AMD faces Lawsuit over Core Count on Bulldozer
- Home
- Board: /g/ - Technology
- Reading: 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.
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-faces-lawsuit-over-core-count-on-bulldozer.html
GTX 970 3.5+0.5 when?????
>>51216909
>GTX 970 3.5+0.5 when?????
never, the 970 isn't an issue, if it was people would've protested with the 660ti and it's segmented vram as well
AMD IS FINISHED & BANKRUPT
It'll get tossed. Just a cunt looking for a quick buck. They never advertised it as anything else. The slides and all the technical information about the architecture was freely available.
>AMD
>>51216909
The lawsuit is full of shit. It claims bulldozer was incapable of executing 8 instructions simultaneously which is objectively false.
It couldn't execute 8 64 bit SIMD instructions simultaneously because they made a bad bet on how much applications use floating point, but it could still handle 32bit, and any integer workload at full speed.
>>51217051
They never advertised the speeds of the memory. Nvidia was entirely smart and accurate with the marketing of their product.
>>51217150
Nope, they advertised 2MB of L2 and 64ROPs.
both of which are objectively false.
as per the rest, it was misleading, but not false.
>>51217110
jesus christ what were amd thinking when they released that card with shitter temps than a 290
i was gonna upgrade to a 390 as well. ill get a 970 instead
>>51216909
I'm absolutely not surprised
>>51217204
not temps i mean power consumption**
>>51217110
>those 600/700/900 series cards doing <10W for multimonitor
Neat.
>>51217051
The 660ti and 550ti did in fact have gimped memory, however they didn't lie about the specs.
The 970 has gimped memory, which is fine, but nvidia lied about the cache and ROPs.
>>51217224
It's a bug on AMD that causes idle clocks to be way higher, been like this since at least when my 7950 came out. You can technically get around this by manually setting your clocks for idle usage if your not playing games or something.
>>51217110
tfw gtx 750ti feels good mang
>>51216909
https://www.extremetech.com/computing/217664-globalfoundries-announces-14nm-validation-with-amd-silicon Praise Glofo Amd has finished and wont be bankrupt
>>51217555
The last hope
I read
>AMD 8 core CPUs perform like 4 REAL cores
Oh, I'm sorry.
You were expecting Intel quad core performance just because it had 8 "Cores"?
There's something called competition, bucko.
If one company sells a better product, does that give you the right to rag on the competitor because their product wasn't as good?
Who gave YOU the right to decide what true "Cores" are?
Also, you're retarded for thinking that core count scales linearly. Things like compression software can split the workload into 8 threads easily. Anything else? NUH UH, not quite.
Let's say there's 4 people and 8 water bottles. Obviously you can't drink from 2 water bottles at one time, so the extra 4 are basically useless for that task.
Your ignorance of computer performance scaling is NO EXCUSE to summon a lawsuit.
>>51218501
>Intel Quad core performance
Whoops, meant to write 5960X there.
>>51218501
with Jews, you lose, anon.
this isn't a real injured party, just a transparent shekel hunt.
>>51216909
a 'core' has been about the integer unit since the beginning of time.
lawsuit btfo.
kids today don't remember the cute looking 387, much less the 8087.
>>51219481
Uh, you mean the 386 and 8086?
>>51219503
lol, nope.
My 8320 @4.2ghz beats my i5-4690k at rendering 4k video.
>>51219615
>applel didn't even invent iNaming
>>51219481
>>51219615
shit, I'm an oldfag especially by neo-/g/ standards and I forget that discrete x87 didn't end with the 80287.
then again, the 386 was only king of the hill for ~3 years in the late 80s.
for some reason thought it
>>51219615
All hail the 386SX. Why? Because it SuX.
Oh, man, they dug their own grave with that one.
Then the 486 came out and everyone went, "holy fuck, it's like a 386 with a BUILT IN MATH COPROCESSOR!!!!"
>>51217103
this
people who doesnt know shit about processor architecture are kinda hilarious xd
>>51219796
486SX exists you know.
Or should I say existed.
>>51219879
What's your point? 486SX was a 486 without the math coprocessor.
386SX was a 386 (which had no math coprocessor) with a 16 bit bus.
SX meant completely different things between 386 and 486.
>>51219796
>>51219933
there was no such thing as a vanilla 386 or 486, just 386SX/386DX and 486SX/486DX(2/4) along with a few more obscure variants.
>>51219933
My point was that there was a 486 without a math coprocessor. So the 486 wasn't like a 386 with a math coprocessor.
>>51219977
*eyeroll*
Anyone saying 386 means the 386DX unless otherwise indicated. Anyone saying 486 means the 486DX unless otherwise indicated.
In both cases, the SX were cheapo variants for the likes of Packard Bell scum.
Now, explain this snotty comment:
>>51219879
>486SX exists you know.
>>51220002
>Anyone saying 386 means the 386DX unless otherwise indicated. Anyone saying 486 means the 486DX unless otherwise indicated.
>>51217110
Nvidia cards consume just as much when you hook them up to 144Hz monitors. Way more gamers have 144Hz monitors than multi-monitor setups.
Bogus lawsuit. If this goes through the entire tech industry could be sued for all kinds of shit.
>>51220084
>inb4 tpu shill nvidia
>>51220057
Fuck off, you ill-informed wannabe pedant. You're wrong, you're a dipshit, and you're a shitposter.
Go time travel back and witness how fucking amazing it was to see the 486 when it came out. Floating point for all, bitch.
(except for the poor people, they could have the shitty SX variant)
>>51220139
pic related is 980ti idle power draw when hooked up to a gaming monitor. Nvidia cards simply don't downclock when hooked up to a 144Hz monitor.
Now THAT is false advertising considering Nvidia boasts about low power consumption all the time.
>>51220215
>being this mad someone isnt abiding by his linguistic rule
>>51220215
486 was fucking garbage. The games were all hobbled DOS ports of Amiga games because it couldn't handle 16 bit graphics or 8 bit 8 channel audio. Almost all of the DOS software was also shit.
Integer units are all that really matter these days and there's 8 of them in an FX 8xxx/FX 9xxx CPU. This lawsuit probably wont go anywhere
>>51220781
>Integer units are all that really matter these days
why?
>>51220806
FPU isn't really used in most work, it's used for physics and encoding but most other things are integer based. When someone thinks of multiple cores they're usually thinking for integer work.
How can I learn to understand what is being discussed in this thread?
>>51220875
The faggot who's sueing claims the 8 core AMD CPUs aren't actually 8 full "Cores". He's gonna get assraped as soon as some engie representatives show up and school his ass when they explain Bulldozer's design.
>>51220921
What does he think it is vs what is it really?
My understanding is that he thinks it is 2 cores recombined to seem like 8 but how could you even do that?
And then in the picture in that article it looks like there's 4 cores.
But it seems like bulldozer is legitimately 8 cores but doesn't process as well as expected due to some underestimation.
I'm sorry I sound retarded I'm just really new to this and want to understand how this works in reality vs what he is saying.
>>51221015
Well, Bulldozer has 2 Processing units per module, but only one Floating Point Unit in that module.
It's an excellent compact design for multi-threaded tasks, but is much weaker in tasks that are single-thread only.
See, since the two cores share 1 FPU, compared to Intel's design where there's one FPU per core there's a piece of the full "Core" missing in Intel's opinion.
But Intel has no patents I know of that shows how a x86 integer core must to be designed to work with the rest of the architecture. Therefore, the Plaintiff can't call AMD on shit.
>>51221015
Bulldozer architecture doesn't have "cores" like other CPUs do, it has "modules." In a regular CPU a core contains one integer unit and one floating point unit. There's also a scheduler and a decoder in front of those.
A bulldozer module has two integer units and one floating point unit. This effectively gives it the ability to execute two integer tasks simultaneously but it's still has the same performance as four floating point units. The two integer units and the floating point unit all share a combined scheduler and either one(bulldozer/piledriver) or two(steamroller/excavator) decoders.
This guy is alleging that because the integer units share resources they're not truly independent so they cannot be considered cores.
>>51221150
>This effectively gives it the ability to execute two integer tasks simultaneously but it's still has the same performance as four floating point units.
Oops I got ahead of myself. A module has the performance of two integer units and one floating point unit.
The FX8000 series has four modules giving it the effective performance of 8 integer units and 4 floating point units
>>51220002
The 486SX was okay though, just a DX without the FPU which nobody really used back then anyway.
A 386DX-40 was of course a way better choice though.
>>51217440
>since at least when my 7950 came out
My 5850 did the same thing (and it is one of the first eyefinity cards).
>>51217440
>It's a bug on AMD that causes idle clocks to be way higher
So thats why my grafix never goes to true idle
>>51216909
>lawsuit almost 5 years after Bulldozer was out
Literally retarded
>>51221150
>>51221195
>>51221150
Thank you so much for explaining, I need to look more into what you said but it's clearer now.
What is it about that design that makes it weak for single threaded processes though? Wouldn't something that could handle multithreading be able to handle single threaded operations?
>>51221617
Well, it's two smaller integer units cramped into one Module.
When you can only use 1 of the 2 integer units, performance drops off by almost half.
The two Integer units are smaller and are designed to be handling two threads for both units, remember.
It's actually impressive Bulldozer is close to the single-threaded performance of K10.
K10 had a much more similar design to Intel, an evolution of the legendary K8, which itself was an x64 debut and evolution of K7.
Bulldozer was almost a complete scrapping of the original Athlon design like Netburst was to P5.
>>51216909
Good to see AMD getting shafted for lying again. Hopefully they get in trouble for rebranding the 390X as new as well. Nvidia manages to make a profit without lying to customers or rebranding products, it makes you wonder what is going on at AMD.
>>51221617
When multiple cores share die space they also share power and a cooling unit. The speed that the CPU can operate at is limited by how much power the socket can provide and how much heat the cooling unit can dissipate. Multiple cores take more power than just one and can give off more heat both of which can lead to throttling so multiple cores cannot clock as high.
>>51216909
>Tony Dickey
YOU JUST CAN'T MAKE THIS UP
>>51221770
AMD did no "Lying" here. Do you see any patents on specific x86 Integer unit + FPU design?
In AMD's opinion, they are 8 core processors. They have 8 Integer units. Even if they have 4 FPUs, does that disqualify them for having 8 cores? Why? Is Intel suddenly the only authority as to what constitutes a full x86 "Core"?
>>51221792
You, shut the fuck up. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
>>51221770
Because those problems with the 970 never happened amirite?
>>51221770
Gtx 680 rebadged and 770 witg faster vram and higher gpu clock.
Gk104 (gtx 680) refreshed for gtx 670, 660 ti, 770, and 760.
Nvidia really cocked you hard.
>>51221829
Intel's cores are true cores though. AMD did some gymnastics to fake 8 cores. This is why everyone uses Intel processors.
>>51221860
Nvidia wasn't lying. The consumers weren't doing any research on something they were spending $350 on. Nvidia did nothing wrong and shouldn't be blamed for consumer ignorance. Nvidia hasn't been accused of lying like AMD is now.
>>51221829
Christ, you're so brainwashed that you even give them a pass when someone pointed out the key flaw in modern computer architecture. Deviating from x86 is equivalent to shooting yourself in the dick.
>>51221895
But there was no deviation from x86, retard. The instruction sets and all the bullshit are still the same, they just use a different Integer Unit + FPU design compared to Intel.
