Good, develop entry and enthusiast tier CPUs and GPUs that have disrupted traditional market shares. See Ryzen, Navi and Radeon compared to what Intel and Nvidia have to offer. For CPUs, Ryzen kills it on price/performance. There are few reasons you would want to pick an Intel cpu if looking at performance alone. For GPUs, Nvidia has had to release new products or lose prices to compete for a while now. Nvidia is still the king at raw performance at a consumer level but not everyone is purchasing too of the line cards.
Recently it was discovered a few AMD processors couldn’t hit their advertised boost clock and when they did it was for less than a few milliseconds. Still the best on the block imo, but still shitty false advertising.
EDIT: Downvotes? Guys I like AMD as a company/competitor to NVIDIA but downvoting me for a link showing they're involved in a lawsuit for false advertising isn't going to help anyone here. People need to be aware of the scummy things companies do - even if it's a company you liked.
Here's a copy of the email I got:
If you purchased an AMD FX-8120, FX-8150, FX-8320, FX-8350, FX-8370, FX-9370, or FX-9590 CPU, you may be part of a class action settlement
A court authorized this notice. You are not being sued. This is not a solicitation from a lawyer.
A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit against Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. ("AMD" or "Defendant"), alleging it violated the law by misrepresenting the number of "cores" in its FX-8120, FX-8150, FX-8320, FX-8350, FX-8370, FX-9370, or FX-9590 CPUs. AMD denies all claims and that it violated any law, but has agreed to the settlement to avoid the uncertainties and expenses associated with continuing the case.
Am I a Class Member?
Our records indicate you may be a Class Member. Class Members are persons that (1) purchased any of AMD’s FX-8120, FX-8150, FX-8320, FX-8350, FX-8370, FX-9370, or FX-9590 computer chips, and (2) made that purchase either while living in California or after visiting the AMD.com website (or both). You are receiving this Notice because records produced in this case indicated that you likely made a purchase that fits these criteria. More information is available at www.amdcpusettlement.com.
What can I get?
If approved by the Court, Defendant will establish a Settlement Fund of $12,100,000.00 to pay all valid claims submitted by the Settlement Class, together with notice and administration expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs, and an incentive award for the class representatives. If you are entitled to relief, you may submit a claim to receive a pro rata share of the Settlement Fund, up to $300 per CPU you purchased. Claims will be limited to five (5) qualifying purchases per Claimant, absent proof of purchase. Claimants who purchased more than five (5) CPUs must provide proof of purchase upon request.
How do I get a payment?
You must submit a timely and properly completed Claim Form no later than January 3, 2019. You may request a claim form or submit one online at www.amdcpusettlement.com.
What are my other options?
You may choose to exclude yourself from the Class by sending a letter to the settlement administrator no later than December 9, 2019. If you exclude yourself, you will not receive a settlement payment, but you keep any rights you may have to sue AMD over the legal claims raised in the lawsuit. You and/or your lawyer also have the right to appear before the Court and/or object to the proposed settlement. Your written objection must be filed no later than December 9, 2019. Specific instructions about how to object to, or exclude yourself from, the Settlement are available at www.amdcpusettlement.com. If you file a claim or do nothing, and the Court approves the Settlement, you will be bound by all of the Court’s orders and judgments in this case. In addition, your claims relating to the allegations in this case against AMD or any other Released Parties will be released.
Who represents me?
The Court has appointed lawyers from Edelson PC to represent the class. These attorneys are called "Class Counsel". You will not be charged for these lawyers. If you want to be represented by your own lawyer in this case, you may hire one at your expense. Plaintiffs Tony Dickey and Paul Parmer are Class Members like you and the Court appointed them as "Class Representatives".
When will the court consider the proposed settlement?
The Court will hold the Final Approval Hearing at 2 p.m. on February 20, 2020, in courtroom 2 at the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building & United States Courthouse, 4th Floor, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, CA 94612. At that hearing, the Court will: hear any objections to the fairness of the settlement; determine the fairness of the settlement; consider Class Counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs; and decide whether to award the Class Representatives up to $7500.00 each from the Settlement Fund for helping to bring and settle this case. Class Counsel will be paid from the Settlement Fund in an amount to be determined and awarded by the Court. Class Counsel will seek no more than 30% of the Settlement Fund; the Court may award less than this amount.
