• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

AMD Settles FX Bulldozer False Advertising Lawsuit for Roughly $35 a Chip

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
35 whole dollars!! God I've had tons of those chips, time to search the NewEgg history!

lol.

Or ah F it. AMD can keep my pocket change, I liked the FX processors. FK everyone that didn't.
 
AMD can keep my pocket change, I liked the FX processors. FK everyone that didn't.
Click to expand...

It's a shame that this country has gotten to the point that some whiny *** neckbeards make it cheaper for AMD to do that than keep arguing. I'm going to boycott Mountain Dew and Cheetos. Should be easy because I don't like either of them, anyway. :D
 
Its a shame that they came up with some innovations and gotta get bashed for it.

I remember when AMD bragged first true 4 core. Intel just glues 2 dual cores together and called it a quad core. Lol.

So dumb but they both did it so close together who really gave a **** that Intel could glue dual cores together. No law suit there. Wasnt a true quad core......
 
Well... not sure I saw this coming, honestly. But seems after a bit of reading it clearly had some legs.

Let's be clear though, they arent being penalized for their innovation, but how they marketed it. Sure, you can say it's a split hair, but the performance of them compared to what was out at the time and before it really showed its weakness.

While they were especially fun for raw clocks and subambient play, for a normal user its biggest selling point by far was price. But due to its performance, I dont recall it taking the price to performance crown either (I could be wrong on that). All in all, while serviceable, it left glass ceiling on gaming not letting it's own cards stretch its legs (nonetheless the faster nvidia gpus) and was woefully behind in IPC matching a chips 2 gens old.

But thank god those times are past and we have Ryzen 3/Zen 2 once again bringing balance to the force. :)
 
EarthDog said:
Well... not sure I saw this coming, honestly. But seems after a bit of reading it clearly had some legs.

Let's be clear though, they arent being penalized for their innovation, but how they marketed it. Sure, you can say it's a split hair, but the performance of them compared to what was out at the time and before it really showed its weakness.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I completely agree. Splitting hairs and white lie marketing. But it wasn't an over the top thing to really waste time for costly court battles.
Wow, 35$ a cpu. The lawers and time state costs.... omg that's the real punch to the wallet. In reality my point is it was dumb wasted time and they still produce the FX chips lol.

While they were especially fun for raw clocks and subambient play, for a normal user its biggest selling point by far was price. But due to its performance, I dont recall it taking the price to performance crown either (I could be wrong on that). All in all, while serviceable, it left glass ceiling on gaming not letting it's own cards stretch its legs (nonetheless the faster nvidia gpus) and was woefully behind in IPC matching a chips 2 gens old.

But thank god those times are past and we have Ryzen 3/Zen 2 once again bringing balance to the force. :)
Click to expand...

Right I do agree the IPC was horrible, yet fun at -174c (where mine was at) and in the middle was nobody really bought them.

Gaming, Intel has been doing better for years and years.
What happen was the nice price, and unknowing people bought into it. Played games but couldn't afford Intel.
Intel users openly bashed AMD users verbally. I've been in games (CSS CSGO ect ect ect.) where people really dump on AMD>

Now if it where not for the past of these events, Ryzen may not be here today.

Man I think I paid 550 for a 2700(F)X B450M-A and 16GB LPX memory. I don't care what FPS it's getting honestly lol.
 
I think the whole lawsuit is ridiculous. Then again, i did buy the AMD FX-8350 for fun because i thought it was a fun CPU. Plus it was 200 dollars while intels 3770k first released at the time was 350 dollars. Although for me, i got mine for 50 dollars last year. :D

Plus, were there not enough reviewers back then talking about how poor performing this CPU was at the time of its release? I believe back then with how big you tube, facebook, and tech sites were getting those people suing should have gotten a clue as to how this CPU really was performing. Or am i wrong?
 
All reviews detailed the poor performance. The problem wasn't really in the performance, but in how it was marketed as an 8 core CPU.
 
So really, All they care about how it was marketed as an 8 core CPU? Not performance alone?

haha what? Why does that matter to them so much?
 