>>51221887
Who's to say that 8 Integer units aren't 8 "Cores"? As long as Intel has no patents on the word Core in the context of Architecture design AMD can call them whatever the hell they want.
>>51217487
Got mine for 90 burgerbucks. Works like a charm.
>>51221931
If you want to buy gimped processors and get fucked by AMD, go ahead. I'll stick to buying Intel processors and not get fucked over by a company that only cares about money.
>>51216909
ITT: Armchair laywers
>>51222017
And this is the reason AMD will have a blowout win. I'm not even a PAID Lawyer or even have a career in such and I'm blowing the Plaintiff's claim the fuck out easily.
>>51221994
>Hurr Durr go buy inferior products then
That wasn't what I was arguing for, retard.
If I had to choose between Intel and AMD, Intel everyday.
But as >>51222017
Correctly pointed out, I'm speaking in the context of civil law. My opinion on a companies products have nothing to do with this, i'm just stating facts.
>>51222114
If you had to choose between an i3 3120 or an fx 6300, which would you choose?
Purely hypothetical, assume no pretty processors are available to you.
>>51222205
No other processors*
Fuck. I should learn to proof read before posting.
>>51222205
>>51222220
Considering how many programs I use that have a big need for Single threaded performance, the i3 all day.
If I had a video editing station or something the likes of where I can fully use the 6 threads available, I might consider the FX.
>>51222252
>I might consider the FX.
Liar.
>>51222205
FX because AMD is less jewish than intel.
>>51222312
>>51222280
>>51222252
Well, I'd get the fx 6300.
Single thread performance isn't as important to me but multitasking is. Also games are becoming multithreaded, so there is that.
Also can be overclocked to almost i5 performance, but the i3 is locked to a 400mhz overclock.
>>51222312
>AMD
>less jewish
>>51221994
>Intel doesn't only care about money
Found the shill
>>51222017
ITT: Armchair lawyers, Intel shills having an orgy and idiots who know nothing about computers.
>>51221817
>yfw at least once in his life he mistyped and wrote Tiny Dickey. Probably on some report he had to turn in at college
>>51222205
Who cares; no matter who I give my money to Tony Dickey's lawsuit is going to fail.
>>51218501
This
Here's a great writeup from extremetech as to why Dickey's lawsuit is horseshit.
https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/217672-analysis-amd-lawsuit-over-false-bulldozer-chip-marketing-is-without-merit
>>51216909
A core is whatever the CPU manufacturer says a core is.
FX-8XXX has 8 integer cores and 4 floating point cores. Integer cores share the floating point cores.
Intel hyper-threaded cores are not 2 separate cores (as shown in windows task manager) but have 2 "doors" for the CPU operations to enter the core as opposed to one "door" for operations to enter the core.
>>51218501
society is just pushing their image of what a core is on us. They should check their core privilege.
>>51217110
>tfw I own a 295x2
>>51218501
>lie to consumers about core counts
>Oh that's just our version of core counts
>pay for 8 nuggets
>get 4
>Oh that's just our version of 8 nuggets
>It's totally fine there's no real definition of what a nugget is
Eat shit AMDumb.
>>51229926
Does an older CPU without the math Co-processor have 0 Cores?
>>51229998
Depends, again you're forgetting that when it comes to technical terms. The industry common understanding of the term by the consumer comes into question.
Judges couldn't give a shit about all your mental gymnastics and definitions and it will all boil down to would a consumer (without any technical training) be misled into believing that the processor had 8 cores as would be normally perceived by a common dumb dumb.
If it would be they definitely have a case considering the marketed heavily with the term 8 cores as a main selling point rather than a technical anomaly.
>>51230058
It's the same damn thing as Netburst a decade and a half ago.
If I sued Intel for having CPUs that are rated for high clock speeds but perform worse than Athlon CPUs at lower clock speeds and this misleads consumers into buying Intel CPUs on this merit alone, I'd lose hard because the CPUs were in fact clocked at those high clock speeds and it was my fault for believing the Intel CPUs performed better because of this fact.
AMD CPUs do have 8 Integer units and the OS treats it as 8 cores, because they ARE 8 cores. To call them 4 core CPUs would be absolutely ridiculous.
>>51217110
What? 390s don't consume that much, I've worked with the 290x, 390, 390x and 295x2 on multiple occasions. That's misleading.
>>51230258
Again if a consumer is likely to be misled to assume that it would have 8 core performance. It doesn't really matter if it does have 8 cores technically because the OS recognizes it.
Court doesn't like software tricks as you can see in the Volkswagen case. Tricking regulators and consumers with software tricks is frowned upon.
>>51230258
Netburst is different they actually achieved those clockspeeds.
AMD CPUs essentially made 4 core CPUs dressed them up as 8 cores then sold them.
>>51230373
But you can't put a label on "Per core" performance.
There's only 2 competitors in the Desktop PC CPU market, and that's Intel and AMD. Just because Intel has massively more market share doesn't give it the authority to determine what the "Per core" performance should be.
If you compare prices across the range of CPUs both offer, even a retard can notice the core count disparity between the two. Only a fool would be mislead into thinking that AMD's CPUs are much better than Intel's offerings based on the number of cores they have because Intel has priced their CPUs accordingly to compete with AMD.
I can advertise a car's engine makes 300 horsepower, and that matches a competitor for a lower price. But the engine is peaky, and only performs at it's rated power output at high RPM, meaning low RPM pulls are slower than the competitor.
This is just marketing. You don't see Honda getting sued for having torqueless engines that have to rev up to accelerate quickly, even though their Inline 4s they may make the same peak power as a big displacement V6.
>>51230495
Wrong. Bulldozer has 2 integer units and one shared FPU per module. To call the 2 integer units one "Core" is just flat out retarded.
>>51230505
>Per core performance
The suit claims that Bulldozer's design means its cores cannot work independently, and as a result, cannot perform eight instructions simultaneously and independently.
It has nothing to do with performance. What the suit alleges is that Bulldozer doesn't have 8 cores to begin with.
>>51230529
The second part of the suit is that AMD didn't make this clear to the consumer and thus MISLED them into buying BULLDOZER processors.
>>51230540
But that's wrong. The two integer units can and DO work independently even if they share "Resources".
Intel CPUs share lots of resources between the cores with the L3 cache. Does that mean that all the cores aren't working independently just because they share data from L3?
>>51230591
They don't. Why call it a core if its sharing resources?
As consumers understand cores to be like intel cores it's reasonable for them to assume that this would be the same for AMD's cores. If its materially different AMD should disclose this fact. The fact that they continually focused on marketing the chip based on Cores shows that they're trying to mislead consumers.
Again this boils down to cores as consumers would understand them and not cores as AMD calls them.
>>51230638
>I'm a tech illiterate retard
Even the FlexFPU across all 4 modules can handle executing 8 128bit ops simultaneously. The front end in each module can issue 4 ops in a single clock. The guy's lawsuit has no merit, and it won't ever go to court. It'll get tossed immediately unless AMD enters a counter complaint and drags this troll through the mud.
>>51230638
Oh, so AMD is just gonna slap on the box;
8 Cores*
*:8 cores consist of 8 Integer units and 4 FPUs
Does this tell the consumer anything about the performance of the CPU? Of course not.
Do you really think AMD is just say that their CPU cores don't do as much work as an Intel Core can? Do you understand that would be marketing suicide?
>>51230667
>This guy
It's a class action you stupid fuck
And those calculations are interger operations.
It literally can't do 8 floating point calculations at once because it only has 4 FPUs.
>>51230708
Yes this is what you're supposed to do.
And if you don't you're misleading consumers you stupid fucktard.
>Do you really think AMD is just going to say that their CPU cores don't do as much work as an Intel Core?
If they're not trying to mislead the consumer they would.
>>51230708
All they needed to do is notify the consumer of the lack of FPUs the cores have and they would have avoided any impropriety.
Again they're not saying that AMD outright lied about having 8 cores. They're saying that they misled consumers as to the performance for anyone without the technical knowledge to understand it. Which is definitely of merit.
>>51230727
You... WHAT?
Do you even understand how Marketing works?
AMD is under NO OBLIGATION to tell them that their CPU cores perform less work then a competitor. Did you even read my analogy to the car engine? If you believe this then you're too retarded to bother debating with.
>>51230709
>the tech illiterate retard doesn't know when to quit
Read the relevant software optimization guide or keep your tech illiterate moth shut.
The FlexFPU has two separately addressable 128bit FMACs, they are only joined at the scheduler which uses an SMT implementation to send ops to one or the other.
This is a matter of fact, you can execute 8 128bit FP ops simultaneously. All threads will be active and working at the same time.
You do not know what you are talking about. At all. You're a tech illiterate retard.
>>51230767
>Marketing gives you a license to lie to consumers
Wow intel should say that their i7s are 8 cores processors too and make infinity dollars. The OS recognizes that it has 8 cpus amirite?
>>51230767
You see, what they are saying is that AMD does have an obligation not to mislead consumers.
You may be a tech wiz but not a law wiz.
As a law student, this lawsuit definitely has merit. AMD markets their products as equivalent to intel products and have had history of doing so even to the point of marketing the performance of their products based off the intel counterparts for a whole generation of processors.
It matters what the consumer thinks a core is vs AMD's definition.
AGAIN THIS IS A SUIT ALLEGING AMD MISLED CONSUMERS NOT THAT AMD HAS 8 CORES.
>>51217110
That's one of the main reasons I'm not using AMD
Their cards waste 20-30 watts on literary nothing when you have more than one monitor
>>51230776
>read the software optimization guide
You stupid fucking fuck. The average consumer doesn't read those things and are tech illiterate as well. The fucking lawsuit is alleging that AMD is tricking tech illiterate people into thinking that AMD has 8 cores that are the same as Intel cores.
This is not a contest on fucking technical specifications. It's about what the REGULAR CONSUMER (E.G THE COMMON RETARD BUYING THE PROCESSOR) may have bought it unsuspectingly.
Just in case you're too stupid to understand how class actions work
The consumers who allege that this is the case FUCKING HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE AMD FOR THEIR MONEY BACK.
>>51230828
Are you saying if this guy sued Intel for Netburst a long time ago over clock speeds that the lawsuit would have MERIT? Even though the CPUs DID run at those speeds?
Holy shit i'm done.
>>51220084
On Nvidia you can force a maximum power state using Nvidia Inspector
On AMD you can't do that
>>51230877
>would have merit
It's up to the courts to decide that you dumb dumb. You want to contest that Intel didn't manage to reach those clockspeeds?
This is materially different but in your fucking head it's exactly the same.
The people who are bringing up this lawsuit are a special bunch of people they're not your average tech literate /g/tards. They're the consumers who have been misled into believing they bought a 8 core (in the Intel sense) processor.
>>51230872
Congrats, you're clinically retarded!
>>51230877
>if this guy sued intel for netburst
Netburst did achieve those clockspeeds though.
AMD's 8 cores will never be 'true' cores.
>>51230916
They are, though.
>>51230872
>tech illiterate shitposting baby retard is still going at it
That is not the complaint listed in the suit. Intel is not any sort of authority on what constitutes a core or not, and AMD isn't the first company to create an architecture with shared resources for the purpose of increasing compute power per mm2.
I told YOU specifically to read the software optimization guide because you're talking out of your ass and spreading misinformation as if it were fact. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.