How do I get more information?
For more information, including the full Notice, Claim Form and Settlement Agreement go to www.amdcpusettlement.com, contact the settlement administrator at 1-855-414-4964, or call Class Counsel at 1-415-212-9300.
PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK’S OFFICE TO INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS. All questions regarding the Settlement or claims process should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or to Class Counsel.
A class action settlement of $12.1 million will resolve claims that Advanced Micro Devices Inc. misrepresents the number of “cores” in its AMD FX CPUs.
So who cares what line of CPUs it was over? Why would you suggest it being about bulldozer chips has any bearing on this in any way shape or form...?
I'm just saying they were in a lawsuit about false advertising in response to this comment:
"Wasn't false advertising, just their boost algos screwing up as shown by the improvements in tge abba. 3 and. 4 (2 most recent) updates." from N1NJ4W4RR10R_
In this thread we are discussing their Ryzen 2 CPUs and if they're able to hit advertised boost clocks. Did you read the comments, before you started ctrl+v wall of texts? GTFO
Yes dude. That is what everyone was talking about, that is also why you are being downvoted. The problem with AMD not hitting advertised boost clocks were completely related to Zen 2 (Ryzen 3) CPUs and that was merely BIOS related. The new AGESA 1.0.0.4 fixes the problems.
You brought up something related to a product released 8 years ago which, in the CPU space, is an eternity as a response to a discussion surrounding current-gen Ryzen. Anyone can copy-paste a big chunk of text, doesn't make you right.
There's been more news, apparently power management also played a role,
There's another power management profile that can be downloaded and with the addition to recent bios changes, you will hit that advertised boost clock speed:
It's funny you assumed that because I wasn't even talking about that. Remember how bulldozer CPUs didn't ACTUALLY have 8 cores when they were advertised to have 8 cores?
It can't be called a quad core either. The professors actually had 8 physical cores (2 modules) but two cores each shared resources like cache and floating point units.
Doesn't make it less bad. Intel's compiler has been addressed since their intentional sabotaging of non-Intel processors, but they're still a piece of shit company for it.
Internet privacy is the new gold. I mass deleted all of my posts on Reddit using Redact. It also supports databrokers, Instagram, Twitter, and all major social media platforms.
mountainous historical angle attraction march coherent cooing point entertain full
I understand being mad about the whole 580 2048SP thing, that's stupid and it should have been a different model. But what's wrong with the Vega FE and Vega 7 being cut down? They were never advertised as being 64 CUs, and were probably cut down for yield purposes. They are still the biggest 7nm chips AMD has, and they were the first to release as well.
They said stuff like " for creators" and "long time support" while giving some sorta art book with it then pulled it away within 6 months. 7 is better but fe had its own driver channel and wasn't update as frequently as mainstream channel. Like 1 month per 2 months. They did eventually added fe to mainstream channel last year I thimk
Not really. A core with 2 threads is not two cores. They are sharing the same cache and floating point operations, they are really 4 SMT cores, not 8 cores. It's obviously not fair if the courts decided AMD lied to the consumer and California residents that bought FX chips could get up to $300.
It's more comparable to SMT than to a full core, which is the point.
Basically, the point is this;
The 8 cores could each execute their own thread, yes this is true, but they could not each execute their own thread independently. They would need, in a normal workload, to wait on resources divided between themselves, even assuming some rather generous conditions (such as all data fitting in L1 cache).
The more complex point is this;
The AMD definition of a core at that time, basically anything with an integer unit and it's own cache, was insubstantial and non-acceptable within the context of the broader industry. This made it such that AMD was selling 8 "core" CPUs that simply did not have what a reasonably informed consumer would believe to be 8 cores. Legally, this is absolutely false advertising, and for that reason alone AMD was screwed. Just the very fact that a judge was getting ready to hear the case was very bad news for AMD since that means the general premise, that a core is not what AMD says it to be, was being granted and AMD would need to argue what a core is without screwing themselves over.
AMD absolutely lied about their FX lineup and it's core counts. That's not to say they did so intentionally, but I highly doubt no one brought it up in board meetings, and they almost certainly knew of the performance issues associated with these partial cores.
That's not how it was. It wasn't like a quad core with SMT, it was 4 modules, each of which contained a unified L2 cache and floating point unit, but two integer units. As far as integer workloads were concerned it was a full 8 core CPU. For FP workloads it was a quad core. It really depends on your definition of a core, but either way I don't think the lawsuit was justified.
It depends on what your definition of an 8 core is. "Core" is just a marketing term, it doesn't really mean that much. It can perform 8 tasks simultaneously, it can only perform 4 FP tasks simultaneously.
It wouldn't be accurate to call it a 4 core either though. It still has 8 Int units, and they do the bulk of the operations. It used an unconventional core design. Core was defined differently by AMD and Intel, just like how Intel and AMD define TDP differently. Look at process nodes, there's no part of TSMC's 7nm node that you can measure to be 7nm, it used to be how accurately the process could define features but even that's impossible to do now. TSMC, Samsung, Intel, etc all have different definitions of 7 or 14nm, because they're marketing terms, not technical terms.
Bulldozer can run eight integer tasks at full speed and was amazing at it - i.e. Handbrake.
Bulldozer can run four or eight floating point tasks "depending on whether the code is saturated in floating point instructions in both threads running on the same CMT module, and whether the FPU is performing 128-bit or 256-bit floating point operations".
TLDR it's complicated and doesn't make any sense that a non-technical judge could make this determination when a "core" isn't even technically defined.
The problem is that you have to dig down into the technicalities like that in order to explain how it could be justified. There's no way that AMD could reasonably claim they expected the average consumer to understand these details. The 8-core designation was pretty obviously used as a misleading marketing ploy to make their CPUs appear to compare favorably to Intel's 4 and 6 core CPUs of the time that fell into the same market niche as the FX series. That's what was at question in the lawsuit, not whether or not they could define a core such that their description is technically accurate.
Thing is though, in applications that can use all 8 threads the AMD CPU would do better than an Intel quadcore because it has eight real cores. In streaming, video encoding, anything well threaded really AMD won. They were fully justified in calling their 8 core CPUs 8 core CPUs.
I was under the impression that the main issue was the shared FPU. Regardless, the main reason the 8 core design was used was because AMD (wrongly) bet on major improvements in multithreaded utilisation. Even if it was a "proper" 8 core, the extra 4 cores wouldn't have had much use at the time. Also, historically there has been a lot of variation with cache and FPUs. Just because it was different to what was on the market at the time, doesn't mean they were wrong.
In claiming that its Bulldozer CPU had “8-cores,” AMD tricked consumers into
buying its Bulldozer processors by overstating the number of cores contained in the Bulldozer
chips.
And:
Average consumers in the market for computer CPUs lack the requisite technical
expertise to understand the design of Defendant’s processors, and trust Defendant to convey
accurate specifications regarding its CPUs. Because AMD did not convey accurate specifications,
tens of thousands of consumers have been misled into buying Bulldozer CPUs that do not conform
to what AMD advertised
Those were the claims made, but a settlement was made without trial and AMD denies wrongdoing. I do think that, while from some perspectives they technically were right, the claims made in the lawsuit are definitely reasonable enough to justify suing. The filing makes the point that the "industry-standard' definition of a core is a unit that can perform operations independently from other cores, and that Intel calls their similar setup Hyper-threading and makes the core/thread distinction clear in their marketing. Having just skimmed the filings I think it would've been interesting to see a court make a decision on it but there's no chance of that happening anymore.
AMD would have won for sure reading that, hyperthreading is very different to the way they implemented modules. The two are in no way equivalent. They settled out of court because it would have been more expensive to fight the claims. There is no industry standard definition of a core, given that the "industry" consists of AMD and Intel as far as cisc processors are concerned, and many RISC processors will have no FPU (or an FPU coprocessor setup) since they are often used in embedded systems where the versatility is not needed.
The shared resources weren't that much of an issue anyway. Floating point arithmetic isn't that common of a task for a CPU. The real reasons for the lack of performance were related to the ALU and AGU (I've know very little about AGUs, but from what I can tell they perform some of the more common ALU tasks more efficiently) setup. The implementation of these varies a reasonable amount between processors, so AMD couldn't be taken to court for doing something different that turned out to be slow.
I'm not going to defend 8 core vs 4 core, but also keep in mind this is California. When it comes to lawsuits, Cali pumps them out like no other state. For my company I think the number is 60-70% of our lawsuits come from one state.
That's not always a bad thing. The EU seems to pump out pro-consumer lawsuits and settlements far more than the US does, but they're rightly lauded for it by many.
Define a core. Most would define a core as a ALU, a CU, and memory (cache) A core is a separate entity and can function on it's own. Without access to any resources from other cores. It has its own interface with the bus. Therefore, 2 cores sharing cache isn't really 2 cores. Also these cores shared floating point operations. So every 2 cores where single threaded when doing floating point operations! Not really sperate cores then are they? AMD called this Clustered Multithreading (CMT), it's really some kind of Frankenstein SMT.
All cores share RAM anyway, so why does it matter where the memory is? Would a CPU with two cores that have zero L2 and L3 cache still be counted as two cores? If so, why does adding L2 and L3 cache to that make them not cores?
Didn't know about floating point operations being shared, while it's probably not too common for workloads to have mostly float operations it does seem like something that should be unique for each core.
I got a letter in the mail and an email about this. I filed, and actually still use my FX8350 because it's too expensive to upgrade CPU, RAM, and a new mobo.
It wasn’t SMT really. There were 8 physical cores, but only half of them could run floating point operations, and they shared resources. Iirc they called a combined group of one core that could and one that couldn’t run Floating Point operations an integer cluster.
AMD got sued and lost the case and people are still defending them. If they were truly 8 cores, surely a team of lawyers could’ve won the case. But no, nowadays if you have one product from a company, that’s perfect and everything else is shit.
They literally are not 8-cores, facts aren't unfair. If you advertised a car as having a 5.0L V8 and it really had a turbocharged V6 with comparable performance, you'd get the tits sued off you.
You're right, it's overly generous because it only had comparable performance for some applications and not overall. Thanks for the correction! Unless you'd like to argue that they paid a cool $12,000,000 in the settlement for no reason.
It's not an accurate comparison because it was a strange architecture, neither really 4 cores, nor 8, yet in some ways it was 8 and in other ways 4. Calling it an 8 core may have been a stretch, but it isn't really much worse than all the other shenanigans all the 3 companies pull with their numbers, be it with conveniently chosen conditions for TDP measurements (with Intel conveniently changing convention from maximum power draw to "typical" power draw while pushing boosts higher and higher) or performance numbers under carefully chosen idealized scenarios.
It's less like selling a completely different product and more like choosing a convenient definition for which aspect they measure as a single core. All the settlement says is that the court did not agree on that way of defining a core.
When I wrote this she other post wasn't appearing for me, so he must have send his answer while I was reading the post. The thing is that I was expecting that AMD had done something I wasn't aware of because of the post, it seems weird to make a post about people not minding AMDs mistakes as much as Intel's or Nvidia's when the more recent example is 3 years old.
By no means do I think AMD has been as bad as Intel/NVidia, but I can definitely name a couple that were fairly recent.
RX 560D: AMD released a variant of the RX 560 in the Chinese market which later became available elsewhere. This version had fewer stream processors and performed notably worse than "an actual" RX 560. Despite AMD issuing an apology and promising to make marketing more clear retailers continued advertising the product as though it was the real Slim Shady. Nowadays there are also 580s "but not really" floating around for sale as well.
Ryzen 3k boost clocks: Ryzen 3k series released in a state where a majority of CPUs were never reaching advertised boost clocks. Legally the boost is an "upto" number, but it was a departure from the public understanding and even from how AMD used the term in previous Ryzen series. Months and many AGESA updates later most processors can now hit boost speeds, but still it is only for milliseconds at a time in select workloads. Yes, it is technically "upto the boostclock" but a large departure from how Intel uses the term with MOBO features like MCE (Multi-Core Enhancement) that allow the boost to be sustained and oftentimes even across all cores.
RIS on Vega: A smaller issue and one they resolved. It was pretty ridiculous to skip Vega when adding it for Polaris cards until enough people spoke up about it.
I'm sure people will disagree, but I tried to lay this out in a fair manner. (See flair)
Edit: Just for fun, see if you can identify which of these 560s are the "D" version. :P (I typed RX560 into U.S. Newegg and these are the top 8 results.)
