Judge Allows Lawsuit Over AMD's FX Processors to Continue

[Barty1884]

It's not like a 4-core/8-thread chip. It's single threaded performance is too low vs it's multithreaded performance. It's like an 8-core/8-thread chip.

A 4c/8t, or 8c/8t chip can have relatively slow cores.

Unfortunately, some people tend to have rose tinted glasses for these chips.

Even with it's 8 "cores" (or 4c/8t, depending on your point of view), it's not like it's multi-core performance was phenomenal.
At the end of the day, the multi-core performance fell a ways short of a 3770K (4c/8t), in some instances barely exceeding a 2500K (4c/4t part).

 

[victortyh]

This shows how stupid of the U.S lawsuit.

 

[bigpinkdragon286]

If the guy wins, I would find humor if the judge awards him nothing more than a pair of 1st gen 8-core Ryzen CPUs for his troubles, or better yet, two of Intel's equivalent 8-core consumer desktop oriented CPUs that were available at the time of his FX CPU purchase. The value of the pair of CPUs was never even a shadow of the court costs. Replacing them and all associated equipment is still a drop in the bucket. Can you really undertake something like this without having ill intentions from the start? The FX line of CPUs is not even relevant anymore, except in the legacy market.

What constitutes a core is very much a matter of opinion, and clearly some expectations have changed throughout the history of integrated circuits. Previous commenters have tried to narrow this application of opinion down to x86 cores, but I would certainly ask the question, 'why?' Is there an earlier precedent for this narrowing of conventions other than you happen to know the instruction language of part of the CPU, and want a clear cut ability to say AMD was wrong? The entirety of the CPU certainly doesn't run on x86 instructions, but rather uses smaller ops internally after having decoded the x86 instructions. AMD hasn't referred to their cores as x86 cores, and likely wouldn't as who wants to risk the trademark arm of Intel coming after them. AMD has however tried to blur CPU and GPU compute unit cores before, so if anything, anyone trying to determine AMD's definition of a core should start with the idea that in AMD's own view, core definition is malleable.

Whether I love AMD or hate them, I would certainly take great pause when it comes to inviting US government intervention in determining what is and what is not a CPU core.

 

[coldmast]

If AMD tells us that an AMD Bulldozer Core is an integer cluster core, then that is what it is. In Bulldozer there are 2 Logical Cores per Module.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043.html

 

[TerryLaze]

The thing is that if you hear 8 cores then you would expect all 8 to have exactly the same performance,if you hear 4Gb you expect all 4Gb to have the exact same performance (GTX 970 controversy) ,for FX the modules are exactly the same and have exactly the same performance,the "cores" do not,actually they had to patch the windows scheduler to improve performance,that should be proof enough for the court that the cores are only "cores".
Nvidia payed.

 

[jatraides]

This is like saying the gears in an automatic transmission aren't real because they are actuated by fluid dynamics instead of you working the clutch.

 

[Shumok]

It's not like a 4-core/8-thread chip. It's single threaded performance is too low vs it's multithreaded performance. It's like an 8-core/8-thread chip.

A 4c/8t, or 8c/8t chip can have relatively slow cores.

Unfortunately, some people tend to have rose tinted glasses for these chips.

Even with it's 8 "cores" (or 4c/8t, depending on your point of view), it's not like it's multi-core performance was phenomenal.
At the end of the day, the multi-core performance fell a ways short of a 3770K (4c/8t), in some instances barely exceeding a 2500K (4c/4t part).

And it's single-core scores are even worse. It's the ratio between it's single-core and multi-core scores that reflect an 8-core/8-thread chip. It has about the same ratio of single to multi-threaded performance of the new i7-9700k which is also an 8-core/8-thread chip. People are just pissy that it is slow.

 

[TJ Hooker]

It's the ratio between it's single-core and multi-core scores that reflect an 8-core/8-thread chip. It has about the same ratio of single to multi-threaded performance of the new i7-9700k which is also an 8-core/8-thread chip.

For an example comparison, we can look at single vs multithreaded cinebench R15 scores.

