AfterDawn: Tech news

AMD sued over misleading core counts for Bulldozer processors

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 08 Nov 2015 14:03 User comments (13)

AMD sued over misleading core counts for Bulldozer processors AMD has been sued for allegedly misleading customers about how many cores were contained in their Bulldozer processors.
The class action suit claims that while the Bulldozer line was advertised widely as having 8 cores, it really only had four functional cores.

At the core of the issue (no pun intended) is how AMD designs their multi-core Bulldozer chips. The company uses "modules" that combine the functions of two discrete cores into a single package. Windows counts each module as separate cores, but they share a single FPU.

The suit claims that since the cores cannot work independently, this results in performance degradation and the average consumer will not understand the difference between modules and independent cores. By advertising 8 cores and not "conveying accurate specifications," thousands of consumers were duped into believing their Bulldozer CPU could perform like a true octa-core processor, added the suit.

AMD is facing damages (statutory and punitive), litigation expenses and possible injunctions on the CPUs.

Source:
Ars

Previous Next  

13 user comments

18.11.2015 19:58

I stopped buying their crappy processors years ago. They were loaded with defects and had narrow bandwidth to create high quality video. Do yourself a favor and buy Intel.

210.11.2015 3:13

the problem with intel is they thing they can push the others comapies around like they did when it came to Dell and paying Dell to use then cpus to push the others out and i guess that is ok to do. yes amdwas wrong and should be made to replace the cpu for free. I will not buy a intel they think they can push people around to buy there junky cpus sorry i will not never ever.

310.11.2015 21:26

Originally posted by chefdamo:
the problem with intel is they thing they can push the others comapies around like they did when it came to Dell and paying Dell to use then cpus to push the others out and i guess that is ok to do. yes amdwas wrong and should be made to replace the cpu for free. I will not buy a intel they think they can push people around to buy there junky cpus sorry i will not never ever.
Really hard to call Intel CPUs 'junky.'

411.11.2015 11:12

amd cpus are great and inexpensive... I won't get a laptop with one because they heat a lot but work perfectly fine in desktops.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 11 Nov 2015 @ 11:13

fire burning.

511.11.2015 11:28

Originally posted by ispeedca:
amd cpus are great and inexpensive... I won't get a laptop with one because they heat a lot but work perfectly fine in desktops.
Overheating is just one of their problems. It's a free country. Enjoy them !

611.11.2015 14:09

Originally posted by ispeedca:
amd cpus are great and inexpensive... I won't get a laptop with one because they heat a lot but work perfectly fine in desktops.
This is the kind of situation where you get what you pay for. You can either have it Inexpensive, fast or good quality. Pick any 2 of them.

714.11.2015 23:18

the bulldozer does have 8 cores but do to architectural design there synchronized in groups of 2. it was done that way to get around Intels HyperThreading. AMD couldn't create single core with a virtual async thread. so they did the exact opposite.

The 2 Reasons why the bulldozers Failed is because enthusiasts builds do not care about Multithreading even in the I7's it was recommended to turn HT off for improved performance. something AMD's design wouldn't allow for.


the second is there use of old core technology trying to shoe horn the the K12 an already 13 year old design into a roll it was simply not designed for.

My guesstimate is Zen is not going to move away from the Bulldozer philosophy, its going to rectify the two above mistakes with HBM's roll to improve tied cores throughput immensely.

Also the Lawsuit is Bogus.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 14 Nov 2015 @ 23:20

Powered By

815.11.2015 23:16

Originally posted by DVDBack23:
Originally posted by chefdamo:
the problem with intel is they thing they can push the others comapies around like they did when it came to Dell and paying Dell to use then cpus to push the others out and i guess that is ok to do. yes amdwas wrong and should be made to replace the cpu for free. I will not buy a intel they think they can push people around to buy there junky cpus sorry i will not never ever.
Really hard to call Intel CPUs 'junky.'
Since there are no alternatives to chipsets that can be used with Intel CPUs one must consider them together. In this situation they are not junky they are outright horrible. In my 25 years of more than dabbling in PC hardware I can say one thing. No one made chip sets better than VIA. May be a little low in performance but reliability wise rock solid. I have a DH77EB Intel motherboard with i3-3220T processor. Even after 3 bios updates the USB ports suck big time. It cannot even reliably drive port powered USB 2.0 drives let alone from USB 2.0 ports but even from USB 3.0 ports. The USB 3.0 header is all but useless except to connect flash drives. Have no problems whatsoever with my more than 7 year old VIA C-7 board or Athlon + Via motherboards. As a matter of fact I would point out one big hassle with Intel chip sets. Here in India repairs to certain out of warranty Intel chip set motherboards are guaranteed for no more than 10 minutes where as the norm is 3 months.

916.11.2015 11:00

good!