The module can fetch and execute ops from two threads simultaneously, be they integer or floating point. The onlything the FlexFPU cannot do is handle 256bit floating point ops in the same manner.
AMD did nothing to misdirect anyone, at any point regarding core count of their chips. You're simply a shit eating moron.
>>51230911
>you're clinically retarded
So is the average consumer. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be protected from misleading and deceptive conduct just because you're a braindead fanboy.
If you bought an AMD processor at the time thinking that it would be equivalent to an 8 core Intel processor you deserve your money back.
That's not a case without merit like you're saying.
>>51230908
>Internet provider advertises 1 Gbps
>Consumer gets 125 GBps
>Hurr I didn't know the difference between Gbps and GBps but i'm gonna sue anyway
The information on the Bulldozer arch design is everywhere and free to view. A little googling on the internet can solve any questions.
>>51230925
>That is not the complaint listed in the suit
The suit claims that Bulldozer's design means its cores cannot work independently, and as a result, cannot perform eight instructions simultaneously and independently. This, the claim continues, results in performance degradation, and average consumers in the market for a CPU lack the technical expertise to understand the design of AMD's processors and trust the company to give accurate specifications regarding its CPUs.
Because AMD did not convey accurate specifications, the suit argues that tens of thousands of consumers were misled into buying a Bulldozer CPU that cannot perform in the same way as a true 8-core CPU. Allegedly, this would mean AMD violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and was guilty of false advertising, fraud, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
Fuck off retard.
>>51230932
You're clinically retarded because the AMD CPU literally has 8 cores no matter how you define a core as long as intel CPUs also have the advertised amount of cores they do.
You're clinically retarded because you are literally incapable of counting to 2.
>>51230941
>tech illiterate retard STILL just shitposting
For the third time, there is no basis to the claims alleged in the suit.
A 4 module Bulldozer/Piledriver chip can in fact execute 8 ops simultaneously. It can fetch, decode, execute, and retire them all simultaneously.
You continuing to either ignore this fact, or outright lie about it proves how much of a butthurt tech illiterate retard shill you are.
>>51230941
>"True 8 core CPU"
That's the problem, no such thing exists retard.
It's AMDs design and if they want to call those 8 integer units cores they are in their full right to do so.
Unless Intel directly Sued AMD for unfair business practices and had some patent on what a true "Core" constitutes this lawsuit has NO MERIT.
>>51230955
>Literally has 8 cores
It doesn't. The lawsuit is alleging (with merit) that they're not true cores and that they didn't disclose this to the consumer thus misleading them.
If you bought the processor knowingly this doesn't apply to you, you stupid fucktard.
The class action is for people who bought the bulldozer processors thinking they have bought one with 8 'true' cores.
Eat shit fanboy. AMD is getting sued.
amd bulldozer is about as fast as the 8 core intel skulltrail though (dual qx9775)
>>51230980
>no such thing exists
It does though. Intel has been making them for years and the consumer recognizes what a core is based on that.
AMD wanted to deviate from that design?
Disclose that it's different instead of marketing it as the same.
>Lying to consumers is okay because it's AMD.
>>51230983
An X86 core with literally no FPU whatsoever is still a core.
FPUs used to be separate off die units and plug in cards.
You're desperately grasping at straws.
>>51231013
>grasping at straws.
You can spout any and all sort of bullshit to justify it. The fact is that AMD didn't disclose the fact that their cores are different from intel cores while marketing them.
>>51231005
>Netburst
>Intel has been making CPUs that are alike in design for years along with AMD
>Intel wanted to deviate from this design
>Intel fully knew that consumers thought of CPU performance in clock speed
>Intel didn't disclose this
>No lawsuit
>Lying to consumers is okay because it's Intel in 2001-2005
>>51231037
Again Intel achieved those clockspeeds no matter how retarded the way they achieved it.
AMD cores will never be true cores.
>>51231032
First of all, you tech illiterate retard, AMD's architecture has always been different from intel's.
Secondly AMD was nothing but forthcoming with the intricacies of the Bulldozer architecture when it was released. They gave massive slide decks away to every single review site, gave keynote speeches on it. Block diagrams of the module are readily found everywhere on the internet.
You're not even making an argument.
By your fallacious tech illiterate retard logic intel should be sued because the Core2Duo chips weren't "real" dual core processors since they weren't identical to AMD's dual core Athlons.
>>51231037
And yet AMD athlons are still advertised to follow Intel style clockspeeds.
I wonder why?
So you're trying to show the precedent that AMD advertises it's products to be equivalents of Intels?
Congratulations you just proved that AMD are trying to mislead consumers about cores.
>>51231086
>AMD designed Bulldozer with 2 integer units per module no matter how retarded the way they achieved it
Defining what a true "Core" is, is absolutely retarded.
>>51231032
And they didn't have to. They didn't say 8 cores exactly the same way Intel makes them.
>8 threads
>no hyperthreading
>doesn't have 8 cores
Come on, this is fucking retarded, of course it does.
>>51231108
Calling anyone a tech illiterate retard isn't going to hold up in court.
Lying to consumers by misrepresenting your product is not okay what ever company you work for.
>>51231115
>Defining what a true 'core' is, is absolutely retarded
Not to the court it isn't.
Unless you like losing lawsuits.
>>51231120
>They didn't say 8 cores exactly the same way intel makes them
Which is what they'll try to argue in court.
And the other side will try to argue that the common consumer thinks that this is the case.
Otherwise Intel would just use hyperthreading to count every thread as a core.
>>51231111
What I'm saying is that being "Mislead" on CPU performance is your own fucking fault. Marketing itself would be revolutionized if it's not okay to not disclose EVERY FACT POSSIBLE TO KNOW about a product. Not worthy of a lawsuit.
>>51231129
>I'm in over my head and can't make an even remotely sensible argument
>I'll just keep repeating my same lies over and over again
>lmao AMD is finished XD
Top notch shitposting.
>>51217051
on the subject of the 970, is it good enough to run games on 1080p at max settings or should I just go for a 980 card?
>>51231142
There is literally 0% chance of this going to court unless AMD counter sues.
You don't just have every frivolous filing go directly to court, that isn't how our legal system works.
>>51231129
If it isn't retarded to try and define what a "Core" is to the court, maybe that says something about our Civil justice system. Being an uninformed consumer is your own fucking fault, end of story.
>>51231143
>being mislead on cpu performance is your own fucking fault
No it isn't. You can't be an expert on everything which is why consumer protections exist you stupid waste of space.
This isn't to protect the self declared tech geniuses like you.
It's to protect the tech illiterates who bought the CPU thinking it would perform like an intel 8 core.
This is a class action lawsuit.
Filed for a class of people you stupid fuck. Just because you don't belong to that class of people doesn't mean they don't have a case with merit.
>>51231168
>there is literally 0% chance
Nice, baseless post m8. Lawsuits will go to court once they're filed. Learn you some fucking law.
>>51231187
>I have literally no idea what a class action suit actually is
Top kek.
A known troll in silicon valley sent around a petition then used those names so he wouldn't be the sole party in the suit.
You should probably do some research before you shitpost so intently.
>>51231203
No, no they do not. Cases have hearings to ascertain validity before they go to court, you uneducated child.
>>51231177
>It isn't retarded
What they're trying to define isn't what a 'Core' is. What they're trying to define is what a 'Core' is to the CONSUMER during that TIME.
The court is going to attempt to answer 'Whether a COMMON DUMBFUCK CONSUMER would likely be misled by AMD into thinking that an 8 core processor is functionally equivalent to an 8 core intel processor.
If it's successful then AMD will just have to give those people refunds.
It's not rocket fucking science dumb dumbs.
>>51231229
I think you don't have an idea what a class action lawsuit is.
A class action lawsuit is a suit brought about for a class of people.
You're a moron if you think a class action lawsuit means it's for ALL people who bought bulldozer CPUs. It's only for those people who have been misled into buying them thinking that they're getting similar performance to 8 core Intel processors.
You're just too stupid to read up on law.
>>51231238
>It's the companies obligation to inform consumers that their product is inferior to their competitor's
>Braindead Judges will uphold this
Nice try you fucking lunatic.
>>51231274
>It's the companies obligation to inform consumers that their product is inferior to their competitors
Again nobody said this. What they did have to disclose is that their product is different and LET THE CONSUMER DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES.
>>51231238
For years and years X86 cores had no FPU whatsoever. None.
FPUs came around much later, and they were add in accelerator cards. Totally separate dies from your CPU.
If you tried to define an X86 core as having an FPU, then you would be labeling all original X86 processors as not being "true cores" or whatever retarded term you're trying to use here.
The FlexFPU isn't what makes or breaks the cores in AMD's architecture. This has been explained clear as day a handful of times now.
>>51231260
>I literally do not have any idea whatsoever what a class action suit is
You don't have to repeat yourelf, I already know you're retarded.
0% chance of ever going to court.
Have fun with your continued shitposting until you get banned.
>>51231260
>class action lawsuit
>not "ALL people who bought bulldozer CPUs."
>It's only for those people who have been misled into buying them thinking that they're getting similar performance to 8 core Intel processors.
So... everybody, right?
>>51231315
>0% chance
Go home armchair legal expert.
It's not your decision. California state law is big on consumer protection which is why they're filing there.
>>51231293
There is no proclaimed standard to what constitutes a CPU core.
Therefore, they have no obligation to disclose that their product is "Different".
If VIA entered the desktop market, would anyone bat an eye if their design "Deviates" from Intel? No, of course not.
What the common belief the consumer had of a "Core" has no bearing because there's no existing "Standard" to compare it to.
>>51231318
>So everybody right?
Not everybody. If you were retarded enough to buy it knowing that it was different and lacked the FPUs then you're on your own.
>>51231159
Yeah it will run ultra, albiet some games like gtaV will not 60 on a 980ti at 1080 if you tu4n up every single slider. But for the price either go 970 or 980ti for twice the price and performance. 980 is a little more performance than 970 but a lot more expensive.
>>51231337
>There's no proclaimed standard
Again that's why there are courts. To determine what constitutes a CPU core as the consumer understands it.
>Therefore they have no obligation
Yes your honor, you're basing this on which court decision you dumbshit?
>Deviates from intel
It's not just the deviation it's the lack of DISCLOSURE. If the court decides that AMD didn't disclose appropriately then they will get awarded damages.
>>51231351
So... everybody who is aware of this class action lawsuit, right?
>>51231407
Class actions are brought for a class of people.
If you belong to this class of people than you can make a claim.
Just check with the Sony class action where they had to pay back customers for false advertising with the vita.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-04-06-sony-rewards-after-class-action-vita-lawsuit-are-now-available
Once damages are won the company pays all the eligible consumers.
>>51231391
>To determine what constitutes a CPU core as the consumer understands this
But see, you can't do this. Architecture design has changed ever since the original 8086. It can easily change again in the future. Then a CPU core as a consumer understands it is thrown out the window yet again.
>>51231431
>you can't do this
You can if you're a court you stupid fuck.
It's not about architecture it's about what the Consumer deems is a Core. It's not a technical argument. It's a legal one you dumbshit.
>>51231446
No its not. Why are you shilling so hard?
I bet you're Tony Dickey himself.
>>51231459
>no it's not
>A lawsuit isn't a legal argument
Oh well, you can only be this retarded for so long before people wipe you off the face of the planet.
>>51231446
Then the Civil law system is fucking retarded then.