-FX 8370, we get a scaling of x6.32, or 79% of ideal scaling (ignoring single vs multi core boost clocks).
-9700K we get x7.22, or 90%
-Phenom II X6 1090T, we get x5.16, or 86%
-i5 2500k it's x3.71, or 93%
-i7-2600k, we get x4.78, or 60% based on # of threads
-i7-6700K we get x5.09, or 64% based on # of threads

I imagine the lower thread count CPUs have a slight advantage as I'm guessing it's easier to get better scaling on 4 or 6 core parts than 8 core.

So not a huge difference, and the FX obviously scales much better than the 4C/8T i7 (both old and new). But still a little worse than other non-HT parts.

https://www.gamersnexus.net/guides/2898-amd-phenom-ii-cpu-revisit-in-2017-x6-1090t-1055t?showall=1
https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-9700k-9th-gen-cpu,5876.html

 

[utroz]

So my Intel 486SX 33 did not have a cpu core??

 

[jimmysmitty]

They did not mislead. I run chess games and all the cores ran chess games just fine. 8 games, all as fast. These were not hyperthreads.

The media looks at the architecture and says 4, but that does not mater.

Did the chip live up to expectations? No not really. But that is true for a million products out there.

Because it probably runs on integer based performance which there were 8 integer units in the FX 8/9 series.

I can't see them losing, and all this judge has said is it's not being thrown out... yet.

It's not like the inner-working were a trade secret. The marketing didn't fit the product accurately, but it's not like they purposely concealed the true nature of the shared resources.... That's what I think it'll boil down to.

However, if they were to lose, it's their own fault.
With no legal definition of a "core", it's likely to fall onto industry standard acceptance.
Prior to FX, there was never any ambiguity in marketing regarding core count. Even when HT was new, there were rumors/misunderstandings in the space about being double the "cores", but both Intel & AMD never marketed as such.
FX is where AMD decided to change the accepted definition to meet their marketing plans for an "8c" CPU.

I don't think a loss would be beneficial for the industry, all it would do is deplete AMDs current bank balance.
They're not typically in it to maximize profits, but want market share. If their hand was forced through payouts, they may need to increase the profit margin on new products to cover it.

I can see the losing depending on how a core gets defined. Considering that their pre Bulldozer and post Bulldoze products are similar with their core design. Ryzen has 8 core and Bulldozer has 8 cores yet Ryzen way outperforms Bulldozer in every measure per clock and per core.

As I said it will all depend on how a core is defined. I don't think a core should be definable though as I said they are ever changing. There was a time when L2 cache was a add on chip for the motherboard.

What is a core? So cell phone chip having multiple type of cores, could be having less amount of cores because they are different and perform differently?

Not quite. Cell phone chips are a different base design (ARM) and as well the design you are mentioning is specific, big.LITTLE, in how it is made. They do not state it is an 8 core CPU but that it is a CPU with 4 of x model and 4 of y model.

https://www.nordichardware.se/nyheter/price-performance-slides-for-amd-fx-series.html

However AMD advertised it as 8 cores, check the slides down a ways, meaning they were stating these were 8 core CPUs.

By the same logic, Tensor cores, Graphic cores... are not cores, because they are not Intel cores.

This is specifically about x86 CPU cores. So yes, in that context none of those things would be cores.

However, cores, are not exclusive to x86, and their analysis is based on different designs than AMD. You see, it is your interpretation while I am basing my analysis on the fact that they are physical.

These core are on silicon, making this a joke. AMD made those processing decisions because the cores share some component on the chip.

It is a stretch to say that these chips are not 8 cores because some of them share processes. The only thing AMD needs to do is share the damn picture and explain to the judge these core exists by making a demo.

It is so stupid, even an old Cinebench is showing the 8 Core variant having nice scalable score of 90% over the 4 core FX 4100. The 6 cores FX100 is 50% faster than the 4 cores iteration... how can this be if they are only 4 cores.

It was all dependent on the tasks at hand. In most cases it would do fine but in some it didn't.

