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 10th November 2015, 4:45 PM   #1
mixsetup Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Wynyard Tasmania
Posts: 2,490
Default Lawsuit claims AMD lied about the number of cores in its chips

This will hurt them if found guilty

http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/07/a...ction-lawsuit/
__________________
AMD FX-9590, ASRock 990fx Extreme9 Motherboard,MSI R9 280X GAMING 3G , GeIL 16GB Kit DDR3 Evo Potenza @ 2400MHz, Sandisk Ultra II 240GB SSD, 2 X 2TB SATA3 HDD, 2TB NAS , 1TB SATA3, 2 X 2TB external HDD, LG Blu-Ray RW
mixsetup is offline   Reply With Quote

Join OCAU to remove this ad!
Old 10th November 2015, 5:57 PM   #2
zero_velocity
Member
 
zero_velocity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 2,264
Default

I thought their marketing team clarified perfectly well exactly what a 'core' is to them... problem is, intel have coined hyperthreading, and people refer to these as '8 cores' (lamens) and if anyone should be held responsible for the mis-clarification its salesmen. The few times I've ventured into HN, Domain etc, the reps would always push the '8 cores' from an AMD CPU, but wouldn't clarify what a 'core' is.

SO basically, AMD uses its own terms for its CPU's architecture, with an abundance of information clarifying what it is online, countless reviews etc... and consumers fail to do any research on it...

Seeing as AMD didnt even try and hide anything, and were very open about what their product is, I feel this will fall flat on its face...
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agg View Post
I genuinely don't think anything about you at all, nor do I think you are some huge problem on the forums, nor do I particularly care if you feel insulted.
zero_velocity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th November 2015, 7:33 PM   #3
itsmydamnation
Member
 
itsmydamnation's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Canberra
Posts: 9,753
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mixsetup View Post
This will hurt them if found guilty

http://www.engadget.com/2015/11/07/a...ction-lawsuit/
except they wont be... pro tip, look at rock, i386 etc a "core" doesn't mean anyone thing. its a collection of units that does stuff in various ways. All cores on a soc share something at some point, voltage rails, cache, memory controller etc.
__________________
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 10th November 2015, 7:48 PM   #4
partybear
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Ballarat, Victoria
Posts: 720
Default

This is stupid in heaps of ways and shouldn't even be allowed in court, but the worst part is the guy who filed the lawsuit will probably get millions of dollars.
partybear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th November 2015, 8:12 PM   #5
Thrawn
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,068
Default

It was AMD who first introduced multi-core CPUs (Opteron and Athlon 64 X2 lines)... before then, the term "core" didn't really exist in the computer world. Certainly it was a non-existent concept in the consumer market.

Back then you can have multi-processor systems or "Dual CPUs", but the concept of "core" didn't exist. The very first products that is marketed as cores had dedicated FPUs. And every processor in the consumer market since then have dedicated cores that never shared compute resources. Until Bulldozer came along...

Personally, I'm partial to the concept that the definition of cores should have dedicated compute resources. So 2-core indicates that the 2nd core is the same as the 1st. Its simple.

Edit: On another point, the reason Bulldozer sucks has pretty much nothing to do with its shared "FPU". The FPU isn't even shared... each core is capable of executing its own standard FPU instructions. The difference is that newer 256-bit AVX instructions reuses both FPU so the cores in the module had to share. AVX was first introduced in Bulldozer and Sandybridge, so its not like previous AMD CPUs had dedicated AVX functions either.

AVX application is fairly scarce and generally have minimal impact.. so it pretty much has nothing to do with Bulldozer woes. The issue is basically in order for AMD to cram so many cores in, it reduced the compute resources of each core. So its sort of like if Intel made an 8-core Atom. Thats why it had poor single-thread performance.
__________________
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

Last edited by Thrawn; 10th November 2015 at 8:32 PM.
Thrawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th November 2015, 8:19 PM   #6
mixsetup Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Wynyard Tasmania
Posts: 2,490
Default

Will depend on how much the courts know about the technology I suppose.
__________________
AMD FX-9590, ASRock 990fx Extreme9 Motherboard,MSI R9 280X GAMING 3G , GeIL 16GB Kit DDR3 Evo Potenza @ 2400MHz, Sandisk Ultra II 240GB SSD, 2 X 2TB SATA3 HDD, 2TB NAS , 1TB SATA3, 2 X 2TB external HDD, LG Blu-Ray RW
mixsetup is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th November 2015, 8:35 PM   #7
Thrawn
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,068
Default

I didn't say x86 market.. I said consumer market.

