Email about AMD class action lawsuit

[Space Lynx]

If you don't claim the the settlement payout, it sure as heck won't be returned to AMD.

The only issue I have is I can't find my receipt of where I bought one of those CPU's. I checked just now, so I don't want to risk getting in trouble if they confront me on it. I doubt they ever would, and it says right on there you can claim without proof of purchase, especially since I know if I did buy one it would have been only one CPU not two or three.The card I got I read yesterday though said they have every right to make you prove later on if they feel lying is being doing... but on same hand they are the one who mailed me the card, so hell if I know.

 

[thesmokingman]

The only issue I have is I can't find my receipt of where I bought one of those CPU's. I checked just now, so I don't want to risk getting in trouble if they confront me on it. I doubt they ever would, and it says right on there you can claim without proof of purchase, especially since I know if I did buy one it would have been only one CPU not two or three.The card I got I read yesterday though said they have every right to make you prove later on if they feel lying is being doing... but on same hand they are the one who mailed me the card, so hell if I know.

I think you'll be ok man. They would call you out if you claimed a half dozen chips w/o proof but I doubt a single claim would be noticed. You're also going on record affirming that what you claim is the truth so...

 

[Space Lynx]

I think you'll be ok man. They would call you out if you claimed a half dozen chips w/o proof but I doubt a single claim would be noticed. You're also going on record affirming that what you claim is the truth so...

Yeah it was so long ago I just don't remember, and I can't find the receipt so not going to risk it. One thing my sister has taught me in life is never trust in the law or courts to understand your situation if you do get called out on something. (she has been in trouble a lot of her life, and the system is very broken)...

I do find it ironic how much lack of equality we as a society have though, like when a billionaire like Betsy Devos is found in contempt of court she pays a fine which is nothing to her since she has billion or two anyway, but if me or you are found in contempt of court we go straight to jail, do not pass go, lol

 

[Bill_Bright]

in my opinion determining what is or isn't a core is more up to the people producing the core than anything.

Not all cores are created equal

Ummm, sorry but no. It is true that not all cores are created equal. But when it comes to processors, a core is a core is a core. That is, a core is "physical" chunk of the processor die. It has physical properties. It takes up space. It just exists. It is not a "virtual" thing.

You can think of it like a cylinder in a car engine. A 4-cylinder engine is 1 engine but it has 4 cylinders in it. How those cylinders are used, on the other hand, is based on how the people producing the engine decide to use them. And that is based on the demands on that engine at that moment. If coasting downhill, only one cylinder may be working. This saves fuel. If accelerating up a hill, all 4 may be working. Regardless how they are used, or if used, all 4 cylinders exist, have physical properties, and take up space. They are not virtual things.

That's the same with a processor. If coasting along doing a menial task, only one core may be used to save energy. But when heavily tasked, all the cores may kick in. And they may kick in to work together on one big task, or they may be used to multi-task on separate tasks. But regardless all the cores exist all the time. Their physical properties do not change.

and my newegg buying history is too long to bother looking.

Doesn't matter. If you call up "Order History" under your account, there's a search option that will search through your entire order history. You don't have to manually look through page after page of your past orders.

 

[Zareek]

Ummm, sorry but no. It is true that not all cores are created equal. But when it comes to processors, a core is a core is a core. That is, a core is "physical" chunk of the processor die. It has physical properties. It takes up space. It just exists. It is not a "virtual" thing.

You can think of it like a cylinder in a car engine. A 4-cylinder engine is 1 engine but it has 4 cylinders in it. How those cylinders are used, on the other hand, is based on how the people producing the engine decide to use them. And that is based on the demands on that engine at that moment. If coasting downhill, only one cylinder may be working. This saves fuel. If accelerating up a hill, all 4 may be working. Regardless how they are used, or if used, all 4 cylinders exist, have physical properties, and take up space. They are not virtual things.

That's the same with a processor. If coasting along doing a menial task, only one core may be used to save energy. But when heavily tasked, all the cores may kick in. And they may kick in to work together on one big task, or they may be used to multi-task on separate tasks. But regardless all the cores exist all the time. Their physical properties do not change.
Doesn't matter. If you call up "Order History" under your account, there's a search option that will search through your entire order history. You don't have to manually look through page after page of your past orders.

Different processor designers define cores differently as well as what is required for it to count as a "core". There isn't one universal definition of what makes a "core", a "core". If you have a solid source for a universal definition of a processor "core", please share it with us all.

