Overclockers Australia Forums

OCAU News - Wiki - QuickLinks - Pix - Sponsors  

Go Back   Overclockers Australia Forums > Manufacturer-specific Forums > AMD x86 CPUs and chipsets

Notices


Sign up for a free OCAU account and this ad will go away!
Search our forums with Google:
Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 12th November 2015, 1:46 PM   #16
mAJORD
Member
 
mAJORD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Griffin , Brisbane
Posts: 8,589
Default

This has bene discused to death in the other thread, but something to add to the discussion

One simple way to define the vailidty of the term might be to distinguish between SMT and discrete core would be the Performance scaling with extra threads.

Say, on an industry standard benchmark set anything over 50% performance uplift from a doubling of threads (at the same frequency), can have each thread considered a core

In this case, AMD could use the term core for FX (they scale form 60-70%) , whereas Intel , nor AMD's Zen could not as as scaling from SMT (in the form both processors use) is in the range of 20-30%
mAJORD is offline   Reply With Quote

Join OCAU to remove this ad!
Old 15th November 2015, 6:30 AM   #17
gregpolk
Member
 
gregpolk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 7,358
Default

AMD did not in anyway try to hide what their 'cores' were in their 8 core CPU. Given there is no absolute definition of what constitutes a core, and AMD were in no way dishonest or deceptive in their marketing of this 8core CPU, I suspect the judge will take some arguments and then kindly tell them to GTFO.

More cores does not necessarily mean more performance in the same way that more clock speed does not necessarily equal more performance. If this customer was confused, then its his own fault for being fooled by the pitch of computer salesmen, not the fault of AMD for making the product.
gregpolk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th November 2015, 8:34 AM   #18
TaroT
Member
 
TaroT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Hazelbrook nsw 2779
Posts: 8,410
Default

it is a typical money grabbing useless piece of crap.
https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/co...e_the_fx_8350/
an example of if he learned to read in his trailer with MA he may have made in an informed decision ,the amount of ma and pas that think their intel has 8 cores would surprise you...they have hyper threading totally different thing.



I wish they kept the 1100t's going and maybe stretched them out and developed something other than the bulldozer but that's life.
__________________
AMD R7 1800X@stock:corsair H110 cooler: ASUS X370 crosshair 6(Baymax)Corsair 3200 ddr4 @2133(for now)R9 Fury X 1100/500:
TaroT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th November 2015, 9:06 AM   #19
itsmydamnation
Member
 
itsmydamnation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canberra
Posts: 9,756
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TaroT View Post
it is a typical money grabbing useless piece of crap.
https://www.reddit.com/r/buildapc/co...e_the_fx_8350/
an example of if he learned to read in his trailer with MA he may have made in an informed decision ,the amount of ma and pas that think their intel has 8 cores would surprise you...they have hyper threading totally different thing.



I wish they kept the 1100t's going and maybe stretched them out and developed something other than the bulldozer but that's life.
STARS needed to go, the fundamentals of the core were just to old ( the entire ROB/scheduler/ execution stage and load store systems). Bulldozer ended up being the wrong answer because single thread perf was to low. if bulldozer shipped with +20% IPC then it would have been interesting to see how that played out. Given that PD saw about 10% IPC , SR about 8% and EX about 5% so amd would have kept pace.

L2 to slow,L1 to small and execution stage to narrow. look at all other modern high performance cores vs BD and thats what stands out.
__________________
OCAU Guitar Players Club #22
xp2500 @2310 210x11 stock hsf |asus a7n8x deluxe | 1024mb ddr400 | X800 445/515
Get a grip adolf, you lost the war, and you can't kill any more jews.
Rhythm in jump. dancing close to you D3 account1 D3 account 2
itsmydamnation is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th November 2015, 1:35 PM   #20
Sologuy
Member
 
Sologuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Northern Tasmania
Posts: 169
Default

ExtremeTech have good article on this topic, kinda hits the nail on the head....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joel Hruska
If the writeup at Legalnewsline.com is remotely accurate, the lawsuit is utterly without technical merit. The suit supposedly alleges that because Bulldozer shares certain core resources, the cores can no longer work independently and the chip is no longer capable of performing eight instructions simultaneously. If thatís the hook Dickey is hoping to hang his lawsuit on, he picked a bad one. While itís true that AMD shared core resources within Bulldozer, the chip doesnít work the way Dickey alleges it does.

... this lawsuit doesnít appear to argue that AMD mismarketed its CPUs because single-threaded performance was weaker than expected, but because multi-threaded scaling was critically harmed by the decision to share various aspects of the underlying architecture.

Dickeyís lawsuit is wrong on other areas of fact as well .... Bulldozer is absolutely capable of executing eight threads simultaneously, and executing eight threads on an eight-core FX-8150 is faster than running that same chip in a four-thread, four-module mode. Bulldozer can decode 16 instructions per clock (not eight) and it can keep far more than eight instructions in flight simultaneously.

... this lawsuit makes claims that donít hold up to technical scrutiny.
... enough said.
Sologuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th November 2015, 5:50 PM   #21
General_Cartman
Member
 
General_Cartman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The Confedaracah!
Posts: 2,653
Default

This is almost as silly as suing Intel as their MCM LGA 775 chips shared the same FSB and thus only got half the total memory bandwidth available if both CPUs accessed the bus at once.
General_Cartman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 12:11 PM   #22
Thrawn
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,069
Default

AMD back then started a marketing campaign claiming the Intel MCM chips aren't "true quad core"
__________________
3930K @ 4.7 Ghz 1.36v | Asrock X79 Xtrm4 | 16GB | Asus HD6950 1GB (unlock 6970) | OCZ Agility 3 120GB | 2TB 7200.14 | EK Supreme HF + MCP355 + RX480 | Silverstone FT02 | CM 800W Gold | AV-710
Thrawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2015, 9:25 PM   #23
Korbah
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 347
Default

Marketing claims and lawsuits are two different things though........
__________________
Comp: Intel C2D e2160 (@ 3.0Ghz), 4gig DDR2 800, 512mb 8800GT, Mobo: GA-P35-DS3, Antec 550 TruePower. Dell E248WFP 24" LCD + Chimei 22" LCD run dual-screen.
Korbah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2015, 8:29 AM   #24
Thrawn
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Korbah View Post
Marketing claims and lawsuits are two different things though........
I know.. just seeing the irony of it
__________________
3930K @ 4.7 Ghz 1.36v | Asrock X79 Xtrm4 | 16GB | Asus HD6950 1GB (unlock 6970) | OCZ Agility 3 120GB | 2TB 7200.14 | EK Supreme HF + MCP355 + RX480 | Silverstone FT02 | CM 800W Gold | AV-710
Thrawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Sign up for a free OCAU account and this ad will go away!

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 8:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
OCAU is not responsible for the content of individual messages posted by others.
Other content copyright Overclockers Australia.
OCAU is hosted by Micron21!