Even this was shown in Windows with how it handled thread assignments. Microsoft had to rewrite that to handle the design for Bulldozer because as it was it would see each core in a module as a full core and load one core in a module then the next resulting in worse performance. They rewrote it to fill a core per module then the rest as needed.

If AMD tells us that an AMD Bulldozer Core is an integer cluster core, then that is what it is. In Bulldozer there are 2 Logical Cores per Module.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043.html

Logical cores are not the same as physical cores though. In that case, if that is how AMD defines it, the FX-8/9 series were 4 core, 8 thread CPUs. Intels HT is basically 4 physical core with 8 logical cores (threads).

 

[coldmast]

. . . it probably runs on integer based performance which there were 8 integer units in the FX 8/9 series.

If AMD tells us that an AMD Bulldozer Core is an integer cluster core, then that is what it is. In Bulldozer there are 2 Logical Cores per Module.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043.html

Logical cores are not the same as physical cores though. In that case, if that is how AMD defines it, the FX-8/9 series were 4 core, 8 thread CPUs. Intels HT is basically 4 physical core with 8 logical cores (threads).

Yeah, but it's not hyperthreading, as hyperthreading only adds 5% to the die size, whereas AMD adds 50% to the die size for the extra integer core. Two cores, one module. That's how AMD defines it. Four Modules, Eight Cores.

 

[TerryLaze]

Yeah, but it's not hyperthreading, as hyperthreading only adds 5% to the die size, whereas AMD adds 50% to the die size for the extra integer core. Two cores, one module. That's how AMD defines it. Four Modules, Eight Cores.

This is the problem,it's integer cores and if AMD would have called them that there wouldn't be a problem but AMD went ahead and called them normal cores.

 

[coldmast]

This is the problem,it's integer cores and if AMD would have called them that there wouldn't be a problem but AMD went ahead and called them normal cores.

What is a normal core? How about AMD disable or exclude the FPU, would that make you happy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_(group_theory)
A subgroup H of a group G is normal in G if and only if gH = Hg for all g in G.

 

[azone123465]

They are 8 cores, but each core has buddy it has to share resources with so each core has one hand tied around its back. Single core performance it bad, but threaded performance scaling is worse after 4 threads is used in an application. (Because after 4 threads is when the resource sharing really begins. Hyperthreading trys to cram more executions through a single core, where as the FX series does the opposite, it starves the core of executions once its partner is active.

 

[dranicus82]

So when you buy a car and the motor is 4.6 is it V8 or V4 some people should do their homework before they purchase things.

 

[TerryLaze]

This is the problem,it's integer cores and if AMD would have called them that there wouldn't be a problem but AMD went ahead and called them normal cores.

What is a normal core? How about AMD disable or exclude the FPU, would that make you happy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_(group_theory)
A subgroup H of a group G is normal in G if and only if gH = Hg for all g in G.

It doesn't matter what a normal core is!
If you claim to have 8 things you need to have 8 completely the same things.
And FX did not have 8 completely the same things,if they called them integer cores though they would have 8 exactly the same of those.

 

[valeman2012]

Well they dis mislead the consumer!

I mean technically they are 8 core CPUs. They just share resources which make them slower than other 8 core CPUs in some tasks.

However what needs to be defined is the "core". What constitutes a core? They keep changing. Cores used to be the more basic part with L2 cache being an add-on part you could buy. After a while the L2 cache was integrated into the core and thus became part of the core and ever since most CPUs have separate L1 and L2 cache per core.

So I guess what will really happen is they will have to define what makes up a core and if it fits then its thrown out. If it doesn't I could see AMD losing the case. I really think AMD should have just called it something like Advanced Hyperthreading as the reality is that is what it was.

Not the Point, AMD mislead users who those FX CPU`s...
AMD says is a 8 Core CPU when obviously not or else it be performing like a 8 Core CPU

The AMD FX 8xxx or 9xxx series is 4 Cores / 8 Threads...AMD Just mis lead users.

 

[jimmysmitty]

. . . it probably runs on integer based performance which there were 8 integer units in the FX 8/9 series.