Incorrect, it says right on the thing they mail you the lawyers will be getting a capped payout of $7500.

@Bones I am not sure if I will mail in mine or not, I don't know why I get this sent in the mail, I have built a lot of PC's over the years, but I can't remember if I bought one of these or not it was so long ago, and my newegg buying history is too long to bother looking.

my card says after visiting the site.

yeah i prob will toss mine too, but it says you don't need proof of purchase so i dunno

What I read said two plaintiffs will score $7500 each and the lawyers will bag 30%. Then what is left will be divided amongst the remaining claimants up to $300 each.

 

[Bill_Bright]

There isn't one universal definition of what makes a "core", a "core". If you have a solid source for a universal definition of a processor "core", please share it with us all.

Oh? I'm not aware of there being different definitions for core - except when it is used as part of a brand name (Intel Core 2) or as the inner part of an apple, or the center of the Earth.

A quad core CPU has 4 cores. Not 3. Not 5. Just 4, regardless if Intel, AMD,

When talking microprocessors, the definitions is universal (my bold underlines added).

​

techopedia Dual Core, Definition - What does Dual Core mean?

Dual core is a CPU that has two distinct processors that work simultaneously in the same integrated circuit.

​

Toms' Hardware: What Is a CPU Core? A Basic Definition

A CPU core is a CPU’s processor. In the old days, every processor had just one core that could focus on one task at a time. Today, CPUs have been two and 18 cores, each of which can work on a different task.

​

How-To Geek: CPU Basics: Multiple CPUs, Cores, and Hyper-Threading Explained

Unlike hyper-threading, there are no tricks here — a dual-core CPU literally has two central processing units on the CPU chip. A quad-core CPU has four central processing units, an octa-core CPU has eight central processing units, and so on.

​

Digital Trends: What is a CPU?

Originally, processors had a single processing core. Today’s modern processors are made up of multiple cores which allow it to perform multiple instructions at once. They’re effectively several CPUs on a single chip. Some processors also employ a technology called multi-threading, which creates virtual processor cores. They aren’t as powerful as physical cores, but they can help improve a CPU’s performance.

​

Wikipedia: Multi-core processor

A multi-core processor is a computer processor integrated circuit with two or more separate processing units, called cores

So I will throw this back at you and ask that you back your claim. If you have a solid source, say AMD or Intel, that defines a CPU core differently than what is clearly the universal definition (that cores are separate processors on the same chip), please share it with the rest of us all.

 

[Fouquin]

Oh? I'm not aware of there being different definitions for core - except when it is used as part of a brand name (Intel Core 2) or as the inner part of an apple, or the center of the Earth.

A quad core CPU has 4 cores. Not 3. Not 5. Just 4, regardless if Intel, AMD,

When talking microprocessors, the definitions is universal (my bold underlines added).

​

techopedia Dual Core, Definition - What does Dual Core mean?​

​

Toms' Hardware: What Is a CPU Core? A Basic Definition​

​

How-To Geek: CPU Basics: Multiple CPUs, Cores, and Hyper-Threading Explained​

​

Digital Trends: What is a CPU?​

​

Wikipedia: Multi-core processor​

So I will throw this back at you and ask that you back your claim. If you have a solid source, say AMD or Intel, that defines a CPU core differently than what is clearly the universal definition (that cores are separate processors on the same chip), please share it with the rest of us all.

If only they'd provided these sources in court they wouldn't have had to drag this out almost 3 years and have to reach a settlement.

None of those defines processor as an abstract. They just say that a multi-core CPU has multiple cores. All well and good, but not a definition. The problem arises when you need to define the logic of a single CPU core, what is inside and what it can do. With how varied computer architectures have been in the last 40 years you can't create an all inclusive definition. An easy example of this is RISC vs MIPS architectures. Both have cores, they do completely different things. So does one now just not have cores simply because they other one is the de-facto definition of a processor core? No, they must be defined separately.

 

[Bill_Bright]

If only they'd provided these sources in court they wouldn't have had to drag this out almost 3 years and have to reach a settlement.

You are assuming lawyers speak the same language and use the same defintion as the rest of the world. I am not.

None of those defines processor as an abstract.

Huh? Nor should they. Processors are real, "actual" devices - not virtual or abstract.

 

[thesmokingman]

Ummm, sorry but no. It is true that not all cores are created equal. But when it comes to processors, a core is a core is a core. That is, a core is "physical" chunk of the processor die. It has physical properties. It takes up space. It just exists. It is not a "virtual" thing.

