me the most is the bait and switch for the 3930/3960. Intel gave reviewers an earlier stepping of the processor that was capable of overclocking to 4.9Ghz, some of them even got them to 5Ghz. The actual retail chips however were only capable of about 4.4-4.5Ghz. It took everyone a little while to work out what had happened but Intel specifically sent special made golden sample chips out to reviewers. They are still doing it, take a look at the overclocking results for Skylake and you will find most reviewers basically all getting nice high overclocks, but out in the real world its much more varied. But its not part of the specification so you can't go after them for it, but its the sort of stunt they pull all the time.

 

To me this is the reason I find the tribalism around AMD and Intel so dumb. This are companies, they are vying for your money for a product they make and sell. You shouldn't be supporting one or the other, they are just companies and in the grand scheme of things fairly poorly behaved ones.

really? x99 worked fine. lets note that while intel mentioned that a 20% overclock was possible, and likely for skylake they didn't mention anything beyond that for a reason....When you increase the voltage, you increase the chance of charge skipping to another trace. this might not be an issue at 22nm, but it's pretty serious @ 14nm. They didn't misrepresent shit, sure they sent gold samples to reviewers, wouldn't you if you had a product you wanted taken seriously, but even the reviewers didn't push it far past intel specs.

[KemoKa]

This was spoken about almost a year ago. We already know what happened. Netburst P4 owners already got their $15.

[royalcrown]

This was spoken about almost a year ago. We already know what happened. Netburst P4 owners already got their $15.

Sure, but just try and find the actual ad....I'll send you 5 bucks if you do.

[Tenelia]

Intel has done a lot worse... Just a short trip to Wikipedia will show us that even Microsoft's actions would pale in comparison.

[royalcrown]

Intel has done a lot worse... Just a short trip to Wikipedia will show us that even Microsoft's actions would pale in comparison.

I believe I know what you are referring to...the situation of Intel throwing boatloads of cash at the channel and retailers to freeze AMD out in the early 2000s ?

[aajjeee]

the real problem here is that there is not formal definition for a core, amd has made something very diferent from what had been made in the past, we didnt need an exact definition until now, but what we assumed a core was dosent apply to the bullozer architecture, it isnt 4 cores, and it isnt 8, it seems closer to 8 and performs lower than a 8, the word core is the problem, but since they pretty much had to use it anyway, they chose to interpret it as 8 cores with shared resources. this  issue will be settled in court but i have a feeling that amd will be the winer, because in absence of a formal definition of a core, they didnt lie.

[PlayStation 2]

AMD however pulled this crap for over 5 years.

To be fair, they weren't lying about the core count... ???????????????????

[royalcrown]

yeah, and the fac that intel rigged all the results in the megahertz war by having their benchmarking software fasttrack intel resources.....yeah, old news, and we all know it, doesn't change the fact that AMD is struggling to keep up, and we hope a process change will help them stay competitive.

That one I never heard of, interesting....

[Tenelia]

There are no quick-and-easy fixes to this. A key example was the case of Microsoft in the 1990s. Even if you split the company up, the problem is that the individuals would not change their business practices. They would find ways to circumvent whatever measures you take against them, and the same problems would repeat all over again.

 

What can we possibly do against Intel? Splitting it up won't work. The problem is that its technologies have already gotten so far ahead, and so many ordinary stakeholders are already deeply entrenched in using Intel.

 

Make all of Intel's patents free? That would simply cripple USA, and allow Russia or China to rampage across the cyberspace... Or even worse. The repercussions would be deadly.

 

When a company has already gotten so far ahead, it's probably impossible to change a thing.

[slightlyjaded]

That one I never heard of, interesting....

The bit you were referring to earlier. Same incident. Intel's paid their 15 bucks, but the damage was done to AMD.

 

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/193480-intel-finally-agrees-to-pay-15-to-pentium-4-owners-over-amd-athlon-benchmarking-shenanigans

 

This post should provide you with the basics of what was actually done, and how it was done if you're interested.

[BrightCandle]

They said the telecoms couldn't be split up as well due to the tight ties of the infrastructure and patents. The splits world wide didn't always fix the culture but it did create competition and improve the choice in the marketplace. Intel can be split up and its the only practical solution and the sooner the better.

[jcastro_805]

We all know what Intel has done. I like AMD but doing whataboutism doesn't make anything AMD does better.

