• 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.
And just because it was cheaper to settle than fight the silliness doesn't mean AMD was in the wrong. Microsoft called them octo cores and coded as such, Intel referred to them as octo cores, the tech press referred to them as octo cores, AMD said they were octo cores, and they handled 8 threads without any SMT. So, 8 cores in any rational universe. A shared cache is a pretty weak argument for claiming half the cores didn't exist, but what do I know. :D
 
So they weren't necessarily fast cores, but cores nonetheless. Seems like that's saying a system doesn't have 16 GB of RAM because the iGPU uses some. Cinebench scores scale with core count on FX, don't they (all else being equal)? 8 faster than 6, 6 faster than 4, 4 faster than 2. That seems a pretty compelling argument to me.
 
8 Cores are suppose to contain 8 integer engines and 8 floating point engines and the FX Bulldozer 8 cores only contained 4 floating point engines. Ryzen and intel 8 core has 8 integer engines and 8 floating point engines.
 
Yeah but cores were cores before FPU, or the designation changed over the years ?
 
Nvidia was hung by their marshmallows by some for the 970's slow 512MB part of its 4GB, calling it a 3.5GB card, but 'slower' cores is an argument here for AMD. Just saying the irony isnt lost.:p

Again.. it wasnt shared cache only. Instruction fetch, decode, floating point, and L2 were all shared. It might as well had been SMT.

Nobody is saying Intel is a saint, they arent. But that also isnt what the thread is about.
 
And even with that there was still a settlement. Youd think if they were actually in the right and could win here they would have fought it. They are incredibly lucky this was a one state deal and not global. 12M could have been 120M or more.
 
Nuisance suits are settled all the time. When lawyers are involved truth frequently gets too expensive. I wasn't a fan of the nVidia lawsuit, either.


I recall someone looking at the nVidia lawsuit in a less than favorable light, too. :D
Not a darn thing has changed since you bought the card. Take your $30 and take yourself out to a nice dinner.
Click to expand...
 
UltraTaco said:
If you have slow internet, downloading 4gb of new ram is depressing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, at 5 Mbps it takes me forever to download a couple hundred GBs of storage. :rofl:

Anyone who bought a Bulldozer, with all the performance data that has been available for years, and starts crying after the fact about "muh benchmark!", likely has a beard confined to the neck area. Maybe a fedora. :screwy:
 
Oh wow I’d bought a ton of these back then. This is disappointing because one of those 8-core (presumed) chips rubs my whitebox esxi host.


 
EarthDog said:
Nvidia was hung by their marshmallows by some for the 970's slow 512MB part of its 4GB, calling it a 3.5GB card, but 'slower' cores is an argument here for AMD. Just saying the irony isnt lost.:p

Again.. it wasnt shared cache only. Instruction fetch, decode, floating point, and L2 were all shared. It might as well had been SMT.

Nobody is saying Intel is a saint, they arent. But that also isnt what the thread is about.
Click to expand...

Exactly. They needed an edge over Intel, so they started their whole "more cores" gimmick. But as it turns out, back then, stuffing 8 corers into a consumer grade chips wasn't as easy as they wanted it to be. Heck, even with Ryzen, the 1700, 1700X, and 1800X all went for anywhere from $300-$500. And quad core was still relatively new in the consumer space; the Core i-InsertNumberHere series chips were mostly dual core when they first came out, Sandy Bridge was the first generation to include mostly quad core chips in the lineup. So AMD would've been fighting an uphill battle getting people to see a reason to buy 8 core CPUs. So they cheaped out, then lied about it, and now it's costing them money. As it should.

I'll sing AMD's praises until the cows come home. I constantly tell people "buy AMD, not Intel, and put the extra money towards a GPU". But AMD was in the wrong here, and I don't feel bad for them in the context of this lawsuit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back