1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

AMD faces Lawsuit over Core Count on Bulldozer

Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Nov 6, 2015.

  1. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,670
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    This is everyone's one warning to be civil with each other. It is starting to get out of hand.

    One warning, and I will give infractions.
     
  2. Fox2232

    Fox2232 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    9,732
    Likes Received:
    2,192
    GPU:
    5700XT+AW@240Hz
    You are not supposed to take total score. They include memory controller score into it too. Therefore if you built incredibly slow CPU which can read/write incredibly fast from/to memory, it would score better than just poor CPU alone.
    Here it is just organized:
    i5-2500k @ 4.5GHz
    [​IMG]
    i7-4790K @ 4.6GHz-HT-OFF
    [​IMG]
    i7-4790K @ 4.6GHz-HT-ON
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2015
  3. cowie

    cowie Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    13,191
    Likes Received:
    281
    GPU:
    GTX
    Well it can play crisis /;
     
  4. Lane

    Lane Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    6,361
    Likes Received:
    3
    GPU:
    2x HD7970 - EK Waterblock
    uuh no... the reason for this comment, was that AMD was place 4 cores on the same silicon, when Intel at this time was use 2 cpus placed on the silicion side by side for create a quadcore. ( who was completely separated, they have need the core2DUO at this time for make a true 4cores CPU )
     

  5. Dch48

    Dch48 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,822
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Sapphire Nitro+ RX 470 4g
    The relative performance of Intel's vs AMD's implementation is not the issue here. The issue is whether an AMD 8-core processor really has 8 cores. The answer simply is, yes. I used the example of older CPU's to illustrate the point that the FPU count does not determine the number of cores a CPU has. Obviously, in today's world, you can't get by without an FPU of some kind but that is not the issue either. I think my points would stand up in court and win the case for AMD if it even gets that far, which I doubt.

    As a side point, I have never had any performance issues of any kind with my CPU. The FX series are all strong capable CPU's. Are they as strong as the best Intels? No, but they are more than sufficient in at least 90% of applications. The older Phenom 6 cores have slightly stronger per core benchmark performance but the FX chips are better at multithreading which is what they were designed for. In real applications, particularly in gaming, the FX chip wins.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2015
  6. GeniusPr0

    GeniusPr0 Maha Guru

    Messages:
    1,236
    Likes Received:
    11
    GPU:
    RTX 2080
    meant to say they were implying native designs meant true quads. they went back on this with the fx. the fx can be put in a position where it does not behave like a true quad because of the modules.
     
  7. BedantP

    BedantP Master Guru

    Messages:
    220
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    STRIX 960 1500Mhz/2009Mhz
    Well, unless this Tony Dickey is Tony STARK, AMD has nothing to worry about. It's what almost all manufacturers do, but virtually. Take hyperthreading for example, it made my 2 core laptop processor look like a 4 core processor at the first time.

    That moment when you realize that even smartphones are getting 10 core processors. Yep, it's the Acer Predator 6.
     
  8. airbud7

    airbud7 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,409
    Likes Received:
    4,041
    GPU:
    pny gtx 1060 xlr8
    haha^ the good ole days/lol...:)
     
  9. xIcarus

    xIcarus Master Guru

    Messages:
    941
    Likes Received:
    90
    GPU:
    1080 Ti AORUS
    You never had performance issues because you never had the extra performance to begin with. Obviously, they are good middle-of-the-road processors but that doesn't mean they are good all-rounders.

    And by that I mean the fact that they aren't good for 90% of the applications as you say. Maybe your applications mean word and web browsing. My applications mean gaming and heavy workloads like rendering or transcoding, where I have my uses for a very fast processors.
    On the other hand, AMD's processors are known to bottleneck games due to the lack of singlethreaded performance, and they don't offer amazing multithreading performance either. I understand they are enough for you, but that doesn't mean you need to build a shrine for them. They are nice for the price, yes, but that's beyond the scope of this debate.

    And in the case of 256-bit AVX operations they will offer poor performance even compared to Sandy Bridge, which was out one and a half years before the FX-8350.
    http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/fx-8150-zambezi-bulldozer-990fx,3043-5.html

    Now, I'm not arguing that the FX-8350 is a quad core. That's silly because it's not. I'm arguing that it doesn't offer what an 8-core processor should offer. AMD cut corners. Probably because of the TDP? Don't know.
    Is there a basis for a lawsuit? Probably. Is the marketing misleading? Kind of. But not because of what is written in this article, that guy has no clue what he's doing.
     
