AMD isn't the only one who pulled stuff.

[Dabombinable]

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

Either way, CMT modules while not the same as SMT processing cores can be sold in pretty much the same way with minimal confusion. 4 modules 8 threads vs 4 cores 8 threads. Both are true and both won't mislead people into thinking the CMT CPU has for example 8 cores.

[vanished]

Either way, CMT modules while not the same as SMT processing cores can be sold in pretty much the same way with minimal confusion. 4 modules 8 threads vs 4 cores 8 threads. Both are true and both won't mislead people into thinking the CMT CPU has for example 8 cores.

 

Maybe we can do one better though.  Come up with some sort of generic description that indicates what it can and can't do in a way that isn't specific to a certain design or chip layout.  Like just state the max number of threads it can execute "simultaneously" (maybe still not the best word) and the max number of threads it can execute without them "colliding".  For an i7 for example, that would be 8 and 4.  If we get those words in quotes chosen right, it should be a good way to represent general capabilities to the consumer in a simplistic way

[Morgan MLGman]

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

That's not the point. What I mean is, from the point of view of a lawyer, he will win the case easily for AMD cause since there isn't a clearly specified definition of a core, and the second reason is, he can just say that this is how the architecture was designed, the architecture was made public, and this is how a core looks in that architecture.

[vanished]

That's not the point. What I mean is, from the point of view of a lawyer, he will win the case easily for AMD cause since there isn't a clearly specified definition of a core, and the second reason is, he can just say that this is how the architecture was designed, the architecture was made public, and this is how a core looks in that architecture.

And if none of that works, there's always the third option

[jcastro_805]

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.

I see thanks