Netac NV7000 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4080 Noctua OC Edition review
MSI Clutch GM51 Wireless mouse review
ASUS ROG STRIX B760-F Gaming WIFI review
Asus ROG Harpe Ace Aim Lab Edition mouse review
SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Headset review
Ryzen 7800X3D preview - 7950X3D One CCD Disabled
MSI VIGOR GK71 SONIC Blue keyboard review
AMD Ryzen 9 7950X3D processor review
FSP Hydro G Pro 1000W (ATX 3.0, 1000W PSU) review
AMD faces Lawsuit over Core Count on Bulldozer
AMD faces a lawsuit over the core count on Bulldozer processors, reports legalnewsline.com In claiming that its Bulldozer CPU had “8-cores”. The suit alleges AMD built the Bulldozer processors by stripping away components from two cores and combining what was left to make a single “module.” In doing so, however, the cores no longer work independently.
As legalnewsline.com describes: AMD allegedly tricked consumers into buying its Bulldozer processors by overstating the number of cores contained in these chips.
Tony Dickey, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a class-action lawsuit on Oct. 26 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) for alleged violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, false advertising, fraud, breach of express warrant, negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.
As a result, Dickey argues that AMD’s Bulldozer CPUs suffer from material performance degradation, and cannot perform eight instructions simultaneously and independently as claimed. He alleges that average consumers in the market for computer CPUs lack the requisite technical expertise to understand the design of AMD's processors and trust the company to convey accurate specifications regarding its CPUs. Because AMD did not convey accurate specifications, Dickey argues that tens of thousands of consumers have been misled into buying Bulldozer CPUs that cannot perform the way a true eight-core CPU would.
Dickey is suing for damages, including statutory and punitive damages, litigation expenses, pre- and post-judgment interest, as well as other injunctive and declaratory relief as is deemed reasonable. He is represented by Samuel M. Lasser from Edelson PC in San Francisco, California; and Rafey S. Balabanian, Alexander T.H. Nguyen and Amir C. Missaghi from Edelson PC in Chicago, Illinois.
U.S. District Court For the Northern District of California, San Jose Division Case number 5:15-cv-04922-PSG
JoseyWales
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 2005-04-09
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 2005-04-09
#5184206 Posted on: 11/06/2015 01:17 PM
Not good, not good at all..
This is way worse than the 3.5 mem issue vn went through. It's out and out *****ulent and they will certainly take a big hit on this one as that is a lot of cpu's to replace. What is interesting is that the company just shed it's graphics division and now news of this.
Things don't bode well for them and this is the sort of things that ends companies.. I don't think it will be the case with them but it is really going to hurt them.
I can't recall the specs on the PS and X1 but don't both of them use bulldozer cpu?
Not good, not good at all..
This is way worse than the 3.5 mem issue vn went through. It's out and out *****ulent and they will certainly take a big hit on this one as that is a lot of cpu's to replace. What is interesting is that the company just shed it's graphics division and now news of this.
Things don't bode well for them and this is the sort of things that ends companies.. I don't think it will be the case with them but it is really going to hurt them.
I can't recall the specs on the PS and X1 but don't both of them use bulldozer cpu?
CPC_RedDawn
Senior Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: 2008-01-06
Senior Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: 2008-01-06
#5184207 Posted on: 11/06/2015 01:23 PM
Not good, not good at all..
This is way worse than the 3.5 mem issue vn went through. It's out and out *****ulent and they will certainly take a big hit on this one as that is a lot of cpu's to replace. What is interesting is that the company just shed it's graphics division and now news of this.
Things don't bode well for them and this is the sort of things that ends companies.. I don't think it will be the case with them but it is really going to hurt them.
I can't recall the specs on the PS and X1 but don't both of them use bulldozer cpu?
Kaveri based architecture called Jaguar.
It's low end APU stuff in those boxes not full bulldozer otherwise they wouldn't meet the 150W requirements of the FCC.
Not good, not good at all..
This is way worse than the 3.5 mem issue vn went through. It's out and out *****ulent and they will certainly take a big hit on this one as that is a lot of cpu's to replace. What is interesting is that the company just shed it's graphics division and now news of this.
Things don't bode well for them and this is the sort of things that ends companies.. I don't think it will be the case with them but it is really going to hurt them.
I can't recall the specs on the PS and X1 but don't both of them use bulldozer cpu?
Kaveri based architecture called Jaguar.
It's low end APU stuff in those boxes not full bulldozer otherwise they wouldn't meet the 150W requirements of the FCC.
antonelli3573
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 2015-11-06
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 2015-11-06
#5184214 Posted on: 11/06/2015 01:34 PM
Better call Saul...
I know a guy who knows a guy that has a true 8 core CPU.
Better call Saul...
I know a guy who knows a guy that has a true 8 core CPU.
RzrTrek
Senior Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 2012-04-16
Senior Member
Posts: 2549
Joined: 2012-04-16
#5184218 Posted on: 11/06/2015 01:38 PM
The final nail in the coffin?
The final nail in the coffin?
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 9779
Joined: 2008-01-06
well i remember pretty clear that at the launch of this cpu's, you, Hilbert, presented some info on this and said something about 7,5 CPU or something like that.
Also how can this lawsuit stand when the performance of the CPU's drastically depends on how a application uses them, and as far as i know amd's 8 core cpu's work as they should in multi threaded apps and use the cores properly.
or maybe i'm missing something, anyway the suit it's pretty shady.
The way AMD designed their architecture for these CPU's (bulldozer, steamroller, etc) was much like Intel's Hyper Threading, or PS3's Cell CPU.
It DOES NOT actually have 8 full cores. But consists of modules that act like CPU cores that can each handle 2 threads of data.
Their "8 core" CPU's contains 4 modules. Basically 4 cores, that can each handle 2 threads and they act and show up like 8 cores in windows and in the BIOS.
Only real difference AMD did was allow these modules to access L1, L2, & L3 cache simultaneously. So they can each draw from the same pool. Where as Intel has L1, and L2 cache per core and then a larger shared L3 cache.
AMD did this approach to improve multi core performance and it does work. When their CPU's are crunching proper coded multi-threaded workloads their CPU's are actually really really good and show some strong performance and efficiency but it's their single threaded performance where its weakest.
The modules they use are not very strong when working alone, they are best used when they are all working together on the same data or different types of data at the same time.
AMD also didn't expect multi threaded coding to take so long to catch on and when it did it's not the way they had hoped. Multi threaded applications now share streams of data to each core. So 1 core is working on 1 thing and the 2nd is working on something totally different. AMD expected multi threaded coding to split each stream of data up. So core 1 and 2 for example would be working on the same data that has been divided up for it. This hasn't really happened apart from in Windows it self, video editing, photo editing, gaming, etc all go the route of splitting data up separately so for example sound will be on 1 core, A.I will be on another. It's still technically single threaded but instead of everything being processed sequentially its processed on its own and at the same time as other streams of data. We see a boost in performance because of it. Getting really technical would be to code a program to split each stream of data up even further and allowing different parts of the same data to be processed across multiple cores/threads (kinda how a GPU works with "stream processors").
Basically AMD used weaker cores but used more of them and allowed them access to more memory to try and compensate for it.
Intel used stronger cores and allowed each one to access 2 threads. Meaning they have the best of both worlds strong single threaded and strong multi threaded performance.
There is a lot more to it then this, Intel has been getting into performance per watt for years now and their efficiency is through the roof per watts used. AMD on the other hand switched from the efficiency route of their Athlon days to a cores and GHz race. Whereas Intel left the GHz race behind and we got Conroe (Intel Core 2) which was amazing for its time.