Another ridiculous lawsuit to tie up the legal system and cost the taxpayers money. If this guy wins he will get nothing while the lawyers will end up with millions.

They will operate independently, but they will be limited in case of carrying out 256-bit AVX instructions (I've added a PS in my post that you quoted in order to clarify). For all intents and purposes it does indeed work like an 8-core processor, minus what I mentioned. I believe the article is either not very well explained, or the lawsuit is not referring to what I think it refers to? I mean the only 'issues' with the CPU that they could point out are the shared FPUs, I really don't know of any other 'faults' with that processor.

Correct. Personally what I think this is, a small computer sales chain bought these CPUs expecting to sell like hot cakes but they aren't so they're stuck with the back stock. Let me ask this then, IBM and Sony marketed the Cell as having I believe 8, but in reality it was 1 true core with multiple SPEs? Did not see any lawsuits against them, but then again the PS3 even in its worst times still sold decent enough. I can guarantee you, there are a lot more consumer shops that sell game consoles like the Playstation versus AMD cpus.

**** you, Tony Dickey.

http://www.troll.me/images/grinning-emperor-palpatine/good-the-hate-has-made-him-powerful-thumb.jpg

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.

AMD's implementation is nothing like Intel's HyperThreading. AMD's architecture shares resources in every module that would have been dedicated to every "core" in a more traditional architecture. Here you have 8 fully functioning FPUs. However, core performance is not merely determined by FPU performance which is why the architecture returns mixed results.

quick, post those gtx970 3.5gb articles to protect AMD.

https://media.giphy.com/media/12nuDeDV4xU3yE/giphy.gif

Seriously what an idiot. AMD, to my knowledge, never directly said anything he claims they said. They've always referred to the hardware as modules. Besides, why is he doing this now after so many years?

Correct. Personally what I think this is, a small computer sales chain bought these CPUs expecting to sell like hot cakes but they aren't so they're stuck with the back stock. Let me ask this then, IBM and Sony marketed the Cell as having I believe 8, but in reality it was 1 true core with multiple SPEs? Did not see any lawsuits against them, but then again the PS3 even in its worst times still sold decent enough. I can guarantee you, there are a lot more consumer shops that sell game consoles like the Playstation versus AMD cpus.

Well, games are (were) optimized for PS3 anyway, so I believe the hardware didn't matter that much as long as the games ran fine. But you do have a very good point, the story with the computer sales chain is entirely possible.

Tony Dickey? Sounds about right.

One can argue about the technical aspects till the sun stops setting. The reality of this lawsuit has nothing to do with it. It is a reflection of a common mentality/attitude that prevails throughout society. The lawyer does not care about the "truth". All they care about is what can be sold to the ones making the decision. If one complains loud enough, long enough, the goal will be achieved whether the complaint has merit or not (out of court settlement). It is this sentiment that the lawsuit represents. Who cares what the effect of my actions are as long as I get what I want. I view it no different than a child throwing a tantrum in the middle of a toy store.

If you can turn each core off separately then each core exists... it doesn't matter if they share the same resources each core is a separate core that can process data. Troll lawsuit is troll lawsuit.

The person making the claim will not get anything, the definition of a core is and always has been semantics. And mainly it's because of the comparison between Intel and AMD. AMD has 8-core and 4 modules, that share resources such as FPU etc, those are split from a bigger value into a smaller one for each core housed within the module. These can combine together into its full size if single-core performance is needed. The true definition of a core is as follows: A processor that has separate units with which it can process data. With AMD's bulldozer cores, that is possible. Information can be processed on each of the cores separately. In fact, in video games, the coding for the game, runtime data etc. Are distributed across cores, that was the main problem with DirectX 11, that fact that it didn't distribute equally, but instead loading majority of the work on the first core, but in DirectX 12 it has been more optimized to equally distribute. And because Intel has completely independent cores, which doesn't split these resources, the one making the claim can say they aren't really 8-cores, when in fact they are. If an AMD representative goes through the process and appears in court, the lawyer will be put to shame. The degradation of performance is given to the fact that resources are split to be shared between these cores within a module. AMD zen processors have eliminated this and are now very similar to Intel. If anything is split enough, it will degrade. AMD used this technique to save money. There's more working off of little. And in these articles they say no one has spotted this because we know nothing about about the technological aspects of CPU cores, which isn't true at all. How over the course of 3 years has no one made this claim and have sued AMD? Because it isn't true, and they want to kick AMD while they're down, and hopefully destroy their company over bending the truth.

Seriously what an idiot. AMD, to my knowledge, never directly said anything he claims they said. They've always referred to the hardware as modules. Besides, why is he doing this now after so many years?

LOl, exactly. They always said they were modules when it was actually explained, they never said they were completely independent, and it was stated as such because he's looking at the definition of a core from the aspects of Intel's processors. AMD is independent in the sense that within a module resources are split into a smaller value to be distributed across the cores. Intel doesn't do this. And in turn he thinks everyone has to do the same thing. A core is just something housed within a processor that can process information separately from another core. Which AMD can do. In fact, DirectX 12 is seen as a big improvement for AMD because the data is split more evenly between cores and isn't how it is on DirectX 11, which loaded majority of coding onto one core and then attempted to split it to the other cores. So to say they aren't independent in any sense of the word, then DirectX 12 wouldn't have increased performance at all on the CPUs.