1016.11.2015 11:28

Respect for all participants in the debate.
I'm sorry that I will disappoint fans of certain Intel processors, but I have to say that for
30 years, how to deal with programming and computer configurations, have extensive experience with processors and Intel and AMD. Until the advent of the so-called. I-series processors,
Intel held the primacy of AMD processors and durability and stability, but the I-series and all processors behind, are badly designed, much more heated and quickly lose stability.
AMD processor, unlike Intel, all of the rows have the stability and durability of the constant, regardless how long or how much work load. In addition, much less the heat of peers Intel processors. It should be realistic and look at how
various series and subseries brought Intel into the market in the last few years and it will be immediately apparent
all that Intel does not find the right formula for the production of high-quality processors, since the Intel (R) Celeron. With all that Intel has a monopoly on the installation of its processors in
some large international companies (Dell, HP and others ...), which were announced to dissolve the agreement with Intel, because their declining sales because of poor processor and due to failures
their products. Each computer either with an Intel processor or AMD processor on its board, it will work much better in the basic setting and with the same operating system, but if some "enthusiast" "overclock" and therefore,
for a short time, so that processors and computers unusable.
In the end I must say that the price of the processor in the same category dramatically different, and also because Intel is increasingly losing to AMD. Especially now, when Germany took control of the quality of the strongest AMD processors. I have to say, and that is one experiential absurd, and that is that AMD processors work better with N-Vidia graphics and Intel processors with AMD graphics cards, with the exception of AMD APU processor. Those who are suing AMD
for fraud are not in my opinion the real beneficiaries AMD processors, but one in a series of Intel
a mercenary group, which will eventually cause more damage than the Intel-AMD.
Thank you all and opprostite if someone damaged.

1116.11.2015 11:57

Originally posted by dado2004:
Respect for all participants in the debate.
I'm sorry that I will disappoint fans of certain Intel processors, but I have to say that for
30 years, how to deal with programming and computer configurations, have extensive experience with processors and Intel and AMD. Until the advent of the so-called. I-series processors,
Intel held the primacy of AMD processors and durability and stability, but the I-series and all processors behind, are badly designed, much more heated and quickly lose stability.
AMD processor, unlike Intel, all of the rows have the stability and durability of the constant, regardless how long or how much work load. In addition, much less the heat of peers Intel processors. It should be realistic and look at how
various series and subseries brought Intel into the market in the last few years and it will be immediately apparent
all that Intel does not find the right formula for the production of high-quality processors, since the Intel (R) Celeron. With all that Intel has a monopoly on the installation of its processors in
some large international companies (Dell, HP and others ...), which were announced to dissolve the agreement with Intel, because their declining sales because of poor processor and due to failures
their products. Each computer either with an Intel processor or AMD processor on its board, it will work much better in the basic setting and with the same operating system, but if some "enthusiast" "overclock" and therefore,
for a short time, so that processors and computers unusable.
In the end I must say that the price of the processor in the same category dramatically different, and also because Intel is increasingly losing to AMD. Especially now, when Germany took control of the quality of the strongest AMD processors. I have to say, and that is one experiential absurd, and that is that AMD processors work better with N-Vidia graphics and Intel processors with AMD graphics cards, with the exception of AMD APU processor. Those who are suing AMD
for fraud are not in my opinion the real beneficiaries AMD processors, but one in a series of Intel
a mercenary group, which will eventually cause more damage than the Intel-AMD.
Thank you all and opprostite if someone damaged.
I had to reluctantly switch to Intel because AMD produced the crappiest chisets, practically unusable USB interface and a hard to manage built in graphics. Their Athlons were getting so hot that I had to leave the cabinet open and direct cold blast of AC directly at it to keep it from shutting down. Phenom Quad was an improvement but but not all that much. Honestly I am waiting for ARM and some licensee to come up with a 64 bit desktop version and M$ to have Windows for it. That just might be the cure all for me.