  10. (.)(.)

    (.)(.) Banned

    Messages:
    9,094
    Likes Received:
    0
    GPU:
    GTX 970
    Due to Crysis' crappy mutli threading, i think a celeron was just as suffcient, wasnt it:p
     

  11. Clouseau

    Clouseau Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,347
    Likes Received:
    228
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX GTX 1080
    Who in their right mind would base their decision solely on marketing presentations? If anyone does that, they are gambling that it will be adequate for what the need is. Marketing should be weighted as just another possible solution that might not have been thought of.

    Casino's are not sued by the gambler when they lose. Gambling suggests that a possibility of losing (not successfully achieving the gambler's desired outcome) exists. If one does not do their homework on the purchase or exercise the least bit of cautious behavior, they solely own the outcome that dice roll provided. Poor decisions are made all the time. Relying solely on what another person presents is a poor decision making procedure. Doubling down solely on marketing presentations is the true definition of a sucker is born every minute, no matter how reputable the other entity is. Lamenting over spilt milk just showcases how blind that decision was.

    Risk taking is what business ultimately boils down to. Which cpu performs better is meaningless for this case. This being a class action suit reinforces the fact that the person's individual situation is not enough to carry the suit on its own. How many revisions, tweaks to the original architecture, made it to market? Did the presentation about how many cores each cpu offered change? Did each new cpu revision sell or just sit and collect dust; meaning no sales? This is just a pressure tactic to see if a settlement will be offered before making it all the way to trial. Look at this as seeking an advance on vaporware.
     
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2015
  12. Dch48

    Dch48 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,822
    Likes Received:
    1
    GPU:
    Sapphire Nitro+ RX 470 4g
    No, my applications mean primarily gaming, and I mean high end gaming like Witcher 3. Of course I also browse and occasionally use a word processor and occasionally transcoding and compression. I do not do rendering or recording. I have yet to experience any issues in anything. Sure things would be sometimes faster with an Intel i5 or i7 and for gaming, a more powerful graphics card, but, what I have is more than sufficient for the task. In gaming, I do not require 60+ fps on ultra settings. I shoot for the highest settings I can use that will give minimum fps of 35. So far that is always High or Very High. If it was Medium or even Low, that would be acceptable. In some games like Crysis 3 and World Of Warcraft, where I could use Ultra, sometimes I don't if I don't really see a difference in quality, which is almost always the case.

    I remember when I was reading about Witcher 3 and thinking about playing it. There were those on this forum who said I would only be able to play on the lowest settings and never get more than 25 fps even then. Well, that most certainly has not been the case since I play on a mix of high and very high and the framerate never dips below 40. Nothing is overclocked either.

    Of course, none of this is relevant to the core count question but does illustrate that AMD processors can do well in heavy usage and better than a lot of people think. When I bought this machine, I was fully aware that a modern i5 or i7 would be more powerful but I was not willing to pay the price difference which was about 25% more.

    Back on topic, the lawsuit is ridiculous and there are no grounds for one under any circumstances. It sounds like someone bought an AMD CPU, or more likely, a number of them , and was unable to resell them because of prejudice against them in some circles.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2015
  13. Zhyr

    Zhyr Member

    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    10
    GPU:
    EVGA GTX770 SLI
    I disagree with the lawsuit - "GO 'MERICA!"

    I am, however, surprised it's taken this long for someone to notice that it's basically hyper-threading, and therefore misrepresentation.

    I suppose no one has really called them out on it due to AMD struggling with market share compared to nVidia being dominant.
     
  14. Kaarme

    Kaarme Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    1,621
    Likes Received:
    459
    GPU:
    Sapphire 390
    How can it be beyond the scope of the debate? It's at the very center of it. Only an idiot would expect a 200 dollars CPU to perform as well as a 1000 dollars CPU from the competitor. Any person with at least half a working brain would understand there has to be a significant difference, some kind of a compromise.
     
  15. Dazz

    Dazz Master Guru

    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    78
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX RTX 2080
    In some cases i miss my FX8320 in most games with a Radeon 290 both the i7 4790K and AMD 8320 plays about the same in some cases the i7 Is better mostly CPU intensive games normally RTS's. The Video card will always be the bottleneck before the CPU, now if i had dual video cards i may see the i7 coming out on top however. Muti tasking that i do was better on my FX than the i7 like having mutiple flash games playing the i7 Tanks bad might be the hyper threading saturating each of the cores doing it while the FX shared them amongst the cores. Problem i had with the AMD i had to force it to max speed otherwise it stay in low power 1.2GHz while the Intel boosts the clocks without me having to instruct it too.