The courts would look at terminology based on individual markets.

Edit: what happened the comment I was replying to..
__________________
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

Last edited by Thrawn; 10th November 2015 at 8:36 PM. Reason: Edit: what happened the comment I was replying to..
Thrawn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th November 2015, 10:25 PM   #8
philscomputerlab
Member
 
philscomputerlab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,843
Default

If I remember they called them modules, right?

But that got thrown out the window at some point, and now we have hexa- and octa cores
philscomputerlab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th November 2015, 10:35 PM   #9
Thrawn
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 1,068
Default



Retail boxed FX-8150. "8-core" in every side. Even has a prominent statement "World's first 8-core desktop processor".
__________________
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 10th November 2015, 11:15 PM   #10
philscomputerlab
Member
 
philscomputerlab's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,843
Default

And then you go into the BIOS, disable all, but 1 core, and are still left with 2
philscomputerlab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th November 2015, 11:37 PM   #11
MUTMAN
Member
 
MUTMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: brisvegas
Posts: 4,283
Default

I wonder if they will argue that once upon a time the math co-processor was external to the "core" and is the bit that is now shared.
so logically the 8 "core" is still correct, just that it has 4 co-processor shared on the same silicon.

its not like there's eight any other part thats now on the main wafer. eg. you dont see eight memory controllers. eight L1/L2/L3 cache units. etc
MUTMAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2015, 6:03 AM   #12
newlife
Member
 
newlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Adelaide, SA
Posts: 2,065
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTMAN View Post

its not like there's eight any other part thats now on the main wafer. eg. you dont see eight memory controllers. eight L1/L2/L3 cache units. etc
In terms of the last level of cache it's best to have it shared between all cores because it allows the cores to share cache which I imagine is why Intel have the L3 shared between all of them and I'm pretty sure amd had to create a link between modules to make up for that

To all the people who say it's not a real core if it sharse resources well I guess intels cpus aren't real multi core cpus either
newlife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2015, 8:04 AM   #13
MUTMAN
Member
 
MUTMAN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: brisvegas
Posts: 4,283
Default

i use the cache as a (poor) example of other stuff in the silicon other than the "cores"
intel never said a quad core with HT was 8 cores. they have always maintained a 4c/8t etc approach to their cpus
MUTMAN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11th November 2015, 11:49 AM   #14
zero_velocity
Member
 
zero_velocity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Gold Coast
Posts: 2,264
Default

After a bit of googling, there seems to be no definitive description regarding specifically what a 'core' is obligated to contain to actually be classed as a core. It is a very general term and has been used loosely through technology for many years on this basis alone I think this case will be thrown out
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agg View Post
I genuinely don't think anything about you at all, nor do I think you are some huge problem on the forums, nor do I particularly care if you feel insulted.
zero_velocity is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12th November 2015, 10:22 AM   #15
_slacker_
Member
 
_slacker_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: hiding from census dude!
Posts: 1,240
Default

One of those cases of a little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing...

I hope he gets awarded a slap upside the head.

As far as I am concerned after 30+yrs messing with computers, if it runs a thread its a core.

Intel i7 4c/8t is ass covering done well but really, if it runs a thread on its own it counts. If it was all about the core count AMD would have a larger market share but its about thread performance. Particularly as multithreaded apps become the norm.

my 2 cents....
__________________
**Asrock X370 Gaming K4 ** AMD Ryzen 1700@ 4Ghz ** Team Group Dark Pro 3000 @2933 C12-11-11-11-25 ** XFX RX480 @1405/2055** Samsung Evo 960 M.2 + Evo 850 ** EKWB Watercooled ** Silverstone 750w Gold**
_slacker_ 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 8:47 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!