1216.11.2015 13:03

Originally posted by pmshah:
Originally posted by dado2004:
Respect for all participants in the debate.
I'm sorry that I will disappoint fans of certain Intel processors, but I have to say that for
30 years, how to deal with programming and computer configurations, have extensive experience with processors and Intel and AMD. Until the advent of the so-called. I-series processors,
Intel held the primacy of AMD processors and durability and stability, but the I-series and all processors behind, are badly designed, much more heated and quickly lose stability.
AMD processor, unlike Intel, all of the rows have the stability and durability of the constant, regardless how long or how much work load. In addition, much less the heat of peers Intel processors. It should be realistic and look at how
various series and subseries brought Intel into the market in the last few years and it will be immediately apparent
all that Intel does not find the right formula for the production of high-quality processors, since the Intel (R) Celeron. With all that Intel has a monopoly on the installation of its processors in
some large international companies (Dell, HP and others ...), which were announced to dissolve the agreement with Intel, because their declining sales because of poor processor and due to failures
their products. Each computer either with an Intel processor or AMD processor on its board, it will work much better in the basic setting and with the same operating system, but if some "enthusiast" "overclock" and therefore,
for a short time, so that processors and computers unusable.
In the end I must say that the price of the processor in the same category dramatically different, and also because Intel is increasingly losing to AMD. Especially now, when Germany took control of the quality of the strongest AMD processors. I have to say, and that is one experiential absurd, and that is that AMD processors work better with N-Vidia graphics and Intel processors with AMD graphics cards, with the exception of AMD APU processor. Those who are suing AMD
for fraud are not in my opinion the real beneficiaries AMD processors, but one in a series of Intel
a mercenary group, which will eventually cause more damage than the Intel-AMD.
Thank you all and opprostite if someone damaged.
I had to reluctantly switch to Intel because AMD produced the crappiest chisets, practically unusable USB interface and a hard to manage built in graphics. Their Athlons were getting so hot that I had to leave the cabinet open and direct cold blast of AC directly at it to keep it from shutting down. Phenom Quad was an improvement but but not all that much. Honestly I am waiting for ARM and some licensee to come up with a 64 bit desktop version and M$ to have Windows for it. That just might be the cure all for me.
I have been running both Intel and AMD processors ever since their creation. The "WAR" between Intel & AMD has been a non-stop thing for many years. My preference is AMD with as many cores and I can get, but I don't overclock my processors, so I don't have any problems with performance. Not even the Intel processors, unless you overclock them trying to get as much horsepower as possible out of them, then sure they are going to break down. Those transistors are very susceptible to heat and voltage, if you overclock them and turn up the voltage, you are shortening the life of any processor!

1316.11.2015 13:43

Originally posted by gregh48:
Originally posted by pmshah:
Originally posted by dado2004:
Respect for all participants in the debate.
I'm sorry that I will disappoint fans of certain Intel processors, but I have to say that for
30 years, how to deal with programming and computer configurations, have extensive experience with processors and Intel and AMD. Until the advent of the so-called. I-series processors,
Intel held the primacy of AMD processors and durability and stability, but the I-series and all processors behind, are badly designed, much more heated and quickly lose stability.
AMD processor, unlike Intel, all of the rows have the stability and durability of the constant, regardless how long or how much work load. In addition, much less the heat of peers Intel processors. It should be realistic and look at how
various series and subseries brought Intel into the market in the last few years and it will be immediately apparent
all that Intel does not find the right formula for the production of high-quality processors, since the Intel (R) Celeron. With all that Intel has a monopoly on the installation of its processors in
some large international companies (Dell, HP and others ...), which were announced to dissolve the agreement with Intel, because their declining sales because of poor processor and due to failures
their products. Each computer either with an Intel processor or AMD processor on its board, it will work much better in the basic setting and with the same operating system, but if some "enthusiast" "overclock" and therefore,
for a short time, so that processors and computers unusable.
In the end I must say that the price of the processor in the same category dramatically different, and also because Intel is increasingly losing to AMD. Especially now, when Germany took control of the quality of the strongest AMD processors. I have to say, and that is one experiential absurd, and that is that AMD processors work better with N-Vidia graphics and Intel processors with AMD graphics cards, with the exception of AMD APU processor. Those who are suing AMD
for fraud are not in my opinion the real beneficiaries AMD processors, but one in a series of Intel
a mercenary group, which will eventually cause more damage than the Intel-AMD.
Thank you all and opprostite if someone damaged.
I had to reluctantly switch to Intel because AMD produced the crappiest chisets, practically unusable USB interface and a hard to manage built in graphics. Their Athlons were getting so hot that I had to leave the cabinet open and direct cold blast of AC directly at it to keep it from shutting down. Phenom Quad was an improvement but but not all that much. Honestly I am waiting for ARM and some licensee to come up with a 64 bit desktop version and M$ to have Windows for it. That just might be the cure all for me.
I have been running both Intel and AMD processors ever since their creation. The "WAR" between Intel & AMD has been a non-stop thing for many years. My preference is AMD with as many cores and I can get, but I don't overclock my processors, so I don't have any problems with performance. Not even the Intel processors, unless you overclock them trying to get as much horsepower as possible out of them, then sure they are going to break down. Those transistors are very susceptible to heat and voltage, if you overclock them and turn up the voltage, you are shortening the life of any processor!
I never overclock. What I make are machines used in businesses where there can't be ANY down time due to hardware problems. In fact I have had to resort to BES which can throttle applications to reduce overloading the processor. The x64 Athlons were notorious for their overheating problems which I learned the hard way.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive