For all of you who have obviously forgotten... the FPU on bulldozer is doublewide... it can split itself in half and do two fpu at a time or one double wide one... It just sucks at it.

Shit performance, not lying specs.

Is BD a crappily designed architecture: Yes

Is BD an 8 core CPU: Yes

cadavecaWell, see, the thing here is that legal English and real English are not one and the same. So there is something to argue here, and that would be the legal definition of what a "core" is. That in and of itself is a useful thing for consumers, and makes the actual lawsuit details here unimportant. While we could argue this point for days and days, it'll be up to a single judge to define what a core should consist of, and that may not be a task that your everyday judge might want to take upon himself.

It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is...

GorbazTheDragonIs BD an 8 core CPU: Yes

No, four cores with two "integer clusters" each. AMD marketeers (deliberate misspelling) used the word "core" to describe only the "integer clusters" to make the layfolk believe AMD is selling 8-core processors for the price of an Intel quad-core. It's false advertising, pure and simple.

Opteron 6386 SE is an example of an AMD 8-core (AMD claims it is 16-core).


Edit: If the block diagram isn't clear enough...count the cores:

source


Now for Intel. Again, count the cores:

source

FordGT90ConceptThe whole thing is ridiculous because AMD calls each "integer cluster" a "core." Who really agrees with that logic?

I do. It's a generally accepted concept across a broad spectrum of CPU technology. The most basic core is an integer cluster. At least that's how I have always understood it.

Can we all agree however that this is a pretty silly thing to sue about?

They are selling an 8 core at the price of a 4 core... because it performs like it.
Also the 16c, 8 module opteron performs better than the previous gen 12 core... so... just because it performs shittily compared to intel, doesn't make it false advertising.

2 int + 1 double wide fpu per module, a fpu that can do 2 fpu at a time... or 1 per int...
It just didn't play out like they planned.

R-T-BI do. It's a generally accepted concept across a broad spectrum of CPU technology. The most basic core is an integer cluster. At least that's how I have always understood it.

Can we all agree however that this is a pretty silly thing to sue about?

An integer cluster without an instruction decoder is what we call a calculator, not a logic processor.

No, I don't agree with that. AMD should have been sued the day it released.

FordGT90ConceptNo, four cores with two "integer clusters" each. AMD marketeers (deliberate misspelling) used the word "core" to describe only the "integer clusters" to make the layfolk believe AMD is selling 8-core processors for the price of an Intel quad-core. It's false advertising, pure and simple.

Were you this mad when nvidia put 4GB of memory on the 970 but only 3.5GB were useful?

R-T-BCan we all agree however that this is a pretty silly thing to sue about?

Yes, especially four years after their release...

FordGT90ConceptAn integer cluster without a scheduler is what we call a calculator, not a logic processor.

I'd say I'm old and you're just more "with it" than me, except most cellphones/tablets follow this model, and there are probably more of them than Desktop/laptop units now. And sadly, that is what the cool kids use these days.

Not sure if I should feel hip now, or collapse in a pile of x86 oldness.

moproblems99Were you this mad when nvidia put 4GB of memory on the 970 but only 3.5GB were useful?

Yes.

R-T-BI'd say I'm old and you're just more "with it" than me, except most cellphones/tablets follow this model, and there are probably more of them than Desktop/laptop units now. And sadly, that is what the cool kids use these days.

Not sure if I should feel hip now, or collapse in a pile of x86 oldness.

ARM Cortex quad-core:

...four...distinct...cores. You could chop three of them off and it'll still run as a uniprocessor.

FordGT90ConceptYes.

Fair enough.

FordGT90ConceptYes.


ARM Cortex quad-core:

...four...distinct...cores. You could chop three of them off and it'll still run as a uniprocessor.

You got me there.

My age IS showing. ARM got with it, apparently. NEON is a pretty competent FPU, too.

I'm more familiar with the old TI OMAPs which were A6's if I recall. They had a single FPU in some cases, particularly the pandaboards I was taught wonderful linux-land on for android builds in a very hipster programming class.

Still, this is a new trend, putting FPUs on everything. It's not like the term "core" didn't mean something entirely different just 10 years ago, so cut me some slack.

That and there are still processors out there that follow the bulldozer model.

I'm not sure I'm ready to declare the old definition of what a "core" is dead just because everyone decided to pop something new on board. Does that really change what a computer fundamentally does, which is math?

The definition of "core," in multiprocessor context, changed the day AMD Athlon 64 X2 launched (May 2005): two CPUs on one socket.

The thing is core count has always been one of the most useless metrics to go by when it comes to CPU performance... Otherwise everyone would still be running core 2 quads.

Anyone who buys a computer based on CPU count is ignorant and stupid.

AquinusMost lawsuits in the US of A seem to work that way.

All part of the updated Murican Declaration of Independence - "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Litigation"
I bet AMD's PR department are pissed that they didn't go with the first draft of their advertising

FordGT90ConceptThe definition of "core," in multiprocessor context, changed the day AMD Athlon 64 X2 launched (May 2005): two CPUs on one socket.

Technically, the PPC and a few other risc chips beat them to it by a good margin.

Still, I will grant you that the world has changed.

FordGT90ConceptARM Cortex quad-core:

How about octa core chips following big.LITTLE design? Are they real octa cores?

R-T-BTechnically, the PPC and a few other risc chips beat them to it by a good margin.

Got a model? The best I could come up with was PowerPC G5 970MP. It debuted two months after X2.

Edit: Ah, IBM POWER4 released 2001.

john_How about octa core chips following big.LITTLE design? Are they real octa cores?

Technically yes but they need to make it clear how many can run simultaneously.

john_How about octa core chips following big.LITTLE design? Are they real octa cores?

Well, they all reside on a single die and are defined by less by core count than core power parameters. If big.LITTLE is suspect then you can also expect a flurry of lawsuits for every MCM ever made including Pentium D, Core2Quad, and AMD's G34 server chips, and some of IBM's Power series.

the54thvoidEDIT: I had comically and erroneously called myself a tech 'nob' but have since rephrased to the correct tech noob - sue me :laugh:

If someone does sue for that tell them they are pulling a Dickey.

Northern Cali...yep, thats probably the only place in the nation he could sue and win on a case like this. For that matter, why the heck did he wait until Zen is almost here? This should have been a thing back when BD launched, not now with Zen coming.

This is an interesting discussion and all, but for a moment I'm going to ask you to stop.

Now that I've asked the impossible, let me explain why. You have to argue this with a judge (and depending upon the case structure and local rules a jury). Said judge can be anything from technically savvy, to barely able to turn on their television set. Now that we've framed the discussion, let's argue the point.

1) Define what a core is, to the lay person.
a : a basic, essential, or enduring part (as of an individual, a class, or an entity) <the staff had a core of experts> <the core of her beliefs> -According to Merriam Webster online dictionary-

2) How is this definition applied to the case at hand?
A critical component to the processor is missing, thus preventing you from calling your CPU "8 cores" due to this fundamental component being removed.

3) How do you prove it?
-Fail- AMD can pull out a wealth of nice pretty graphs that demonstrate their processors perform at the same level as a similar core count offering from their competitors. These programs can be cited as utilizing the number of cores better than other programs, and the burden of proof falls to the accuser to prove that this is not the case. The accuser can provide charts all day proving that the processor doesn't work as well on some programs, yet without the source code to prove it they're completely without a valid accusation.

4) What experts support your claims?
-Fail- AMD can wheel out an assortment of experts in the computing field. Each of them can attest that in a very specific type of loading their product performs better than their own 4 core offerings, thus invalidating the claim that 8 cores aren't performing better than 4. If the accuser compares them to Intel, they need only state that they are a competitor with a different and non-comparable product. It then rests on the accuser to prove they are comparable, which would take enough technical jargon to completely alienate a jury. The accuser can therefore not really level an accusation here that isn't killed by its own complexity.

5) How are damages being calculated?
-Fail- This is fuzzy at best. If the accuser says that an 8 core AMD CPU is comparable to an 8 core Intel one they've got to quantify the massive gulf in pricing. That will be nigh impossible. If they want to argue an 8 core processor is less efficient than a quad core then they've got to be able to compare like measurements to justify any losses. AMD needs only wheel out the "we aren't Intel" argument to make this impossible (there is literally nothing that these can be directly compared to).

6) Does the judge have an unbiased opinion?
-Fail- This is a lawsuit in Northern California. Let's be honest here, damaging AMD isn't in the best interest of the locals, and this is a largely frivolous suit. It's being filed years after Bulldozer hit the market. It is initiating class action without having much of a basis from which to stand (given all the technical material available stating that the "core" of Bulldozer was something entirely new). But worst of all is that the suit's associated lawyers, a new kind of vampire that is more than happy to sue about anything related to technology. Seriously, read through their site, it's the most atrocious vulture group since the copyright trolls:www.edelson.com/in-the-news/



I'm all for making AMD aware that their crap with the Bulldozer "core" is unacceptable, we did that by not buying it. I don't have a problem with law suits which are directed at reparations directly related to a wrong done by someone, this is what the legal system is designed for. What we've got here though is utter crap. Somebody raising a suit too late to be relevant, not seeking reparations for consumer benefits, and worst of all hiring a law firm that banks on technology being too complex for our legal system to wade through as is. Sorry, but the accuser is a vampiric douche who is using the legal system as a weapon. If they got hit by a car tomorrow I think the gene pool would be better off (along with the legal offices being swallowed up in a massive sink hole).




Edit:
Let me be even more angry about this stupidity. Here's what Anandtech said in 2009:
www.anandtech.com/show/2881/2

2 years before Bulldozer was released this information was publicly available. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse not to follow it. Likewise, this kind of ignorance to what you are buying doesn't make the accuser deserving of reparations for their idiocy. I wonder if AMD maintains PR release information (I say sarcastically)? I wonder if this idiot ever read any of them, or when they're introduced in court his legal team will be able to dismiss them as...I can't even imagine how you'd argue your client isn't a moron at that point.

NC37Northern Cali...yep, thats probably the only place in the nation he could sue and win on a case like this. For that matter, why the heck did he wait until Zen is almost here? This should have been a thing back in BD launched, not now with Zen coming.

Because, with his hoped for settlement he can afford to upgrade. He will then buy Zen and will sue because he couldn't achieve enlightenment with it.

NC37Northern Cali...yep, thats probably the only place in the nation he could sue and win on a case like this. For that matter, why the heck did he wait until Zen is almost here? This should have been a thing back when BD launched, not now with Zen coming.

Bulldozer chips are still for sale and he probably bought one recently or someone came to him with it.