The suit alleges AMD built the Bulldozer processors by stripping away components from two cores and combining what was left to make a single “module.” In doing so, however, the cores no longer work independently.
Seems like AMD could get into some hot water of this if peeps jump on the bandwagon. Hope not though, we need all the competition the market can yield.
How is this coming about now? Bulldozer has been out for over 4 years and been tested by practically all internet testing companies, enthusiasts and YT creators.
How come we did not see that AMD's CPUs were in a way 'hyper-threading'?
The lawsuit's going no where. The CPUs do have 8 cores, so there's no false advertising.
Amd advertised these as Octa cores, and while they had 8 cores, the cores used shared resources. The main issue I believe is the FPU... Usually one core have one floating point unit, but Bulldozer makes 2 cores share one FPU... This is actually one of the main reasons many people say it's not really an Octa core, but a quad core...
Funny, if we talk about false advertising, there is no innocent company. I mean take a look at Nvidia and their full DX12,1 support. Take a look at GTX 970... Take a look at Intel's 4770K being 80W TDP or something, and hitting 80C with H100...
It will be funny for me if something comes out of this... On the other hand, Intel last year had to pay some fees or something for misrepresentation of some Pentium 4 benchmarks or something...
We shall see...
apple used similar architecture for powerpc (dual integer + 1 fpu ) so they would not be immune to this
they advertised them as dual core
It is call terrorism through litigation. Suit has no merit but will cost AMD millions. The timing here is perfect for those who want to see AMD go under. Also a law firm based out of Chicago, the most corrupt city in the US? Allot of things smell wrong about this
It would be interesting to see... Basically this is the architecture of this specific chip. I am curious what defines "core", keeping in mind innovation and stuff may offer something new, that haven't been defined yet... So really, I am curious... Compared to other designs it's different, yes, 2 cores are connected in one module, but how does that means there aren't two cores? Does having shared L3 cache means, that the cores aren't working independently? Why should they? I mean who sais what the definition is?
Then there is the can of worms that could be opened with mobile devices ~ 8 cores -> 2x quad cores @ different speeds etc.
Exactly my point... It's an argument "this is different than the other one, therefore it's not a cpu", because for some reason it should have only one specific design?
nothing trolls like patents
I agree with you on that, but this isn't a patent troll, this is someone trying to claim they were mislead by the marketing. But like most patent trolls this guy is trying it on to get some compensation. I doubt he will get anywhere as AMD never hid the architecture and all the information about how it would operate was in the public domain very early on. The timing also seems odd - as pointed out the chips have been out for over 4 years now.
I also wondered if any of the names matched this similar case against Nvidia from earlier this year: http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510632377-california-man-sues-nvidia-over-alleged-misleading-product-information but they don't.
And i'm glad it isn't, we would be in some dire situation. I brought this topic in because, I perceived it as trolling. I bet the outcome will heavily depend on money.
might be something to it though. I can't wager that.
He's not going to win because his argument is basically that it's not an octacore because it doesn't work the way he would want an octacore to work. But AMD has every right to design their architecture the way they want in order to achieve what they want. It may not be the most efficient or best way to make an 8 core CPU, but it still has 8 cores.
This was always an interesting point; in many respects it was effcient. A lot of software is far more dependent on integer cores rather than the FPU (I remember back when FPU's were optional extras). To that end the design is partly what helped make the chips affordable by cutting out unneeded parts - especially as a GPU can be used as a much more powerful co-processor for FPU type calcultions if desired by a software dev.
Anyhow, the single 128bit FPU in the FX81xx/FX83xx chips could always calculate two 64bit FPU instructions at the same time (as far as I understood it) so I really don't get the point of his whole case - you always could execute 8 threads simulataiously and I'm sure the judge will agree when someone who knows what they are talking about gets pulled in. I nominate @wendell :-)
yep
big arm and little arm
It has 8 cores and 4 Floating Point Units. It also has shared Level 2 cache.
Let AMD just name the Zen cores "noodles" or "Doopsies". They can advertise it as "Zen with 128 Doopsies". Aren´t there any bigger problems like corrupt politicians or banks voiding money that does no even exist yet?
I call trolling on that one. Case closed.
Nah, AMD should patent the Names "thingamajig" and "Doohickey" This way, Zen is a 128 thingamajig doochickey
Is this a new / recent law suite?
Or is this allready old stuff?
Strangely it's new, but I think it will become history very quickly. Hopefully the guy who started the case will find that its cost him a lot more than a single FX 8350...
Hmm okay, thats kinda weird because we allready know how Buldozer is build up for years.
And we also know how they technically work.
The matter of fact is, i´m not sure if this law suite would stand.
Because of the simple reason, that an OS does not see the physical diffrence between a core or a thread.
Which basicly means, that an OS basicly handle's a FX8350 as an 8 threaded cpu.