It was a long time ago, but I vaguely remember reading the reviews, and having the usual arguments about what's "better". Checking timescale, it would have been going against Sandy Bridge. You had 4 core 8 thread Intel going against "8 core, 4 module" AMD. The information was available, but that doesn't mean a random buyer would know where to look for it, and then it falls to primary sources like what AMD said at the time.

I think even at that time, I was running prime number finding software, so the low FPU potential made them unattractive to me. Something AMD did not resolve until Zen 2 for mainstream CPUs.
 
Well said.

Look at the past with AMD. When their s754 chips came out and ruled Intel, their naming convention reflected Intel speeds... for example, a64 x2 3800... which meant that it performed about as fast as an Intel of that time running 3.8ghz. An overwhelming majority of people would see on the box... 8 cores.....it has to be better than 4 and buy. Its misleading.
 
Looks like it has...to the tone of $12.1M... and frankly it seems they are lucky this was limited to one state.

There is no getting around that being misleading, especially to the masses. Hell, you said it yourself, its a debate (though likely only from one side only)... and we are enthusiasts! What do you think Joe Dirt who looks at a CPU A and CPU B and sees 8 cores or 4 cores which is better? It's pretty cut and dry to me... but then again, I only own clear glasses, not red, green, or blue tinted ones.
 
Anyone who spends $200-$300 on a computer part, builds a rig, and doesn't research the parts deserves everything he gets-or doesn't get. Take the warning labels off ladders and knock out the "Don't Walk" lights. We've been too long without Darwin when one's own lack of due diligence makes other entities financially responsible. It's their stupid, why should someone else make the payments on it? LOL
 
I agree to an extent...

...however not all people are "CPU" people... or "car" people or.........name it and people just don't care regardless of the price to know the little details (which turn out to be big).

This isn't a lack of due diligence.. AMD put it in the specs and on the package. For all intents and purposes, AMD lied and mislead the consumer. You can't honestly expect the average joe to know the difference between a true core and not...seriously.
 
I didn't see anything wrong with the little white lie though..... reason is because Cpu-z, ALL monitoring programs and yes even windows task manager said 8 cores. In fact the threads box was always 0 indicating the lack of use of SMT or HT.
Then as stupid as this may sound, it was then to me 2 cores on each of 4 modules which the 2 cores could not be separated.
So it was just a Quad module that could run 8 threads.

If they just said 4 modules and 8 threads from the get go, that may have helped their case.
I believe I had 8 cores. Don't care if they can't be seperated because they share a little cache.
Maybe I'm stupid, but I always looked at the design as having 8 x86 cores period. Don't care they share cache. Cache does not define an x86 core by itself.


Spilled My hot coffee on Myself, it's McDonalds fault. Gimmie 10 million. (12.1M)
 
ShrimpBrime said:
I didn't see anything wrong with the little white lie though..... reason is because Cpu-z, ALL monitoring programs and yes even windows task manager said 8 cores. In fact the threads box was always 0 indicating the lack of use of SMT or HT.
Then as stupid as this may sound, it was then to me 2 cores on each of 4 modules which the 2 cores could not be separated.
So it was just a Quad module that could run 8 threads.

If they just said 4 modules and 8 threads from the get go, that may have helped their case.
I believe I had 8 cores. Don't care if they can't be seperated because they share a little cache.
Maybe I'm stupid, but I always looked at the design as having 8 x86 cores period. Don't care they share cache. Cache does not define an x86 core by itself.


Spilled My hot coffee on Myself, it's McDonalds fault. Gimmie 10 million. (12.1M)
Click to expand...
Software can report anything. Cpuz reads info from the cpu... it does not judge for itself what is or isnt a core. It looks at the micro code which tells it what it is.

The issue isnt with shared cache only either...instruction fetch, decode, floating point and l2 were all shared.

The McDonald's example is a but ridiculous trying to compare these situations. It's a DERP that coffee is hot....it isnt a DERP for an average consumer to be able to discern between a quad and octo core when the box says octo.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back