I'm gonna go start a case just to wipe this ridiculous working out of the system.
>>51231492
>Civil law system is retarded
It's common law you stupid fuck.
>>51231426
Where do I sign up for this AMD lawsuit?
I like getting surprise money checks in the mail a few years from now. I remember I signed up so some LCD lawsuit back in 2008, and I got a $250 check in 2013.
I WANT LAWSUIT MONEY
>>51231480
You can't make a sound legal argument that contradicts facts.
Cases have hearings before they go to court, and a single engineer to demonstrate beyond all doubt that the case has no merit.
I seriously want you to prove that you aren't Tony Dickey.
>>51231492
>He doesn't even know that the US has a common law system
>Civil law
Please go suck a dick.
>>51231502
When it's successful you'll be notified. It's ongoing legal proceedings.
>>51231521
>It's ongoing legal proceedings.
No its not.
Its just a filing.
A filing that will have a hearing, and then be immediately thrown out as baseless trolling.
The guy who filed the suit is a known troll in silicon valley. He is the ambulance chaser of the tech world in California.
It sounds more and more like you are the man in question with every post you make.
>>51231552
>baseless trolling
This is just your fanboy opinion. I think it absolutely has merit. If cases like the Playstation Vita case can go through this absolutely will.
merit.
Fuck this where's my 4GB 970 lawsuit?
>>51231591
Nvidia is fucking retarded.
>>51231574
>Judges have authority over definition of what a CPU core is
>Not Microprocessor Engineers
I'm never moving south holy shit.
>>51231591
http://www.scribd.com/doc/256406451/Nvidia-lawsuit-over-GTX-970
Right here
>>51217103
>The slides and all the technical information about the architecture was freely available.
Which has absolutely irrelevant to the claim of false advertising.
>/g/ in charge of logical thinking
>>51231574
I'm not a fanboy, all of my posts have been strictly factual.
You're either Tony Dickey himself, or you are certifiably mentally ill. Your outlandish opinions are not fact. You've done nothing but blatantly ignore objective fact, lie, and shitpost this entire thread.
>>51231607
Judges have authority over what constitutes misleading the consumer about CPU cores.
Microprocessor Engineers are just expert witnesses. Judges will decide if the consumer would understand what they're saying about Cores and whether they purchased the CPUs because they were misled by AMD.
You're just too stupid to understand the difference between technical specifications and legal precedent.
>>51231612
And nobody made a big deal about this ? Why when Amd gets a lawsuit a bunch of fucking nvidia fags start shitting all over the place with there autism?
>>51231574
>Vita lawsuit
Shit can I still claim for this?
>>51231630
>muh bogeyman
I'm just trying to educate people about the legal processes. Are you from AMD by some chance? You seem absolutely perturbed by the notion that they're getting sued.
>>51231665
It was reported everywhere it was a big deal.
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2015/02/nvidia-hit-with-class-action-lawsuit-over-graphics-card-ram-issues/
>>51231666
Sure hopefully if you qualify (if you bought it at a certain time when the false advertising was being shown)
>>51231629
Using "core" in this way has been standard since the '90s. AMD was open about the architecture and usually advertised as "x modules/2x cores."
Idiots don't know what "core" means. That doesn't mean AMD is using it wrong.
>>51231666
only if you bought a vita before june 2012
>>51231647
Legal precedent cannot be grounded in anything contradictory to facts. If you knew literally anything about the US Justice system you would know this.
A judge cannot rule that only men with two legs are human beings.
A judge cannot make a ruling and define something with an intentionally vague set of standards either. There is no such thing as an X86 core, only varied implementations of the ISA. A judge does not have the authority to rule otherwise because it is contradictory to the facts.
>>51231671
>even more lying and shitposting
Sure are convincing.
>>51231647
....Which is why I think that's retarded.
This means I can sue Honda USA for not showing the Torque curves of their engines because they accelerate slower with the same or more peak horsepower compared to a big displacement V6, thus misleading consumers.
That's just stupid.
Does tgis actually mean anything to me if i purchased one of their cpus? Like money back for cpu and mobo since it was intentionally misleading?
>>51231707
Then AMD shouldn't sell their products to idiots or disclose it in their advertising.
>>51231720
>Contradictory to facts
The fact is that AMD sold the CPUs with deficient cores and used it as a selling point. Literally plastering 8 CORES over all it's marketing materials while not mentioning that these cores are gimped to fuck thus conning many consumers.
Consumers should just take it lying down for some reason?
>>51231693
I know I qualify but the vitaclaims.com site is down
>>51231732
>This means I can sue Honda USA for not showing Torque curves of their engines
I think you're under the impression that suing someone is some divine right.
Anyone can sue anyone for anything. It's just whether you'll win or not and whether its worth it that's the important bit.
If you think they've been misleading you, sue Honda for those things. And if you can find thousands of people to agree with you even better you can make it a class action.
>>51231742
did you buy it before june 2012?
I think you can still write to Sony with your proof of purchase.
>>51216909
Intel lies about # of cores all the time.
4 cores with hyperthreading != 8 cores
>>51231741
>The fact is that AMD sold the CPUs with deficient cores and used it as a selling point. Literally plastering 8 CORES over all it's marketing materials while not mentioning that these cores are gimped to fuck thus conning many consumers.
Again you are LYING and intentionally ignoring facts.
The complaint specifically alleges that the Bulldozer arch doesn't allow an 8 core chip to execute 8 instructions simultaneously. This is 100% factually wrong. All 4 module Bulldozer and Piledriver based chips can execute 8 integer or float point operations at the same time. The arrangement of the modules isn't even responsible for the low IPC of the design so there is absolutely no way that the complaint can be interpreted and have any validity.
The wildly fallacious assertions you're making only further make it sound like you are Tony Dickey himself.
>>51231742
Those eligible for an award will need to fill out a claim form by July 29, 2015. The form requires the serial number from your Vita to verify the date of purchase.
Sorry you missed the boat m8.
>>51218501
AMD - Cores redefined
This should be their new slogan
>>51231790
>did you buy it before june 2012?
Yes, that's why I say I know I qualify.
>>51231822
Damn
>>51231817
>lying
I'm not lying. This is what the lawsuit is alleging you fucktard.
>This is 100% factually wrong
We'll see in court, fucktard.
>muh technical mumbo jumbo
Go be an expert witness for AMD and explain away. Doesn't mean the judge won't fall asleep and award damages to the plaintiff.
>>51231844
Write to Sony, maybe you'll get free money if you offer them serial numbers of your vita.
Can't hurt to try.
>>51230258
>If I sued Intel for having CPUs that are rated for high clock speeds but perform worse than Athlon CPUs at lower clock speeds and this misleads consumers into buying Intel CPUs on this merit alone, I'd lose hard because the CPUs were in fact clocked at those high clock speeds and it was my fault for believing the Intel CPUs performed better because of this fact.
You'd lose because Intel never advertised their processors against AMD as though clockspeed determined performance. If they had it wouldn't just be customer misinterpretation, it would be false advertising.
Now, the question is, did AMD ever advertise their 8 cores against Intel's 4, or did they just advertise it as an 8 core chip? If they advertised it as a core-count to core-count apples-to-apples comparison wherein they were offering 8 apples to Intel's 4, that's blatantly false advertising.
>>51231851
This is everything wrong with US common law, or whatever it's called, right here.
I don't even care if my brother lives there, i'm never going south.
>>51231872
>Intel never advertised their processors against AMD as though clockspeed determined performance
Actually, that's EXACTLY what they did you fucking MONGREL.
>>51231872
>that's blatantly false advertising.
Nah. It's misleading, but it isn't a lie. Their chips do have more cores even if they aren't comparable.
Companies are not allowed to lie, but they also aren't required to educate consumers. They can say something true and hope readers will misunderstand.
>>51231851
> This is what the lawsuit is alleging you fucktard.
No its not. You are lying right through your teeth. The complaint is short and explicit. You're continually injecting your own nonsense and asserting that its factual when it isn't.
>We'll see in court, fucktard.
There is nothing for a court to decide. Every single 4 module Zambezi/Vishera owner in the world can run a simple benchmark and see for themselves.
>Go be an expert witness for AMD and explain away. Doesn't mean the judge won't fall asleep and award damages to the plaintiff.
You're on a board for the discussion of technology. Calling simple facts "technical mumbo jumbo" really makes you look like a desperate shitposting child.
>>51231873
Stop thinking that this mentally ill shitposer is any authority on US law. Literally every single thing he has posted thus far has been pulled out of his ass.
>>51231905
but they achieved those clockspeeds. They never claimed that their products were better than AMD processors running the same clockspeed.
They just posted clockspeeds.
How the fuck are you going to sue them?
>>51231915
>You're lying
>The complaint is short and explicit
https://regmedia.co.uk/2015/11/06/amd_bulldozer_lawsuit.pdf
Read it yourself
>short and explicit
>my sides
>>51231937
Because based off of what this other retard is spouting, I could win because what the "common consumer" thinks of clock speed in a performance metric.
Of course, that's ridiculous, which is why I said i'd lose.
>>51231961
>30 page claim
>short and explicit
>>51231915
Please shut up, you're looking pretty stupid now.
>>51231961
Yes, the complaint made is short and explicit.
I'd tell you to read it for yourself but you're clearly far too crazy to do so.
>>51231989
Keep on trying, you mentally ill shitposter.
Not everything listed on every page is part of the complaint. You're proving that you haven't even glanced at it.
>>51231974
Common consumer thinks that clockspeed means better performance.
Intel increases clockspeeds.
Consumer is not fooled because it really does achieve those clockspeeds
Common consumer now thinks more cores = more performance
AMD releases an 8 core processor with gimped cores that perform only like a 4 cores in certain instances.
Consumer get tricked into purchasing it.
It's different senpai.
>>51231937
Of course they fucking do. You're probably too young to remember the days of PPC vs Pentium, but ALL of Intel's marketing focused on their higher clock rates.
Apple made a great presentation about it, surprisingly. They used to actually discuss technology in their presentations rather than just spewing buzzwords.
>>51232011
>short and explicit
It's 30 pages long you stupid fuck. This AMD shill be mad.
>>51232017
Consumer IS fooled because the CPU performs slower per clock cycle than both their previous generation processor, and AMD's processor offerings. Have a taste of your own fucking medicine.
They are virtually one in the same.
Oh, and the 8 integer units can handle 8 threads independently, that's a fact that cannot be changed by a court ruling.
>>51216909
I guess this meme will finally die then
>>51232017
>AMD releases an 8 core processor with gimped cores that perform only like a 4 cores in certain instances.
AMD's chips REALLY DO have as many cores as they say they do. It's just that most consumers don't know what a core really is.
It may be a marketing gimmick, but the same goes for Intel bragging about MHz. It isn't a lie.
>>51232025
Yeah but the clockspeeds are still achieved by intel. They didn't trick the consumers by not acheiving those clockspeeds. AMD achieved more performance per clock and they advertised as such. Not going for clockspeed but basing it off equivalent P4 models. I don't understand how the consumer could be misled into thinking Intel's clockspeeds aren't really their clockspeeds?
>>51231910
You cannot misrepresent a relationship. Stating a fact and having the customer misinterpret it is one thing. Posting a false relationship as though it's an apples-to-apples comparison is another.
<----- AMD is fucked.