    It's really bizarre how you have to change your habbits depending on which manufacture you pick for your processor. I know it's the Processor cause my AMD A8 4500m does the same thing sticks to low power mode when running flash content. Can't remember if my Phenom II X6 was the same way or not. Thus far only games i have noticed the i7 winning or feeling a little smoother is Starcraft 2 & company of heroes 2.

    FPS was not noticeable on either platform. No doubt Supreme Commander maybe better on the i7 maybe i could load all 8 cores with a hack but on the i7 it could see it with the heavy threads being put on the same core that may cause it to tank. Will have to give it a try never played the game in a while and never on the i7. There are a fair few games out there that can't distinguish a physical core to a virtual core with HT and loads up the same cores which lowers performance somewhat. More recent games are more intelligent as is the operating systems to load core 0 1 2 3 before using hyper threading. Rather than thread 1 and 2 being put on core 0.
     

  16. Dazz

    Dazz Master Guru

    Messages:
    812
    Likes Received:
    78
    GPU:
    ASUS STRIX RTX 2080
  17. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,670
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    My brother has the FX 6300, and really performance wise it's not bad at all. It isn't as fast or efficient as my i7, but for multitasking and gaming at high resolutions he's had no problems with it. When the resolution is cranked up, it can just about keep up with my i7.
     
  18. xIcarus

    xIcarus Master Guru

    Messages:
    941
    Likes Received:
    90
    GPU:
    1080 Ti AORUS
    Well fair enough, I see now that you sport a 270x. I was primarily referring to the top-end, 980Ti/Fury X and even SLI/CFX of those cards. But you could search yourself, RTS and MMO games tend to have difficulties with low singlethreaded performance.
    For example, Elder Scrolls Online sees around 60 FPS in towns with my stock processor, once I overclock it to 4.6GHz I see 80 FPS. Scales very well. An FX-8350 does quite badly however, and it's quite a bit more than a 5 fps loss which people debate about but nobody actually feels the difference.

    Yeah, the almighty 200$* release price, grab one now!
    *note: prices may magically skyrocket to 350$ in Europe for no reason

    Give me a break.
    The prices are never what they say. Just like the 6700k is 420EUR instead of 350$. I paid 320EUR for my 2600k more than 4 years ago. The 3770k was around the same price later on, while the FX-8350 was exactly the same price as my 2600k in our stores, only to drop in price massively after release.
    And it's not the taxes. Remember the FX-9590 cash grab? 1000$ at release. 230$ shortly after. And websites quoting a 270$ release price. That smells like a blatant cover-up.

    The fact is AMD are screwing us over, and Intel are screwing us over even more because of their monopoly in the high-end market.
    Price is beyong the scope of this debate like I said. We are talking about ALUs, FPUs, multithreading and AVX instructions.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2015
  19. Reardan

    Reardan Master Guru

    Messages:
    302
    Likes Received:
    16
    GPU:
    GTX 1080
    As expected when I opened the thread. Everyone is talking about performance.

    Performance is utterly irrelevant. Completely and entirely irrelevant to the case. Especially fanboy performance comparisons to Intel. That crap wouldn't even be admitted in this case. Prices too.

    The sole problem that needs to be solved is what does a "core" mean. That's it. There's no definition, and it's pretty unfair to AMD to define "core" as whatever Intel thinks it is. GPU blocks are referred to as cores even though they barely resemble a CPU core. What it will most likely come down to is the history of the CPU and the exact capabilities of the AMD CPU.

    Given that everyone in the business would consider something like an Intel 8086 (or any 70s Intel CPU) as a CPU core, it's really hard to say that what AMD has isn't also a CPU core. Especially when you consider the older CPUs don't have half the peices of a modern CPU core. Add on top of that the fact that the integer cores even within a module are capable of acting independently and you have a really, really hard case to prove.
     
  20. vbetts

    vbetts Don Vincenzo Staff Member

    Messages:
    14,670
    Likes Received:
    1,245
    GPU:
    RTX 2070FE
    That's the thing, performance is irrelevant to the whole discussion. The company that holds a case against AMD is claiming they aren't true 8 cores. Performance has nothing to do with the core count in this case. If it was, then you could go ahead and say that the Pentium D's weren't real dual cores because they performed horribly, and were just 2 Netburst cores "glued" on top of each other.
     

Share This Page