@FordGT90Concept, I'm going to make this clear. Your argument is stupid, because to make it you have to find a person who is both a genius and an idiot.
If you are to argue that performance figures are what the plaintiff is using (which as per my earlier links, they are), then you've got to argue against some standard. Intel is not a direct competitor, and thus isn't a standard. If you're arguing Thuban as a comparison, then you've got to explain monetary discrepancy and an architecture change. Neither of these things is grounds for a lie, or Netburst should have had two lawsuits filed against it. As AMD published information well in advance of the release of Bulldozer, there is no reasonable assertion that they lied about the core count. Heck, I could make my own CPU, wherein each processor is single bit and have a 20 core processor. To argue that AMD lied about core count, when they previously clearly defined what a core was, is to acquiesce to being a moron. I don't think the lawyers are that stupid, because the case would be immediately dismissed by the judge.
If you argue that AMD lied, then prove it. They didn't release factually wrong benchmarks, they just cherry picked the best results. That's been considered fair game for decades.
If your argument is that the removed components are necessary, you need to be an idiot savant. You have to completely understand processor architecture, have future knowledge about how coding will use what you are developing, and you have to be so moronic as to not read the technical information put out by the company releasing the product (per the 2009 Anandtech article). Find me that idiot savant, and I'll find you the person who can single hand design the successor to Zen.
...
Picture John Doe walking into [insert computer store here] and tells the clerk I want an 8-core processor. The clerk hooks John Doe up with a Bulldozer. He gets home and starts encoding videos on it. He quickly discovers it is no faster than his old Phenom II X6 1055T and starts looking for the reason. He stumbles upon threads like this, block diagrams of Bulldozer, reviews saying Bulldozer underperforms, benchmarks proving the poor performance, and--most importantly--he discovers Intel Core i7-5960X which thoroughly trounces his Bulldozer "8-core." How does John Doe not feel that he was mislead by the clerk, whom was mislead by AMD calling their processors "8-core?"...
This type of idiot does not need to be protected by the legal system. The clerk behind the counter is culpable for recommending that they buy a processor. The consumer is responsible for not educating themselves on the purchase. AMD has made the information they require to make an informed decision publicly available for literally years, yet they decided not to inform themselves. Our legal system does not exist to help those with retarded mental processes; it exists to mete out reparations for those who have done things which the law forbids, to mete punishment for those which haven't done what the law requires, and most importantly determine when one is guilty of either of these things.
What you're arguing is that you feel bad. I agree, I feel that the marketing was atrocious and misleading. At the same time all of the relevant data was widely available, and AMD published their data well in advance of the Bulldozer launch. Your argument for culpability on AMD's part is an argument made via emotion. Your staunch defense of said points, despite ample proof that AMD never lied, exemplifies this denial. Saying that you know it'll be thrown out, despite wanting it to happen, is asking for a massive waste of resources to no real end.
Let me be fair though. Looking at
@HumanSmoke's pictures, I can't find a single mention of core count. I'm now looking at the box for an Intel processor (4790k). That box proudly states "4 Cores / 8-Way Multitask Processing." You've spent the better part of a page arguing out the core count crap, but haven't even tried to justify your point. The core count isn't listed on the processor box of AMD. The core count on Intel's box is only 4 (despite HT). Neither of which define what a core is. Neither of which promise a numeric performance level. Most problematically, the Intel processor lists 4 cores despite having 8 logical cores with HT. Neither of the companies have demonstrably lied on their packaging. The only chance this suit has is if the judge decides to rule on the advertising material...Oh wait, they can't do that. The FTC rules on fairness in advertising.
Sorry, but your entire argument is based upon the false premise that this is a fact and logic based argument. It isn't. This is some idiot trying to cash out because they think that everyone complaining about its performance on the internets just haven't decided to cash in yet.
That particular bit of anger comes courtesy of my distaste for the law firm handling this. Seriously, if you do any research into them at all you'd see that they are the next incarnation of copyright trolls. All of their cases are arguing about high end technologies, where no precedence is set, and their track records is...spotty. Basically, like any slimy lawyer they are willing to sue anybody and represent anyone willing to cough up cash. These are the kind of leeches who give lawyers a bad name, whenever public defenders (also a type of lawyer) do so much good that it isn't funny. This is why our legal system is a joke, and it takes years just to get something to happen if you're wronged.
Should AMD be held accountable for misleading advertising; maybe. Should this be in court; absolutely not. Should this have been filed before this year; if it was actually in the public interest it should have been filed in 2011. The argument that there exists any grounds for this, given the information presented by the plaintiff, is a joke. You can argue technicalities all night, but the plaintiff must prove damages and lies (that's the point of innocent until proven guilty). Every argument you make has a simple counter. I think you're in the wrong here, because your heart is leading your head.
Edit:
Added quote and framed it.