>>51232075
Fucked 2
>>51232067
>Really do
This lawsuit is alleging that they don't and that because the consumer doesn't understand what a core really is they misled them into believing they would be similar to intel cores.
>Intel bragging about MHZ
They still achieved those MHZ. They didn't change MHZ into something else so that they could achieve it.
That's the difference senpai.
>>51232071
They're mislead because clock speed COULD NOT BE USED AS AN ACCURATE PERFORMANCE METRIC vs PENTIUM III AND ATHLON YOU FUCKING MONGREL.
>>51232075
* Non-thumbnail version.
>>51232031
>still just shitposting over and over and over again.
The complaint extends from page 15 to the middle of page 16.
Everything else contained therein is supplementary, and claims of damages, and defining the affected party which makes it a class action.
He is explicit in stating that his 8 core FX chip only performs like a 4 core intel chip.
Lying and shitposting is all you can do.
>>51232031
>It's 30 pages long you stupid fuck.
Oh, wow! THIRTY pages! With a large font, large margins, large pictures, and references that take up half the page!
Thirty pages is nothing, kid. When you get into high school, you may be expected to read thirty pages a NIGHT.
>>51232106
They achieved those clock speeds, yeah.
But it was still slower per clock cycle than the Pentium III and the Athlon.
Therefore, Intel mislead consumers because the performance metric everyone used was clock speed.
>>51232106
>This lawsuit is alleging that they don't
The lawsuit is wrong.
>They didn't change MHZ into something else so that they could achieve it.
Nor did AMD redefine what a CPU core is. This definition has been standard since the '90s and was introduced by DEC, not Intel.
>>51232109
When did Intel ever say it was?
>>51232109
That's not what they advertised. What they advertised is that those chips in fact achieved those clockspeeds. They don't have to hold consumers hands into another performance metric. AMD chips were superior in performance per clock. They even changed their marketing to follow Intel's clockspeed style performance metric by putting numbers next to the chips to signify the Intel equivalents.
>>51232120
Nope, the first 6 pages are background and facts.
The complaint starts with the pictures from page 7.
Please eat shit and die. I go through legal documentation for a living.
>>51221994
I literally wish intel only cared about money
>>51232152
You're not very old, are you?
Intel marketed it like it was throughout the entire lifespan of the Pentium 4, claiming otherwise is blatantly false.
>>51232125
Nice no true scotsman faget.
Even if it were 15 pages it's still not a short claim.
AMD IS DEAD
>>51232154
Okay then, so AMD advertised that the FX 8000 series chips had 8 cores. Did they claim the 8 cores were comparable to Intel cores? No. All they said is that they had more cores.
Lawsuit shafted.
>>51232190
>Intel marketed it
They marketed the chips with clockspeed. They never claimed to have the same performance as AMD chips at the same clockspeed.
That's different.
AMD claimed that it was 'superior' because it had more cores in it's marketing material.
That's false and misleading. Which is why they're fucked.
>>51232192
Of course it's a fucking short claim. 30 pages is NOTHING, kid.
>Even if it were 15 pages
It's less than 15 pages of actual claim. It's almost all background and pictures and the font is large.
>>51232218
They claimed it was superior because it had more cores
like
>>51232075
>>51232091
The consumer isn't told that it's not an apples to apples comparison.
That's pretty misleading don't you think?
>>51232177
>Please eat shit and die. I go through legal documentation for a living.
No you don't. No one as mentally ill as you could ever hold down a job.
Going on a tech board to lie and shitpost about something you don't have the faculties to understand really is something though.
>>51232192
Try again, retard.
>>51232223
>They never claimed to have the same performance as AMD chips at the same clockspeed.
They claimed to have SUPERIOR performance to PPC chips.
>AMD claimed that it was 'superior' because it had more cores in it's marketing material.
It IS superior in core count.
>That's false and misleading.
So is claiming that Pentiums are faster than PPC chips because of the higher clock rate.
>>51232223
They never claimed they had the same performance as AMD chips at the same clock speeds because they didn't need to. They fully knew that consumers based performance off of a CPU's clock speed.
AMD's Bulldozer has 8 cores, can address 8 threads. It is an 8 core processor, end of story.
>>51232249
>mentally ill
I don't think you've worked in the legal profession before. This claim absolutely has merit. Spouting technical jargon doesn't deflect from the fact that it's clear in AMD marketing materials that they're comparing their cores directly to intel cores while not disclosing that they're materially different.
Keep harping on the fact that 'they do have 8 cores hurr'
The fact is they misled consumers into thinking that the cores are equivalent.
>>51232244
>That's pretty misleading don't you think?
Yup! Almost as misleading as pretending that MHz == performance, like Intel did in the days of Pentium vs PPC.
Companies are not required to hold the consumer's hand. They just aren't allowed to lie. And AMD did NOT lie.
>>51232244
It is better in multithreaded tasks because it has more physical cores.
Stop digging your own grave.
>>51232286
>Companies are not required to hold the consumer's hand. They just aren't allowed to lie. And AMD did NOT lie.
/thread
>>51232271
And consumers don't even know what the fuck PPC chips are.
They see more cores and they assume more performance. Which is what the lawsuit is alleging.
>>51232275
>they never claimed they had the same performance
>put a side by side comparison while not mentioning that they're actually different.
They don't have to. All they have to do is mislead the consumer for the lawsuit to be successful.
>>51222774
AMD, unlike Intel, isn't stationed in Israel.
>>51232244
It isn't apples to apples, it's AMD's design, there is no standard of which a x86 core is judged, they have no obligation to say it's different.
Netburst reached higher clock speeds, compared it to PPC CPUs, and they had no obligation to do it apples to apples.
>>51232308
>They see more cores and they assume more performance
Yes, in multithreaded applications. More cores does not mean better performance across the board, and if the consumer believes this it's his or her own fault.
>>51232289
Just think about how nice an 8 core phenom ii would have been
seriously fuck amd tbqh
>>51232289
>You're digging your own grave
AMD dug their own grave. Your shilling doesn't help them.
>>51232300
>They just aren't allowed to lie
This is patently wrong. They only have to mislead the consumer. They don't have to lie. Putting an apples to apples comparison chart is misleading.
>>51232285
> This claim absolutely has merit.
It doesn't, no matter how many times you say it does. The guy makes factually incorrect statements in his complaint, so it automatically has no validity whatsoever. The entire basis for his complaint is factually flawed.
The module design itself is not responsible for low IPC and poor serial performance.
>>51232317
>It isn't apples to apples
Could have fooled me, they put it side by side.
>The whole basis of this lawsuit is that people could have been fooled
And there you have a successful lawsuit on your hands.
>>51232334
If misleading a consumer was grounds to win a lawsuit, all Marketing would have to be flipped on it's ass, destroyed, and be rebuilt again.
You're full of shit.
>>51232334
>Putting an apples to apples comparison chart is misleading.
Nah. They're comparing honest-to-God x86 cores to honest-to-God x86 cores. It's the consumers fault for reading into it.
>>51232328
>if the consumer believes
It's more that the consumer has been led to believe by AMD that this is the case. Which it isn't. Which is why they're getting sued you dumbdumb.
>>51232345
>It doesn't have any merit
It has plenty of merit. Literally tons of AMD marketing material putting it side by side to Intel chips claiming superior performance because of more cores.
Couldn't be more explicit.
>>51232368
>They're comparing honest-to-God x86 cores to honest-to-God x86 cores
This. They aren't talking about the FPUs or any other part of the module, specifically the x86 core.
Oh my, whats this?
>>51232368
>It's the consumers fault
You see that's for the courts to decide, not you.
Just because the consumer is retarded doesn't mean you get to fool them into buying your products through misleading and deceptive practices.
Why it looks like the processor with more physical cores does perform well in applications that actually use them.
Imagine that!
>>51232384
>4c/t CPU with higher IPC performs similarly to 8c/8t CPU
whodathunk
Its almost like theres literally no problem with marketing material comparing two processors based on price point when one has a distinct advantage in certain workloads!
>>51232407
>>51232384
Shilling for AMD doesn't change the fact that they've misled consumers.
>>51220854
It's used for games mate.
>>51232116
Okay now that I've seen this slide i'll admit the lawsuit MIGHT have some merit.
This is the FX-8150 in this slide though.
The marketing for the FX-9590 was all clock speed if I remember it right.
>>51232384
>>51232407
>>51232431
benchmarks are not official marketing materials you stupid AMD shills.
>>51232423
*4c/8t
>>51232436
How?
>>51232453
This is a claim for bulldozer not piledriver
>>51232499
I don't see anything wrong
>>51232436
>posting simple facts, actual performance metrics is shilling
The butthurt is real
The complaint has literally no merit, and every single lie you've posted in this thread has been absolutely blown the fuck out.
Core are not magic. They can only perform when being used. When the software does use them, AMD's approach to utilizing more physical cores rather than logical cores via SMT does hold an advantage. They're absolutely justified in comparing a similarly priced Zambezi/Vishera chip against an i5.
This is all beside the fact that they are true 8 core processors, and they matter of factly can execute 8 instructions simultaneously.
>>51232456
>being this buttblasted
Those benchmarks validate the marketing material, you tech illiterate retard.
>Nvidia not just misrepresents but actually lies about 970 specs
>IT'S ALRIGHT. THEY JUST MADE A MISTAKE. IT'S STILL A GOOD CARD
>AMD shows exact specs of CPU
>THEY MISLEAD CUSTOMERS
You wouldn't sue Aston Martin when their V12 doesn't go as fast as Ferrari's V8. If a customer expects a V12 to automatically be faster than the V8 you call him an idiot.
>>51232516
>performance metrics
The argument is that AMD misled consumers with their advertising materials. Not about performance metrics. You're just a mad dumb dumb who can't stand AMD getting sued for unethical marketing.
>>51232512
That's because you're an AMD fanboy.
>>51232538
This. This analogy right here, people.
All you had to do was compare HP and Torque, not unlike comparing benchmark results.
>>51232567
No, it's because AMD did nothing lawsuit worthy
>>51232538
Nvidia got sued too
see
>>51231693
>>51232539
No, the core of the complaint literally is that an 8 core FX chip can't execute 8 instructions simultaneously. Which again, is entirely false.
Tony Dickey alleges that, based on the above fallacious assumption, this is responsible for his processor performing poorly in some workloads.
None of AMD's marketing material was misleading.
>>51232538
>Implying Nvidia didn't get sued for the 970 issue
kek
>>51232585
Read the fucking complaint you fucktard
it's here
THE FULL FUCKING COMPLAINT TO THE COURT NOT SOME SHORTENED BY A RETARD BLOG VERSION
>>51231961
>>51231961
>>51231961
>>51232580
>>51232598
but they actually lied to customers (and press) about the specs of the memory interface. AMD always published the correct details about Bulldozer.
>>51232286
>They just aren't allowed to lie.
Your internet lawyer degree isn't worth the nonexistent paper it's printed on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising
>False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising, and misrepresentation of the product at hand, which may negatively affect many stakeholders, especially consumers.
False advertising applies to misleading, not just outright lying.
If you make a comparison that isn't apples to apples, it IS your legal responsibility to hold the customer's hand all the way to "oranges."
"The Pentium 4 runs at 1.4GHz."
This is fine. The customer seeing that the Athlon runs at 1GHz and misinterpreting that to mean the P4 is 40% faster isn't false advertising because the falsehood isn't represented in the ad.