I love it when people sue on the consumers' behalf... giving the opportunity for consumers to receive nothing and potentially harm an already strained market. This guy can really go f himself.

pfff... AMD can easily win this. Some losers just trying to make money.

How can AMD win? The allegations are pretty much all true. AMD knew very well that they're misleading people with their "core" counts but they did it anyway hoping for increased sales. I hope this doesn't cause AMD too much damage, but damn I'm surprised it took so long for them to get sued. I'm a little surprised that Intel didn't sue them over this.

What do you know, you live and you learn, i though it has true 8 cores, it's like physical intel HT with shared cache. I hate these pseudo cores both intel (HT) and amd (modules). At least intel i can disable without losing total processing power.

What do you know, you live and you learn, i though it has true 8 cores, it's like physical intel HT with shared cache. I hate these pseudo cores both intel (HT) and amd (modules). At least intel i can disable without losing total processing power.

It is a true 8-core, you can enable and disable the cores independently. But you will have decreased performance as with any processor, because you are disabling cores and in turn decreasing processing power. Modules and cores is explained in depth on another website, but I can't post the link. You can search Modules vs Cores. With AMD disabling a core, you lose more processing power because you're actually disabling an execution unit. When you disable Hyper-threading you're just disabling duplicated registers and not additional execution units. The FPU is 256-bit and is split into two 128-bit halves. Many of the other resources are shared and split for each core. This article claims there's only one FPU being shared, which is bending the truth to also claim they can't independently process data. It's like taking a piece of bread and breaking it into two, and saying it is sharing a piece of bread, but that the two pieces aren't two pieces of bread, but instead one even if they were split into two, and that if you eat the half piece of bread, there wasn't two people eating bread, but instead one person (core) eating bread. Hyper-threading basically splits a core into two VIRTUALLY, if AMD is doing it physically as you claim (which they aren't even the same in reality), then they are physical cores. Before Hyper-threading, a core had to individually schedule and execute a thread, Hyper-threading allows a processor core to schedule two threads at once. In AMD FX, each module actually has two execution units, each fully capable of executing processes independently. However, each module share a (relatively large) floating-point unit and L2 cache. (Most processors share caches, Intel shares L3 cache, and cache is basically duplicated between each level so that the processor has faster access to the data. So L2 could contain much data from L3.) With Hyper-threading there's no additional execution units, there's just two virtual cores, which has duplicated the processor's registers to allow more throughput. It's basically like creating more roads, but they all come to the same endpoint. AMD didn't lie, the person who is suing AMD is biased about what a core is because of Intel's architecture. He will receive nothing, that's if AMD even decides to address it. This article has told me that 1+1=1 and 256-128=256

What is total avx(256bit) register number of AMD vs Intel? Are they equal? Then they should have equal independence from memory (not including cache bandwidths but AMD has 8x L1 caches which should be comparable speed). If they can compute comparable number of bits per second, they should be equally cored since not using SIMD is a waste.

How can AMD win? The allegations are pretty much all true. AMD knew very well that they're misleading people with their "core" counts but they did it anyway hoping for increased sales. I hope this doesn't cause AMD too much damage, but damn I'm surprised it took so long for them to get sued. I'm a little surprised that Intel didn't sue them over this.

Define "core". http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/07/motorolas-8-core-x8-chip-gives-us-a-lesson-in-marketing-speak/ This suit is going into the garbage bin by an even incompetent lawyer, it has no legs.

Define "core". http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/07/motorolas-8-core-x8-chip-gives-us-a-lesson-in-marketing-speak/ This suit is going into the garbage bin by an even incompetent lawyer, it has no legs.

It's not that hard to show that AMD were intentionally being misleading. Everyone and their dogs know it. By no understanding of what a core is based on the entire history of CPUs before was what AMD were calling "cores" real cores. Regardless of whether or not they used terms like modules it doesn't matter when they tell their partners to sell their crappy CPUs "8 cored" in every single spec sheet ever. If it's sharing essential components and is not independent it's not a core, that should be part of the definition, too bad there isn't one so AMD might weasel their way out of this. Then again it's in our favour if AMD win. This coming from someone who's heavily AMD biased, I'd buy an AMD CPU over an Intel one any day so long as it was comparable in price/performance for my needs. Which they haven't been since 2006 when Core 2s were introduced. If all things were equal I think the majority of us would pick AMD just to create a more competitive market, or rather keep the market competitive in that scenario.

It's not that hard to show that AMD were intentionally being misleading. Everyone and their dogs know it. By no understanding of what a core is based on the entire history of CPUs before was what AMD were calling "cores" real cores. Regardless of whether or not they used terms like modules it doesn't matter when they tell their partners to sell their crappy CPUs "8 cored" in every single spec sheet ever. If it's sharing essential components and is not independent it's not a core, that should be part of the definition, too bad there isn't one so AMD might weasel their way out of this. Then again it's in our favour if AMD win. This coming from someone who's heavily AMD biased, I'd buy an AMD CPU over an Intel one any day so long as it was comparable in price/performance for my needs. Which they haven't been since 2006 when Core 2s were introduced. If all things were equal I think the majority of us would pick AMD just to create a more competitive market, or rather keep the market competitive in that scenario.

Again, arbitrary definition. There is no clear cut definition on what define core counts, or how independent they have to be. The modern Intel CPU's also have shared resources. Again, this is empty arguments over marketing. There is no lawsuit base here in my opinion.