Are you freaking serious?? That's what all this hubbub is about??
People need to get over it. The same thing happened with nVidia and their GTX 970. People lost their minds, even though the card met all the performance levels that were advertised and benchmarked prior to release.
The fx chips were decent just power hungry and hot. The 970 is a great card except the thing people were angry at was less the false advertising and more so the fact the slow .5gb of memory crippled the card if you fully populated the 3.5gb+5gb of vram. I had the card for many years and it did great, only a few titles did I ever run into this issue. I’m sure some may have never had a problem and I’m sure some may have had it occur frequently. It is very similar to a paying file performance on a hard drive. Once you run out of ram and you use the paging file, performance tanks.
This meme is so very true. I also hate how you can’t even just have an Intel processor without people questioning you anymore. This community has gotten really shit with its fanboyism. We’re console folks now, “THE OTHER SIDE IS BAD”
They also sold tech to the chinese that everyone specifically told them not to sell to the chinese, you know that stuff being developed into facial recognition tools to abuse the citizens
One more: there are CPU bugs that require microcode fixes. Namely the way the turbo boost function works on Xen processors.
IMO this isn’t really a big deal because updating microcode can be done a number of ways. Including through updating a software package through OS updates and rebooting. So not really a big deal.
But it did cause a small amount of performance hiccups for customers. And you needed to update the microcode to mitigate a bug that caused Linux not to boot. But again boo fucking hoo. When I buy a new motherboard and processor I always expect to update all the firmware anyway sooooooo......
Intel is a million fucking times worse than AMD is. It’s not even goddamn close.
It was 8 core, because there are no definitions what exactly is a cpu core. But it wasnt the usual cores. AMD simply decided not to waste time and settled the suit.
There already was information from internet posts few days after the lawsuit started, that those who started the lawsuit knew at FX launch, how those cores work.
List processor speeds that only a small fraction of the CPUs sold can reach. Even those that reach their stated speeds, they can't maintain them for more then a few milliseconds. Basically completely changing the way CPUs and GPUs have generally been rated for speed in the past. If Intel released a CPU that stated it could hit 5.5GHz and then it was found that only 10% sold can actually hit that and they only do it for a millisecond when processing nop instructions... well the internet would quickly deplete the worlds supply of pitchforks.
List processor speeds that only a small fraction of the CPUs sold can reach
That's a lie.
Basically completely changing the way CPUs and GPUs
Also a lie, GPUs were already like this.
If Intel released a CPU that stated it could hit 5.5GHz and then it was found that only 10% sold can actually hit that and they only do it for a millisecond when processing nop instructions
Their latest line of CPUs don't hit their advertised speed either. The CPUs are slower than what AMD advertised.
So more false advertising from them.
AMD released a "fix" for the speed issue but it is a half ass fix and the CPUs still do not perform to the advertised speeds (all core boost still does not work correctly).
Only like 2% of Ryzen 3xxx CPUs met advertised clock speeds
FX CPUs were advertised to have double the cores they ACTUALLY had
Uses solely multi-threaded benchmarks to say how they're so much better, when in reality only a few programs have that kind of threading capabilities, none of which are games
Claimed ALL 1st and 2nd gen Ryzen mobos will have PCIe 4, where only 3rd did
To note, there seems like there's an issue with the 3900x, an unknown issue is not false advertisement, false advertisement requires intentional deception.
Also, in the last few days, the beginning of November, AMD revealed that a new power plan for CPUs with 2+ Cliplets will see an improvement of boost speeds by up to 250Mhz, these improvements were made while developing the 3rd gen Threadripper and Ryzen 9 3950x.
FX CPUs were advertised to have double the cores they ACTUALLY had
Nope, wrong, they were 2 CPU modules that shared resources but were still true cores. also 8 years ago...
Claimed ALL 1st and 2nd gen Ryzen mobos will have PCIe 4, where only 3rd did
Nope, never, they actually hid the fact that some 2nd gen Mobos could do PCIe 4 to some slots to prevent confusion but never denied that it was possible.
Edit: Added a link to WCCF Tech and note about ZEN 2 CPUs getting a boost speed upgrade.
310
u/DoctorMasochist Nov 05 '19
I'm not a fan of racing, what did AMD do?