"The Pentium 4 runs at 1.4GHz. See how we haz 40% more of teh Megahurtz than the Athlon 1GHz!?"
Here the comparison is being made in the ad. A reasonable person could easily interpret this as though an apples-to-apples comparison of performance is trying to be made. They're not lying, but the point is obviously to mislead the customer. This is false advertising. It would be their responsibility to point out that megahertz does not equal performance.
Fucken bullshit. It's just a bunch of lawyers trying to get more money. The FX do have cores, though different, and it still operates as a CPU. If given a multitasking job, it will shred right through that as well. Most lawyers just want to reap easy cash and would mug children for lunch money on a bus if given the chance. AMD has nothing to fear
>>51232616
I have, and I absolutely guarantee that you have not.
You're just a mentally ill tech illiterate retard who is obsessed with this for some reason. Again making it incredibly likely that you are Tony himself.
This entire situation is remarkably similar to the Jim Profit fiasco. Yet another mentally ill dipshit, expect he was obsessed with trying to sue Moot and shut down 4chan because it hurt his feels. Jim shitposted on all the high traffic boards to get attention too, just like you're doing.
>>51232624
>They actually lied
Again Nvidia getting sued has nothing to do with AMD getting sued. In your tiny mind they're somehow equivalent.
They're both getting sued for different reasons.
AMD for bulldozer and Nvidia for the 970.
Both misled the public. Both should fucking pay.
>>51232649
Oh, wow! A Wikipedia link! A tertiary source that any random bozo can edit! I am slain!
>If you make a comparison that isn't apples to apples
This is apples-to-apples. They're comparing real x86 cores to real x86 cores.
>>51232671
Nvidia: deliberately published wrong specs. that's called lying.
AMD: only stated the positives, didn't mention the negatives. that's called marketing.
>>51232664
I have. The plaintiff alleges that he bought the processors based off the marketing materials posted on Newegg by AMD.
They even show all the offending marketing material.
You're the fucking retarded saying that it's baseless for the consumer being tech illiterate. Just because you're not a mechanical engineer doesn't mean that car companies can just lie about their specs by hiding it behind technical jargon faget.
At worst the lawsuit has merit. At best AMD got caught lying.
>>51232702
>AMD only stated positives
Again misleading is still misleading. Omitting the negatives of your product and marketing it as the same or better than your competitors is misleading.
>>51232649
>False advertising or deceptive advertising is the use of false or misleading statements in advertising, and misrepresentation of the product at hand, which may negatively affect many stakeholders, especially consumers.
And it is not illegal except in certain circumstances. BLATANTLY LYING is illegal. Telling the truth in the hopes of consumers misunderstanding it is not.
From your own shitty source:
>False advertising, in the most blatant of contexts, is illegal in most countries. However, advertisers still find ways to deceive consumers in ways that are legal, or technically illegal but unenforceable.
Not surprising that someone who uses Wikipedia as a legal authority wouldn't understand.
>>51232756
>It's not illegal
Wow, we have an expert in advertising laws here?
>>51232721
Not him but,
Oh, so Bugatti (Volkswagen) can't call their W16 engine a W16 because the Engine doesn't have "True" banks of Cylinders because it's based on a VR design?
Get fucked.
>>51232732
>Omitting the negatives of your product and marketing it as the same or better than your competitors is misleading.
then every single advertisement is misleading
>>51232721
>Just because you're not a mechanical engineer doesn't mean that car companies can just lie about their specs by hiding it behind technical jargon faget.
Yes it does. If you're not a mechanical engineer, YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS CARING. You should not care about specs you don't understand.
If I buy a car, I don't look at the specs because I know I don't understand them. I take it for a test drive and read reviews. If I do look at the specs and make a stupid decision because I don't understand them, that's my own damn fault.
>>51232721
Yet again there is nothing wrong with AMD's marketing material. Nothing about it is misleading. Their chips were competitively priced against intel i5s, and they held distinct performance advantages over them.
See:
>>51232431
>>51232407
>>51232384
>>51232289
He alleges that his 8 core FX chip does not have real independent cores. That is false.
He alleges that 8 core FX chips cannot execute 8 instructions simultaneously. That is false.
He alleges that the module design is responsible for low IPC. That is also false.
Nothing there has any merit whatsoever.
You're saying that AMD is lying, yet every single one of your posts is filled with you lying to push a narrative that you've made up inside of your deranged mind.
>>51232732
Now this is just laughably childish.
Marketing does not show negatives. Ever.
Intel, AMD, VIA, Nvidia, Samsung, Apple, Qualcomm, every single IC designer out there will only show the strong points of their products.
You are so far beyond grasping at straws here.
>>51232772
Seeing as you got your law degree from Wikipedia University, you aren't one to talk.
And as I said, your own damn source contradicts you.
>>51232756
>except in certain circumstances
And those circumstances include leading your customers to believe something untrue.
Which is what AMD did.
>>51232775
If Bugatti makes claims that a W16 engine is in fact a 16 cylinder engine then this would be the case.
They make no such claims. AMD by putting a side by side comparison with Intel implied that their cores were equivalent.
>>51232777
Ommitting the negatives is fine. Just don't compare it to your competitors directly using the same metrics when your products are materially different.
This is what the lawsuit is alleging. That AMD misled with their advertising of their 8 cores to be exactly the same as the intel ones even putting them side by side in charts with words proclaiming superiority.
>>51232825
>And those circumstances include leading your customers to believe something untrue.
Nah. Being misleading is frequently not illegal. Shady, sure. Illegal, no.
And AMD didn't even mislead their customers. Their chips have 8 cores. They get good multi-threaded performance on some tasks as a result. Bulldozer sucked, but that's not because the cores aren't real.
>AMD by putting a side by side comparison with Intel implied that their cores were equivalent.
Nah. It stated that they are x86 cores. It didn't say they have identical performance. If you thought it said that, that's because you're stupid.
>>51232825
The W16 engine is, by logic and design, a 16 Cylinder engine. It has 16 cylinders that use the 4 cycles of an internal combustion engine to make power. It's an internal combustion engine.
It is a 16 cylinder engine Faggot.
>>51232817
I'm not the same person who posted the Wikipedia article. In your paranoia you assume that everyone who is arguing with you is the same person.
>>51232812
>marketing does not show negatives
Marketing also doesn't show your competitor's products side by side for a PERFORMANCE claim which is misleading.
>>51232851
>metrics when your products are materially different
How are they different? They both have x86 cores. They are exactly the same in that sense. AMD's chips do have more x86 cores and are superior in that sense.
If you misinterpreted that as saying that their cores are better in every way, that's your own damn fault.
>>51232879
I don't fucking care about engines. But it has nothing to do with the argument you fucking moron. I'm trying to make an analogical point and you're trying to be a retarded autist.
>>51232880
>for a PERFORMANCE claim
Bullshit. They said their chip has more cores. Which it does. It really does win by all those metrics even if the real-world performance is worse.
>>51232825
>. AMD by putting a side by side comparison with Intel implied that their cores were equivalent.
No it doesn't. Not in any way shape or form does it imply that they offer 1:1 performance while having more cores. It simply states they have more cores.
If you wanted to have even a shred of an argument that you'd target the clock speed comparison.>>51232851
>>51232851
>Just don't compare it to your competitors directly using the same metrics when your products are materially different.
Are you 12 years old?
I can't decide if you're just underage, or are legitimately crazy.
All marketing is about showing the edge you have over the competition.
You're still just lying constantly in every single post, pretending like things you pull out of your ass are true.
>>51232851
read carefully. It factually states that it has more cores. It never claims the cores to be equal or superior. It claims that the overall design is superior, which it provably is in workloads that use all cores.
>>51232894
>how are they different.
When you put them side by side and show that they're x86 cores then fail to mention that they're different materially.
That's misleading.
Wouldn't you assume if you don't know anything about consumers that they're the same?
This is what the lawsuit is alleging not that AMD outright lied about bulldozer.
It's about how they marketed it you fucking moron.
ITT: AMDumbs who can't see the forest for the trees.
If this is successful all it will do is get you a heap of free cash.
How stupid and brainwashed are you if you own AMD products not to know that this is actually to your advantage?
>>51232922
No, x86 cores are x86 cores. They're not talking about the FPU or any other part of the module, just the x86 core.
>>51232944
Exactly, they didn't mention it on purpose to mislead the consumer.
>>51232943
Not even AMD fanboys bought Bulldozer
- signed: an AMD fanboy
>>51232922
ALL X86 CORES ARE VASTLY DIFFERENT FROM ONE ANOTHER
THE X86 ISA IS NOT A DEFINITION OF WHAT A CORE IS, IT IS ONLY A SIMPLISTIC SET OF INSTRUCTIONS THAT AN ARCHITECTURE MUST COMPLY WITH AND BE ABLE TO PROCESS
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A STANDARD OR "TRUE" X86 CORE
THERE ARE ONLY IMPLEMENTATIONS OF THE X86 ISA
YOU ARE ON A TECH BOARD CONSTANTLY SHITTING YOUR PANTS ESPOUSING UTTER BULLSHIT
PRETENDING TO BE A LAWYER DOESN'T GIVE YOU ANY CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER WHEN YOU ARE THIS LAUGHABLY STUPID
>>51232943
Our arguing here isn't going to change the lawsuit in any way. I for one hope it goes through as I have a Bulldozer system. Wanting the suit to be successful and agreeing that the suit is based on valid pretenses are not mutually inclusive.
>>51232960
They did mention it. They specifically stated "x86 cores"
>>51232922
>When you put them side by side and show that they're x86 cores then fail to mention that they're different materially.
They never claimed they're the same. They claimed they're both x86 cores. That's true.
Are they different in any way that makes AMD's claims actually inaccurate?
>>51232968
This is for people who got duped into buying it.
>>51232985
>They did mention it. They specifically stated "x86 cores"
And they are x86 cores. They have shared decoders and FPUs and so on, but that doesn't make them not x86 cores.
>>51232979
Again the consumer doesn't know this. Just because you do doesn't mean the average joe buying a computer does fucko.
>>51232985
They didn't mention that their x86 cores were different from Intel x86 cores. If you didn't know that they were diffferent wouldn't you assume that x86 and x86 are the same thing?
This is the whole fucking problem. Not your shitty educated opinion.
ITS FOR THOSE WHO GOT HOODWINKED INTO BUYING BULLDOZER GODAMMN YOU SHITTY FANBOYS ARE INSUFFERABLE.
>>51233015
That's my fucking point dipshit.
I bought my 8320 especially for its 8 integer cores, and it's fucking great.
>>51233031
>If you didn't know that they were diffferent wouldn't you assume that x86 and x86 are the same thing?
I would until I researched my purchase, which is what you're supposed to fucking do when you buy things.
>>51233055
>I would until I researched my purchase
And to the average retard an FPU is going to make sense right?
No, AMD needs to make that clear.
>>51233055
Yeah but AMD also has a duty not to mislead consumers.
Hence lawsuit.
>>51233031
>b-b-but the consumer doesn't know what a core is!
That is no ones fault. The average consumer doesn't know what horsepower means, yet there is no issue with auto manufacturers listing engine specs left and right. Plenty of engines with 300hp+ are beaten by smaller lighter blocks that produce less power.
One person being an idiot does not mean that all the marketing is deceptive.
You have no argument. Tony Dickey has no argument. The case has no chance of going to court.