You can think of it like a cylinder in a car engine. A 4-cylinder engine is 1 engine but it has 4 cylinders in it. How those cylinders are used, on the other hand, is based on how the people producing the engine decide to use them. And that is based on the demands on that engine at that moment. If coasting downhill, only one cylinder may be working. This saves fuel. If accelerating up a hill, all 4 may be working. Regardless how they are used, or if used, all 4 cylinders exist, have physical properties, and take up space. They are not virtual things.

That's the same with a processor. If coasting along doing a menial task, only one core may be used to save energy. But when heavily tasked, all the cores may kick in. And they may kick in to work together on one big task, or they may be used to multi-task on separate tasks. But regardless all the cores exist all the time. Their physical properties do not change.
Doesn't matter. If you call up "Order History" under your account, there's a search option that will search through your entire order history. You don't have to manually look through page after page of your past orders.

This ain't the thread to be rehashing stuff from a decade ago.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Hey, I agree. But note I was not the one that implied a core is not a core.

 

[Zareek]

Oh? I'm not aware of there being different definitions for core - except when it is used as part of a brand name (Intel Core 2) or as the inner part of an apple, or the center of the Earth.

A quad core CPU has 4 cores. Not 3. Not 5. Just 4, regardless if Intel, AMD,

When talking microprocessors, the definitions is universal (my bold underlines added).

​

techopedia Dual Core, Definition - What does Dual Core mean?​

​

Toms' Hardware: What Is a CPU Core? A Basic Definition​

​

How-To Geek: CPU Basics: Multiple CPUs, Cores, and Hyper-Threading Explained​

​

Digital Trends: What is a CPU?​

​

Wikipedia: Multi-core processor​

So I will throw this back at you and ask that you back your claim. If you have a solid source, say AMD or Intel, that defines a CPU core differently than what is clearly the universal definition (that cores are separate processors on the same chip), please share it with the rest of us all.

@Bill_Bright you can totally believe what you want, I simply expressed my opinion that the best individuals to define what a processor "core" actually is are the highly paid and educated experts whom design them for a living. To clarify, my stance was in no way meant as a defense for the AMD Bulldozer architecture nor do I feel that each of it's claimed cores should necessarily count as an individual core.

 

[Bill_Bright]

@Bill_Bright you can totally believe what you want, I simply expressed my opinion that the best individuals to define what a processor "core" actually is are the highly paid and educated experts whom design them for a living.

Yeah. But the engineers and designers are not the ones who speak for those companies. Marketing and PR weenies do. And they lie through their teeth.

I did not express my opinion. I expressed simple facts. My opinion does not matter. As noted in the last line of my sig, we are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. I posted no less than 5 links to support those fact, showing what a core is. You showed us none, including none from those "highly paid and educated experts" you claim said otherwise - yet you have yet to show us where they said it. So we don't even know what you are basing your opinion on. If just the marketing hype, then really? I mean marketing hype is what they are getting sued for.

 

[Fouquin]

I posted no less than 5 links to support those fact, showing what a core is.

Except none of those sources describe an individual core. They offer no insight into the various stages present in any architecture (front end fetch/decode, execution, and output), or what arrangement is a "true core" and what isn't. They just parrot the same "a core is a core" like there's no further detail. To draw parallels, it's like asking what makes a waffle iron and getting the answer, "a waffle iron is an iron that makes waffles". No details on the construction, operation, or nuances between variations. It's a non-answer.

This level of consumer disconnect is why AMD chose to settle instead of draw this out longer.

 

[R-T-B]

Hey, I agree. But note I was not the one that implied a core is not a core.

The whole lawsuit is about whether two "cores" (integer units) sharing an FPU qualify as one core, or two. They are paying a settlement over this design decision.

So yeah, it's not cut and dry by any means.

 

[hat]

I agree with Fouquin here. The definition of what makes a "core" is too vague, even among advanced users who frequent tech forums like ourselves. No, we aren't engineers, but the point is that if we can have these drawn out discussions on what makes a core a core, then I feel like there's no definition set in stone. I recall some points being brought up in the other thread we had about this mentioning things like the many extensions we have today that didn't exist 20+ years ago, when things like math co-processors were common and L2 cache could be installed on the motherboard. That's why I feel like the lawsuit here is kinda frivolous. It's just somebody trying to take a stab at AMD for a payday.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I disagree, but okay. It seems clear you want to believe what you want to believe. You still have not provided any links to Intel or AMD or anybody else to back your "opinion".