If AMD tells us that an AMD Bulldozer Core is an integer cluster core, then that is what it is. In Bulldozer there are 2 Logical Cores per Module.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043.html

Logical cores are not the same as physical cores though. In that case, if that is how AMD defines it, the FX-8/9 series were 4 core, 8 thread CPUs. Intels HT is basically 4 physical core with 8 logical cores (threads).

Yeah, but it's not hyperthreading, as hyperthreading only adds 5% to the die size, whereas AMD adds 50% to the die size for the extra integer core. Two cores, one module. That's how AMD defines it. Four Modules, Eight Cores.

Its not HT its a more advanced form of SMT, CMT rather.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/08/evolution-not-revolution-a-look-at-amds-bulldozer/

I remember long ago reading how this was a design that Intel could have done with SMT. SMT was first announced by DEC Alpha but they went under. Jim Keller left DEC and went to AMD and a lot of DEC technology was licensed to AMD.

Well they dis mislead the consumer!

I mean technically they are 8 core CPUs. They just share resources which make them slower than other 8 core CPUs in some tasks.

However what needs to be defined is the "core". What constitutes a core? They keep changing. Cores used to be the more basic part with L2 cache being an add-on part you could buy. After a while the L2 cache was integrated into the core and thus became part of the core and ever since most CPUs have separate L1 and L2 cache per core.

So I guess what will really happen is they will have to define what makes up a core and if it fits then its thrown out. If it doesn't I could see AMD losing the case. I really think AMD should have just called it something like Advanced Hyperthreading as the reality is that is what it was.

Not the Point, AMD mislead users who those FX CPU`s...
AMD says is a 8 Core CPU when obviously not or else it be performing like a 8 Core CPU

The AMD FX 8xxx or 9xxx series is 4 Cores / 8 Threads...AMD Just mis lead users.

I am not saying they didn't. I am saying it will depend as a Bulldozer module could count as 2 core. It depends on how it gets defined by the courts.

 

[valeman2012]

. . . it probably runs on integer based performance which there were 8 integer units in the FX 8/9 series.

If AMD tells us that an AMD Bulldozer Core is an integer cluster core, then that is what it is. In Bulldozer there are 2 Logical Cores per Module.

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043.html

Logical cores are not the same as physical cores though. In that case, if that is how AMD defines it, the FX-8/9 series were 4 core, 8 thread CPUs. Intels HT is basically 4 physical core with 8 logical cores (threads).

Yeah, but it's not hyperthreading, as hyperthreading only adds 5% to the die size, whereas AMD adds 50% to the die size for the extra integer core. Two cores, one module. That's how AMD defines it. Four Modules, Eight Cores.

Its not HT its a more advanced form of SMT, CMT rather.

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/08/evolution-not-revolution-a-look-at-amds-bulldozer/

I remember long ago reading how this was a design that Intel could have done with SMT. SMT was first announced by DEC Alpha but they went under. Jim Keller left DEC and went to AMD and a lot of DEC technology was licensed to AMD.

Well they dis mislead the consumer!

I mean technically they are 8 core CPUs. They just share resources which make them slower than other 8 core CPUs in some tasks.

However what needs to be defined is the "core". What constitutes a core? They keep changing. Cores used to be the more basic part with L2 cache being an add-on part you could buy. After a while the L2 cache was integrated into the core and thus became part of the core and ever since most CPUs have separate L1 and L2 cache per core.

So I guess what will really happen is they will have to define what makes up a core and if it fits then its thrown out. If it doesn't I could see AMD losing the case. I really think AMD should have just called it something like Advanced Hyperthreading as the reality is that is what it was.

Not the Point, AMD mislead users who those FX CPU`s...
AMD says is a 8 Core CPU when obviously not or else it be performing like a 8 Core CPU

The AMD FX 8xxx or 9xxx series is 4 Cores / 8 Threads...AMD Just mis lead users.

I am not saying they didn't. I am saying it will depend as a Bulldozer module could count as 2 core. It depends on how it gets defined by the courts.