This is a legitimate complaint. Looks like AMD is going to have to make a settlement because a court is likely going to agree with the plaintiff.
>>51233068
An FPU is not a part of an x86 core. An x86 core is an x86 core. An FPU is a coprocessor that works along with the x86 core. Not every x86 CPU had an FPU, and even the ones that do have an FPU, the FPU is in addition to the x86 core, not a part of it. The CPU has 8 x86 cores divided into modules of two cores per module, and each module of x86 cores shares one floating point coprocessor.
>>51233129
>This is a legitimate complaint
Its factually incorrect, and there is no such thing as an industry standard definition to define an X86 core.
>>51233129
But those allegations are all false.
There is no industry standard definition, first of all.
An engineer stepping in and correcting him on that would blow those allegations the fuck out immediately.
>>51233152
>disputing facts
There's a publication that's in the industry defining them. Just because you disagree doesn't mean there isn't one.
Meanwhile at Nvidia
>>51233129
>industry standard definition
That's the important part. And it's BS. There IS no real industry standard definition of a core. And if there were, it would not include things like FPUs. Those have traditionally been considered coprocessors.
>>51233186
See small text clarifying context.
Not misleading.
>>51233148
See >>51233136
FPUs are not a part of x86 cores. Yes most x86 CPUs have a dedicated FPU per core, but that doesn't mean that CPUs that don't don't have any cores. If I have an 8 core x86 CPU with no FPUs, it's still got 8 fucking x86 cores regardless of no FPU being present.
>>51233183
>There's a publication that's in the industry defining them.
No there isn't. The X86 ISA itself is all there is, and I won't repeat myself again to a mentally ill shitposter.
>>51233206
Still trying to mislead customers. Hides the fact that the 680 is 2 generations old.
Plaintiff is likely to
consider
purcha
sing AMD’s
processors
in the future and requires
an injunction requiring
AMD
to truthfully advertise
its
processor
specifications
going forward
.
Guys they just want AMD to stop lying.
>>51233051
>falling for the amd meme
>paying 1000$ more electricity every year
>worse performance than an i3
>needs a 100$ cooler
>needs a 200$ motherboard
>nsa backdoor
Why is /G/ full of money wasting retards?
>>51233186
Interesting. A Titan X is about 3 times as fast on paper, but a 980 Ti is closer to 2.75 times as fast.
>>51233224
Still they give context. It's not misleading because they do.
Your shitty opinions don't matter because there's adequate disclosure.
ITT AMD fanboys that think it's ok for AMD to lie about their shitty arch that is worse than Phenom 2, which actually did have the cores it claimed
>>51221829
>In AMD's opinion, they are 8 core processors. They have 8 Integer units. Even if they have 4 FPUs, does that disqualify them for having 8 cores?
The problem is, if AMD truly thought a full core doesn't need an FPU, why did they include 4 of them, when it would've been cheaper to include just 1 or 0? It seems clear AMD knows full well one FPU per core is expected, yet were hoping to get away with less.
>>51233226
>more like a few cwnts per year, if that
>yeah nah
>stock cooler works fine
>Intel motherboards have ridiculous prices compared to AMD boards
>implying all x86 CPUs aren't backdoored
>>51233285
But that's their design choice. It's still 8 x86 integer units.
Intel isn't the authority on what constitutes a full core, there isn't one.
>>51233278
The fact that they didn't even disclose in their marketing materials that it's significantly different from their old architectures is even more suspicious.
>>51233311
But Intel is the alternative, and a consumer comparing the two would expect one of AMD's cores to perform comparably to one of Intel's. AMD is being disingenuous.
>>51233285
Oh lawdy
The shit you come up with is ridiculous.
The Bulldozer architecture was designed primarily for enterprise. Its built for handling highly threaded integer workloads, FPU ops are decidedly less important until you start getting into HPC. This is the reason why the FlexFPU exists. It saves die area on a component that isn't as vital in the segment it was targeting.
Stop pulling things out of your ass and asserting them as fact.
>>51233323
Are you insane? It said "4 modules/8 cores" all over the marketing.
>>51233275
It's suggest the 680 is previous gen.That's factually wrong. Not to mention the 680 was in a lower price bracket and the 980ti isn't actually 3x as fast.
Deception upon deception.
>>51233362
>and a consumer comparing the two would expect one of AMD's cores to perform comparably
That's the Consumer's fault for assuming that.
Again, they state Bulldozer has more x86 cores compared to Intel. That's it, they don't specifically mention that it's comparable to a four core Intel CPU because they don't have to and they wouldn't for marketing sake.
>>51233367
What even in the fuck would a consumer know about what modules are?
All they know is that Intel has cores and AMD has cores.
AMD has more so its better (normie thinking at work)
This is misleading at best and downright deceptive at worst.
>>51233383
680 isn't a previous generation to the 980ti?
Is it from the future?
>>51233383
>It's suggest the 680 is previous gen.That's factually wrong.
So the 680 came out AFTER the 980Ti? The fuck are you talking about?
>>51233362
A consumer who knows and cares what a FPU is can be expected to understand the differences.
>>51233425
>It's the consumer's fault for assuming that
That's why this lawsuit exists. To see if it's just the consumers fault or if AMD had a hand to play in it by using deceptive marketing.
>>51233383
>Suggesting 680 is previous gen
>That's factually wrong
Holy shit are you BRAINDEAD?
>>51233427
>What even in the fuck would a consumer know about what modules are?
They wouldn't! Which is why they shouldn't care. Making your decision based on specs you don't understand is stupid.
>This is misleading at best and downright deceptive at worst.
Nope. AMD is being totally honest and forthcoming. People just misunderstand it because they're stupid.
>>51233440
Yeah but this class action isn't for them. It's for the normie dumb dumbs who got fooled into buying one thinking that more cores is better.
Are you stupid enough to suggest that consumers who are dumb don't need protection? Because if you are you must be the most stupid consumer in the world considering you can't be an expert on everything.
>>51233427
>>51233437
Most people understand previous gen as meaning last gen.
What's next?
>100 TIMES FASTER THAN PREVIOUS GEN*
*compared to GeForce 4 Mx400
>>51233362
>>51233427
Yet again see:
>>51232431
>>51232407
>>51232384
>>51232289
and stop pretending like your bullshit holds any relevance.
One engine from one manufacturer makes more horse power than the other, but has a different power curve and power to weight ratio.
No one argues that it is deceptive to list the horse power for that engine. No one is harmed by the marketing because of it. Consumers aren't mindless little children who need their hands held throughout life.
None of AMD's marketing regarding core count was deceptive.
>>51233367
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113284
All I see are claims of it having 8 cores, no mention of modules.
>>51233472
false advertising laws are written for the average consumer, not the dumbest consumer.
>>51233476
Previous != Last
Claiming you don't know English is no grounds to claim misleading marketing.
>>51233472
>you can't be an expert on everything
Nor do I try to be. I don't buy my car based on the specs. I don't understand the specs. I buy it based on the reviews and a test drive.
If I decide to buy it because "muh v8" and it winds up being slow, that's my own damn fault for paying attention to specs I don't understand.
>8 x86 cores with 4 FPUs means there are not 8 x86 cores
How do I math again?
>>51233488
Those are benchmarks not marketing materials you stupid fuck.
They don't plaster this stuff all over their newegg page do they?
>>51233488
http://anandtech.com/bench/product/287?vs=697
Fuck off with your cherry-picked bullshit.
>>51233508
Well if they are vague or deceptive in their marketing and you rely on it you're still protected though you stupid fucktard.
Do you study up on the safety of tap water before you drink a glass?
No because you trust that the manufacturer has taken enough care that they won't mislead you into drinking poison.
Same case here, Except AMD was misleading.
>>51233537
again benchmarks aren't marketing materials and don't have any bearing either way.
>>51233529
>still shitposting over and over again
The benchmarks, actual validation of performance done under specific and repeatable settings, shows there is a distinct advantage to the higher physical core count.
Listing the core count as a benefit is not deceptive in anyway.
For software that is capable of making use of those cores, they are a good thing to have. They give you a performance advantage.
>>51233537
This lists a mixture of serial and multithreaded workloads, you tech illiterate retard.
No one is claiming that more cores is better for a serial workload.
AMD compared their FX 8150 against an i5, which it has a marked advantage over in mulithreaded workloads.
>>51233476
>most people understand previous gen as meaning last gen
Which is why there is a footnote with an asterisk just to clear things up you fucktard.
>>51233556
Tap glass is either labeled drinkable or not. If it's drinkable it mandated by law to not cause you any harm. Your comparison holds no ground.
>>51233556
Actually you are expected to check if tap water is safe to drink in the place they are traveling to.
If you don't it's your own fault.
>>51233476
You might have a point if Nvidia didn't fucking specify that it was comparing it to the 680 and not the 780. That and the fact that consumers are more likely to upgrade every other generation as opposed to every generation means you can go fuck yourself.
>>51233586
Benchmarks still aren't AMD marketing materials though.
You seem to think this is about benchmarks when it's about marketing.
>>51233607
AMD advertised more cores
Benchmarks prove more cores are an advantage
Case dismissed
>>51233598
Yeah and if it's not safe you can sue the water company.
Which is exactly what is happening here.
Hurray legal system.
Note that mexican law is different from american law.
>>51231693
But we never found out how it ended?
It wasn't successful because it's still sold aa 4gb and so many people still buy it.
>>51233626
And there are also benchmarks that prove that they don't
Still doesn't matter either way because they're not AMD marketing materials being mentioned in the complaint.
>>51233628
There is no law saying x86 cores need to be safe to drink.
>>51233586
>AMD compared their FX 8150 against an i5
And that's my point. Why compare an 8 core processor to one with 4 cores? Shouldn't a native 8 core processor consistently beat an i7, with only 4 native cores and 8 threads?
>>51233607
They are indicative of real world performance. In fact, those video encoding benches are a real world workload. That is something you would have bought an FX chip specifically for. They were priced to compete with i5s, and performed significantly better at that task.
The marketing material listed core count as a benefit.
The core count is a benefit to performance in numerous cases.
There is literally not a single deceptive thing about this.
The only deceptive thing here is how you just keep lying constantly, because you are probably Tony Dickey himself.
>>51233643
It's still ongoing you stupid fucktard.
https://twitter.com/gpu_classaction
>>51233626
So what would happen when someone puts one of AMD's 8 core CPUs up against one of Intel's? Case still dismissed?
>>51233655
Still not AMD marketing materials. Why are you this stupid?
The claims are being made against AMD and their marketing materials not benchmarks.
>>51233649
The i7 was $100 more expensive. They compared it to the i5 it was priced against and which it consistently beat.
>>51233643
Class actions can take anywhere from 6 months to 3 years to complete dumbdumb.
>>51233692
Price point isn't the complaint, it's core count.
>>51233649
They're being compared because they are priced similarly.
There are different approaches to every architecture which each have strength and weaknesses.
>>51233684
>I'm literally so retarded, I'm eating my own shit right this very second
Wow.
Guess what? AMD was intimately aware of how their chips performed. They knew they were good at handling certain workloads.
The benches simply validate to the consumer what AMD lists in their marketing material.
No matter how you try to spin it, this isn't remotely deceptive.
Stop posting here, Tony. Your case is going to get thrown out, and the whole computing industry is laughing at you for being such a tech illiterate retard.