They just parrot the same "a core is a core" like there's no further detail.

What do you expect? Them to say something different from that fact? If there is a chimpanzee sitting on a rock, and all the experts recognize it as a chimpanzee, do you expect some to call it a baboon? A core is a core because it's a core. Those articles also clearly say a processor is made up of one core, or in the case of a dual core processor, two cores. That explains it.

Yes, a waffle iron is a iron that makes waffles. Just like a crepe iron makes crepes and a branding iron brands. Sorry if they don't go into explicit detail for you what a iron is.

The whole lawsuit is about whether two "cores" sharing an FPU qualify as one core, or two.

So yeah, it's not cut and dry by any means.

Again, but it is the marketing weenies who make the claims.

 

[R-T-B]

Again, but it is the marketing weenies who make the claims.

When the "core" on it's own can only do integer math, is it really a core?

I'd say no. At least, not a core pc users expect.

Bulldozer cores, completely on their own, would not have an FPU, as two share one.

 

[Bill_Bright]

A core is a physical thing. It does not matter what it can or cannot do. It either exists, or it doesn't. A single core processor has one core. A dual core processor has two. A quad has four. How they are coded and what they are programmed to do is immaterial. Cores are hardware entities. Is a car that doesn't run still a car? Of course. What if half the engine is missing? Its still a car.

How it is marketed is a totally different issue.

 

[R-T-B]

It does not matter what it can or cannot do.

It has too. Otherwise I can call literally anything a "core."

Is an abacus a core? If I get 4 and superglue them together, is it a quadcore?

Is a car that doesn't run still a car? Of course. What if half the engine is missing? Its still a car.

I mean, if it was that cut and dry, this settlement would never have happened.

 

[Fouquin]

A core is a core because it's a core.

Is a core only a core if it has a branch predictor? In-order or out-of-order? Is it only a core if it has an 80-entry or more register window? Is it only a core if it has an AGU staged in conjunction with the ALU(s)? Is a core only a core if it has an FPU? None of those are answered, and all of them are variations that exist. Clearly there's something that isn't a core, so what is?

A core is a physical thing. It does not matter what it can or cannot do. It either exists, or it doesn't. A single core processor has one core. A dual core processor has two. A quad has four. How they are coded and what they are programmed to do is immaterial. Cores are hardware entities.

No, it does matter. Example; a cup is not defined as "a cup", a cup is a cylindrical shaped vessel of glass, metal, plastic or other form-able materials open on one side and sometimes including a handle. That is defining. Now if I just put a cube of steel in front of you and say it's a cup, you'd clearly object to that statement.

 

[seronx]

When the "core" on it's own can only do integer math, is it really a core?

All of AMD's core can only do general purpose. The FPU is a co-processor in pretty much every AMD design.

 

[R-T-B]

All of AMD's core can only do general purpose. The FPU is a co-processor in pretty much every AMD design.

Yes, and is a core really a core without one? The question stands.

 

[seronx]

Yes, and is a core really a core without one? The question stands.

Clearly, AMD has no cores then. Since, the FPU isn't as integrated as Intel's designs.

Intel designs: Retire queue of the core receives both integer and floating point and the immediate datapath has both integer and floating point units. The core is intrinsically also the FPU.
AMD designs: Retire queue of the core recieves both integer and floating point, however the floating point instructions are bypassed to the FPU retire unit. The core doesn't control the FPU, just its instruction and data flow.

 

[R-T-B]

Clearly, AMD has no cores then. Since, the FPU isn't as integrated as Intel's designs.

Don't be intentionally diffilcult. Why on earth would including a dedicated FPU on the same slab of silicon not qualify? If the integer unit can reach it it's a core.

Of course definitions vary. That was my point. This is MY definition.

 

[seronx]

Why on earth would including a dedicated FPU on the same slab of silicon not qualify?

The FPU to be defined as part of the core needs to share more than the data, instruction, and power bus.

If the integer unit can reach it it's a core.

The cores in Bulldozer aren't just INTEGER units. The cores have all the defined parts of a core of a processor. A control unit, a data bus, a datapath, and an instruction bus. Of which the FPU only shares the instruction bus and data bus.

The AMD64/IA-32 instruction set only executes on the cores. While, only the x87->AVX2 extensions execute on the FPU.