I feel like AMD been doing these "tempting" stunts that mislead many AMD fans.

"Hey look AMD Ryzen has more cores than Intel 8th Gen so we perform better" ~ Underperfroms
"Hey look AMD FX 8350 has 8 Cores" ~ Performs like 4 Cores/8 Threads
"Hey look we at 7nm" ~ Intel 14nm stills beat them

Well, they got caught.

 

[urbanman2004]

D@mn AMD, all this time I thought you were better than promoting deceptive marketing practices, and I guess the ball really isn't in your court this time 😉

 

[jimmysmitty]

D@mn AMD, all this time I thought you were better than promoting deceptive marketing practices, and I guess the ball really isn't in your court this time 😉

A company is a company. At launch their marketing slides cherry picked benchmarks that Bulldozer looked better than certain Intel CPUs only. For example instead of showing it compared to a 2600K in all scenarios it only compared it to that where it won and then to the HEDT platform when it won.

A company will always be a company.

 

[Bill The Cat 479]

U.S. district judge Haywood Gilliam has allowed the class-action lawsuit, alleging that AMD misled its customers about the number of cores in its FX CPUs to continue.

Judge Allows Lawsuit Over AMD's FX Processors to Continue : Read more

I have always had dislikes for sue happy idiots and this one really takes the cake. So, by their reasoning everyone should now be able to sue both Intel and AMD for selling a cpu with no core , if they bought a 386 cpu and also the 486sx cpus. back then these didn't have a FPU, if you wanted one you had to buy the math co-processor and plug it into another socket so by these views you bought a cpu with no core. Amazing that they would work at all. Plus AMD didn't try to fool anyone. It was well known that the FPU was shared and AMD sure didn't hide this fact. Hmmm, the slot A AMD cpus had the FPU on a sep. chip as well, yep there must be some way to get money for that one too.
I think the lawyers that are doing this farce should have their heads removed to see if they are really human
. It's just a money grab friv. lawsuit.

 

[TerryLaze]

I have always had dislikes for sue happy idiots and this one really takes the cake. So, by their reasoning everyone should now be able to sue both Intel and AMD for selling a cpu with no core , if they bought a 386 cpu and also the 486sx cpus. back then these didn't have a FPU, if you wanted one you had to buy the math co-processor and plug it into another socket so by these views you bought a cpu with no core. Amazing that they would work at all. Plus AMD didn't try to fool anyone. It was well known that the FPU was shared and AMD sure didn't hide this fact. Hmmm, the slot A AMD cpus had the FPU on a sep. chip as well, yep there must be some way to get money for that one too.
I think the lawyers that are doing this farce should have their heads removed to see if they are really human
. It's just a money grab friv. lawsuit.

This law suit is not being done to find out if they had any cores at all in them or not,it is being done to find out how much lying you can do in advertising before it's not ok anymore.
After your way of thinking AMD was selling cores from the eighties to people in 2011 shouldn't this be clearly stated on the box?

 

[hannibal]

Well it was clear when the chip was released that the two cores shared some parts. It was not a secrect or anything. So in my book people get what They were buying by.
It is lime saying why my 6 cylinder car is slower than another 4 cylinder car... in this case the 6 cylinder just have very small volume. If people buying things Are stupid... They just Are. It was in every possible media that Intel counterparts were faster in most situations. And Also how the cores in amd was arranged. No faul play in there.

One example of faul play Are mother boards. They Are tested in one way and then manufacturer replased some parts with cheaper alternatives, but keep the same Name. So in analogy, if amd would have made X-core cpu for the test and then change it to y-core variant with the same Name. That would be faul play!
Hmmm... actually amd and Nvidia has done that in gpu:s. Same Name, different amounth of cores... that is faul play!

 

[TerryLaze]

Well it was clear when the chip was released that the two cores shared some parts. It was not a secrect or anything.

If they kept it a secret it might have been enough for the government to shut them down right away...
This is more like a company using a food analog even listing all the ingredients on the package but calling it by the normal way,like they are making analog cheese but the package just reads cheese.