 

Now I personally don't think the 8 core thing is a big deal at all, but others may feel differently and that's their prerogative 

Sorry for being behind, but what is the 8 core thing?

[vanished]

They said the telecoms couldn't be split up as well due to the tight ties of the infrastructure and patents. The splits world wide didn't always fix the culture but it did create competition and improve the choice in the marketplace. Intel can be split up and its the only practical solution and the sooner the better.

I'd be all for that if we could be promised that improvements will continue at at least the same rate or better; if they split up and all of a sudden no one has the expertise to make good chips anymore, that would suck (obviously)

[DevilishBooster]

You know the 'person' who brings up cases like this, years after the product and documentation have been available, is totally seeking justice for consumers?

 

/s

I want my $1.85 damn it!!!

[Kobathor]

Every company pulls things, why call out Intel specifically?

Because most people praise Intel as a god or something.

[Morgan MLGman]

Sorry for being behind, but what is the 8 core thing?

 

Some retard sued AMD cause their FX architecture is different and their cores are not like Intel's cores. They have 8 cores (FX-8000 series) that share some recourses put in 4 modules with 2 cores each. They still can be called cores theoretically cause there's no strict definition of a CPU core so he will lose the case.

The specs weren't hidden, AMD didn't lie about their architecture, it was public, and anybody that didn't research before purchasing a FX-8000-series CPU... Well, it's their own fault.

[Coaxialgamer]

Does anyone remember Intel's commercial where they claimed the Pentium 4 would make your internet experience faster ? Any Old Timers on here ? I remember it being on TV but oddly enough *cough*, that commercial doesn't seem to be in any archives of Intel commercials i've seen on youtube, even the ones claiming to have ALL the commercials in one video. Pretty sure that some company made sure to delete that on in particular.

I found this :http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=88ancHxItOc

Notice the p3 rig doesnt have a proper graphics accelerator and uses igpu

[Gikero]

I always hated how Intel shoehorned dual core CPUs out with the Pentium D line. Two physical P4 cores that could only talk to each other over your FSB. AMD's Athlon X2 CPUs kicked Intel's chips into the dirt.

Then came Core 2, when Intel got their heads out of their butts.

[Dabombinable]

 

Some retard sued AMD cause their FX architecture is different and their cores are not like Intel's cores. They have 8 cores (FX-8000 series) that share some recourses put in 4 modules with 2 cores each. They still can be called cores theoretically cause there's no strict definition of a CPU core so he will lose the case.

The specs weren't hidden, AMD didn't lie about their architecture, it was public, and anybody that didn't research before purchasing a FX-8000-series CPU... Well, it's their own fault.

 

4 Modules, with 2 Alu per module. CMT shouldn't have been marketed with SMT descriptors.

[iHardware Shelden]

I always hated how Intel shoehorned dual core CPUs out with the Pentium D line. Two physical P4 cores that could only talk to each other over your FSB. AMD's Athlon X2 CPUs kicked Intel's chips into the dirt.

Then came Core 2, when Intel got their heads out of their butts.

But you have to love the Pentium D 945

 

Oh my.... oh god it is a piece of shit but I still love me some Pentium D

[vanished]

4 Modules, with 2 Alu per module. CMT shouldn't have been marketed with SMT descriptors.

in a market where the vast majority of consumers don't even know what a "core" or a "thread" is, I think you'll agree that terminology is far too advanced and thus not practical though

[Dabombinable]

in a market where the vast majority of consumers don't even know what a "core" or a "thread" is, I think you'll agree that terminology is far too advanced and thus not practical though

It wouldn't have been misleading though. And while the term compute core for example is technically true, a lot of people buying laptops with APU, and indeed some of the people selling them, will think of them as being for example 12 core because they are marketed as having 12 compute cores.

[vanished]

It wouldn't have been misleading though. And while the term compute core for example is technically true, a lot of people buying laptops with APU, and indeed some of the people selling them, will think of them as being for example 12 core because they are marketed as having 12 compute cores.

For sure they should have had fine print somewhere (on the box, website, idk) explaining exactly what the product was, but I'm not sure it would have helped or avoided this incident because they would still need to put a basic term "up front" and it thus would have ended in the same result of people not knowing what they are buying and then complaining.  It just would have protected them in court is all