>>51233668
>Comparing a $1000 product to a $250 product
>>51233714
core count was factually stated, overall architecture was claimed to be superior. Benchmarks show it is if all 8 cores are utilized.
All true. Nothing misleading.
>>51233714
These retards don't understand that claims are specific in nature and just keep bringing up the competition as though they're relevant.
You'd think a better class of people inhibited /g/. You're just as dumb as normies in legal matters.
>>51233725
>claiming your CPU has 8 cores when it can't beat the competition's CPU with 4 cores
It's ok when AMD lies.
>>51232177
How's unemployment treating you, then?
>>51233740
>>51233723
That's literally like your shitty opinion man.
Not the courts, fucknuggets.
>>51233750
wouldn't know currently employed.
>>51233749
>4 wheel drive car is slower than 2 wheel drive car
try suing car companies over this one
>>51233759
Nothing I stated was a matter of opinion, Tony.
You're retarded beyond belief, and your case has no validity whatsoever, you complaint is filled to the brim with fallacies and misinformation.
>>51233768
Actually, the benefit of 4-wheel drive cars isn't speed, it's traction. Please kill yourself now.
>>51233768
>2 wheel drive car does a side by side comparison and claims it's faster when it's not
Well if they did that you could sue and win.
>>51233787
It is. Every court case is an OPINION OF THE COURT. vs YOUR RETARDED OPINION WHICH DOESN'T MATTER.
You're mistaking your own opinion for facts. It's a hard concept to grasp I know.
>>51233789
average consumer can't be expected to know that. Clearly misleading advertisement.
>>51233791
but Bulldozer is actually faster when 8 cores are utilized. A customer who doesn't actually use all 8 cores shouldn't be complaining about them not being there.
>>51233816
I use facts as the basis of everything I've said. Like pointing out all the hilarious factual errors in your joke of a complaint.
You do nothing but lie and ignore facts while you shitpost.
You really are a sad case, Tony. Your bullshit attempt at legal trolling is going to get tossed out with prejudice.
>>51233828
Then they should mention that in their advertising instead of blanket pretending that it's always faster because of more cores.
That and making shitty charts that show that they have more cores when the definition of those cares aren't even the same.
Which is why there is this misleading advertising claim moron.
>>51233828
>average consumer can't be expected to know that. Clearly misleading advertisement.
Here's your challenge: find a car advertisement that ties a 4-wheel drive drivetrain to speed.
PROTIP: you can't.
>>51233858
>hurr durrr
>its misleading to claim you have more cores when more cores are better for parallel workloads
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAaaa
>>51233854
>You use facts
Again your opinion doesn't matter. There's a legitimate complaint that AMD was misleading based on their advertising materials. It's not up to you to decide that it's okay. It's up to the court.
More than likely from what I've seen they've got a pretty strong case. You crowing about benchmarks isn't going to change AMD's advertising materials.
>>51233879
It's misleading when those cores are materially different from the Intel cores you pretend you're superior to.
Especially when you put them side to side in a comparison without mentioning and labeling them both with the same x86.
>>51233887
>You crowing about benchmarks isn't going to change AMD's advertising materials.
/thread
AMD is finished
Once again.
One car is advertised as having more Horsepower than the other, with no other information present.
The other car is faster at accelerating from a stop, despite lower peak power.
Both cars have the same amount of driven wheels at the same location.
Does this form a case for misleading advertising in the context of acceleration? Nope. The consumer not knowing how power curves in an engine work and basing acceleration off of peak horsepower is their fault.
Do you see anyone trying to sue dealers about it?
Of course not.
>>51233916
x86 cores are nothing like what you mentioned
The fact i that AMD basically claimed that they have the same sort of engine as Intel but with more cylinders omitting the fact that they're not the same type of engine and misleading consumers.
Would you sue your dealer if you found out they did this?
Of course you would.
>>51233867
that was easy.
There are plenty of two wheel drive cares that accelerate faster.
>>51233916
I hope you're not on AMD's council. Go ahead, let's see the cars = CPUs argument hold up in court.
>>51233749
Seriously, stop spouting shit. Whether amd's cores are better or worse in performance is irrelevant. Fact is they have the cores they said the'd have; they have the clock speeds they said; And the processor was comparable to the processors they competed them against in the marketing. We've yet to see you make any claim that is both factual and relevant to the lawsuit. So explain why AMD cores are not the cores they said they are (x86), or whatever were the other points you were arguing for. Numerous people have called out here why the claims in the lawsuit are not valid; how about giving some factual rebuttals instead of just repeating "no" over and over again.
>>51233982
>all wheel drive
>grip
>enhances acceleration and cornering performance
But these are all demonstrably true of a 4-wheel drive drivetrain. In no way does the ad claim 4WD makes the car faster than others in its class. Lurk /o/ for a bit, then please go kill yourself.
>>51233887
>I'm such a shit eating retard that I can't even read a single line
Its not my opinion, its empirical fact.
These are more facts:
AMD's 4 module Bulldozer chips have 8 cores
AMD's 4 module Bulldozer chips can execute 8 instructions simultaneously
AMD's 4 module Bulldozer chips were priced to compete against Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge i5s, and they outperformed them in well threaded workloads
There is no standardized definition of an X86 core that vendors must craft architecture to conform to
An X86 core must only comply with the X86 ISA, and as such architectures from Intel, AMD, and VIA have all wildly changed over the years as they pursued entirely different implementations
Tony Dickey, your complaint is based on total bullshit. You make claims that are empirically wrong, and there is no other way to interpret that. The fact that your argument is based on a flawed premise alone proves you have no validity to your claims.
>>51234041
Devil is in the detail
AMD failed to mention or intentionally hide the fact that their cores are different from Intel cores
AMD omits this completely without explaining it to consumers in their advertising materials
This is misleading. It's factual. You're just glossing over it because you don't like it.
>>51234069
>AMD failed to mention or intentionally hide the fact that their cores are different from Intel cores
Not him, but:
They don't need to. There is no obligation for them to state their core design is different just because the competitor has more market share.
There is no standard for x86 core design, and that's it.
>>51234040
but 4wheel drive adds weight and thus slows acceleration.
That Audi is slower from 0 to 60 than a cheaper, less powerful, 2 wheel drive Porsche 911
Clearly Audi is trying to mislead customers
>>51234069
cores being not all equal should be common knowledge. Intel just marketed their i5 cores being better than core2quad cores and 2nd gen i5 cores being better than 1st gen i5 cores.
>>51234124
That's for the courts to determine. Right now there's a complaint out.
>>51234069
>AMD failed to mention or intentionally hide the fact that their cores are different from Intel cores
All X86 cores from all vendors are always different. You're not making an argument, you're just showing how much of a shit eating child you are.
intel's Core2Duo processors were nothing like AMD's Athlon 64 X2.
VIA's Isaiah core is nothing like Intel's Silvermont.
AMD's Jaguar core is nothing like Motorola's 68040.
There is absolutely reason or expectation for vendors to explicitly state the fact that their architectures are different. Just like there is no reason for Honda to state the fact that their i4 engines are different from Ford's i4 engines.
You are continually making assumptions and pretending that they are factual, and that just makes you sound fucking mentally ill. You're quite literally on the same level as a crazy cat lady shouting about how the government owes her cat food because she says so.
>>51234140
They better get a competent non-heartbleeding Judge that can see this from both sides.
>>51234173
>california filing
kek
>>51234143
Life is misleading because the marketing didn't mention that cat food costs money. I'm suing Obama.
>>51234143
Various ARM implementations are radically different as well.
>b-b-but the marketing is deceptive boo hoo
>>51221887
>AMD did some gymnastics to fake 8 cores.
There is no legal definition of a core or what it takes to be a core
if AMD is getting shafted for this, then those IBM quad core processors are really 16 cores by the same definition
>>51234126
>but 4wheel drive adds weight and thus slows acceleration.
>That Audi is slower from 0 to 60 than a cheaper, less powerful, 2 wheel drive Porsche 911
>>51234040
>In no way does the ad claim 4WD makes the car faster than others in its class.
Please read what you're replying to, then go kill yourself. Also, if you think having 2 wheels transferring the engine's power to the road provides better acceleration than having all 4 wheels transfer power, then you really should go kill yourself.
I can sue Intel for their desktop quad core Atom chips because I expected them to perform like a desktop Haswell quad core.
Oh, there's a difference? How was I supposed to know that? It said Quad Core!
This is how stupid this lawsuit is.
>>51234287
>desktop
>atom
>>51234126
Actually the RWD porche won't accelerate faster than the AWD audi, since the RWD has less grip and the front wheels do literally nothing, theres actual less tire to road torque thats being applied
this is why those AWD subaru's take off so stupidly quick is because there is absolutely no slippage unless all 4 tires don't have grip
>>51234310
Think it doesn't exist?
Try again, bucko.
http://ark.intel.com/products/family/43521/Intel-Celeron-Processor#@Desktop
Everything with a J prefix is an Atom quad.
There's even 2 under the Pentium brand.
http://ark.intel.com/products/78868/Intel-Pentium-Processor-J2900-2M-Cache-up-to-2_67-GHz
http://ark.intel.com/products/76529/Intel-Pentium-Processor-J2850-2M-Cache-2_41-GHz
>>51234314
Carrera S 0-60: 4.1s (3.9s with PDK, 3.7s with Sport Chrono pack)
Audi R8 V8 0-60: 4.4s
>>51234450
But what became of the disparity was grip between AWD and RWD
these are two different cars, two different engines, two different ways of going about a car, different aerodynamics and such, two different weights which means two different inertia's The carrera could accelerate faster purely because it weighed less or something as simple as that.
>>51234469
Not him, It's because the Carrera has it's engine in the back, so the extra weight in the back keeps the drive wheels planted. It's also because it's massively lighter than the R8 like you said.
>>51234287
You didn't show that Intel was marketing those CPUs as CPUs that could compete with desktop Haswell quad core CPUs.
That's how stupid you are.
>>51234507
That too
But say if we were comparing two vehicles of the same caliber
say for a second that the Audi R8 was made in two versions, strictly the same in every way except one was FR and the other was AWD. I'd put my money on the AWD variant being faster by a long shot, unless somehow superfluously that the Audi R8 had some really bad problem with lack of torque and couldn't drive all 4 wheels very well at all.
>>51234469
See. it's almost like you have to look at all the tech specs and have some knowledge to understand them. Just like in processors
>>51234540
That wasn't really the point of the car's drive train argument but yea I know that
Say that Intel made a particular processor in two variants, strictly the same in every way but one was a dual core and the other was a quad, yadda yadda same shit
>>51234537
Correct. The omission of AWD in terms of weight savings won't push the inertia to overcome nearly far enough to compete with the Traction advantage that comes with AWD.
The R8 that was RWD would catch up and pull away once they're off the line due to drivetrain efficiency, however.
It would also be superior in peak cornering Gs due to less weight.
Different operations, different strengths.
>>51234540
No, you're not showing that Audi was using 4WD as a marketing tool to claim it was as fast or faster than other cars in its class.
>>51234630
"ahead of the curve" does imply that >>51233982
>>51234654
>"ahead of the curve"
not really, they don't specifically imply it, thats just a marketing buzzphrase.
"Ahead of the Curve" could mean anything to do with the car, the technology involved, what its made of, the efficiency, the way its made compared to other drive trains, etc
>>51234654
>4WD
>cornering performance
>ahead of the curve
Please tell me you really aren't this stupid.
