Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Guru3D] AMD faces Lawsuit over Core Count on Bulldozer
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Guru3D] AMD faces Lawsuit over Core Count on Bulldozer - Page 16

post #151 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrzev View Post

The only thing that kinda comes close to this is the nVidia memory issue one of their graphics cards had a thing where 1/8 of the memory was at a slower frequency. You can call them out on that because that is a factual problem does 100% of the memory work at that speed, yes or no. Then you look at this situation where it is now a philosophical argument of the definition of a core. There is only opinions really, so unless they listed it wrong somewhere, I dont see them at fault (and if it was wrong in 1 maybe 2 places, that shouldn't be enough to rule against them).

I am not familar enough with the architectures and how all this stuff works, but do we need to have a set definition for what a core means, or is that a large architectural variance that really cant be set. I would hate for AMD or Intel to change what works for them to something else because 8 core sounds much better than 4Core + 4 integer units or whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by superstition222 View Post

For the 970, the stated specs were not the actual product's specs.

Arguments over the definition of "core" are a much more subjective matter than the simple fact that the 970:

1) shipped with fewer ROPs than claimed
2) shipped with less cache than claimed
3) cannot reach the claimed VRAM speed of 224 GB/s
4) has a VRAM partition that operates at just 28 GB/s, half the speed of a card from 2007 like the 8800 GT.
5) has XOR contention between the 196 GB/s partition and the 28 GB/s partition, making the 28 GB/s partition slow the other partition the more it's accessed


On an important, but more subjective note, the situation in the industry also matters.

1) The 970 was released without anyone knowing about its brand-new VRAM partitioning scheme.

2) It was released into the enthusiast space, a space with an expectation of performance well beyond 28 GB/s VRAM speed.

3) The 970 was released at a time when the high-end card from Nvidia had the same amount of VRAM, making many people choose the 970 — thinking they were getting a great value. I myself argued that the 980 was a poor value for its price given that it had the same amount of VRAM. Little did I know that everyone, myself included, was being duped by stealth gimping. As a result of the perceived 4 GB value comparison, customers often bought pairs of 970s for SLI instead of getting a single 980 or an AMD card or set of cards.

Anandtech pretended that there was no reason for Nvidia to want to hide the true specs of the 970 but point #3 clearly gives the company one. It also gives a justification that explains why the company chose to hide the true specs for so long. It defies reason, the explanation the company gave — that its engineering staff came up with this new design all on its own, one that hampered performance for an enthusiast-level product, and hid that design from everyone else at the company. Give me a break.

Comparing the 970 with AMD FX is not very fruitful. AMD was very transparent about the FX's design. Review sites didn't find out many months after it was selling what its real specs were.

It does come with 4gb of memory however. The only thing advertised on the box is the amount of memory it has. And more importantly, most people bought the gtx 970 for the performance characteristics. It had unrivaled value upon launch and collapsed the pricing of videocards around it. It was a good product and cratered pricing of all cards 550 and less.

If you think you got ripped off on the gtx 970 and should have bought a gtx 980 in the beginning, then you might as well not buy a new videocard ever again(particularly with the cost of 16nm cards). The gtx 970 offered outstanding value that you see once every few generations.

More people are likely going to be effected from the fx8150 not behaving like a true 8 core processor than the last 0.5 gb partition of memory on the gtx 970. When the performance characteristics of bulldozer not behaving and performing like a true octocore chip, because shown in reviews, the reviews showed it in a negative light and the price of the chips dropped 30% shortly after. The gtx 970 still holds its value because it is still a good value, even with the last 0.5 gb partition handicapped. fx 8150, you got a processor that only behaved like one in a few scenario's like encryption and zipping files. For gaming, general office use and productivity, it didn't perform as one would expect.

People still got the performance they paid for with the gtx 970. No one was bragging they got the gtx 970 for the memory, but alot of people were gloating that AMD was offering an 8 core processors for the price of Intels, 4 core processors.

AMD was hardly being transparent as they were talking up the real core angle alot. They were also saying stuff like IPC had gone up. They were throwing out a bunch of garbage to get people to hold off on their CPU purchases until they could lay their cards. Reality showed everything was a lie, so all AMD could do is play up the 8 core angle.
Edited by tajoh111 - 11/7/15 at 8:39pm
post #152 of 333
I don't give a toss about core count as long as it performs well for the things I use. People give me unbelieveable amount of crap over me using an i3, but it runs all of my programs and games without any hiccups... seems like some people just need to see for themselves.

There wouldn't have been a lawsuit if Bulldozer was good.
First Build
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i3-4370 ASROCK H97M PR04 380x Nitro Corsair 8GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOS
Crucial M500 120GB Seagage 320GB Caviar Blue 1TB Windows 8.1 x86-64 
PowerCase
XFX 550W PS07B 
  hide details  
Reply
First Build
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i3-4370 ASROCK H97M PR04 380x Nitro Corsair 8GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOS
Crucial M500 120GB Seagage 320GB Caviar Blue 1TB Windows 8.1 x86-64 
PowerCase
XFX 550W PS07B 
  hide details  
Reply
post #153 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Faithh View Post

I have provided proof that a single bulldozer module isn't CMP (multicoreprocessor), isn't an opinion anymore. And yes there's a definition of what a core is, does it have to be announced at CNN orwhat to make it official?

http://www.yourdictionary.com/multicore

Neat, but that's a slightly anemic definition. More examples and history than a rigorous definition. Still, the important part

Quote:
A computer chip that contains two or more CPU processing units.

is the very first sentence. And as I posted in my wall of text a while ago, Bulldozer modules consist of two complete processors.
Triumvirate
(20 items)
 
Osmium
(8 items)
 
For Sale: [FS] Z97 system: Xeon and RAM
$160 (USD) or best offer
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-5775C ASUS Sabertooth Z97 Mark 2 Sapphire RX 480 (reference) MSI Low-Profile 750Ti 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Corsair Dominator Platinum - 2x8GB Crucial M500 - 960GB Samsung 840 - 250GB WD Scorpio Blue - 1TB 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingOS
ADATA SP900 - 64GB Scythe BIG Shuriken 2 Rev. B PNY Quadro 600 blower Windows 10 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
ASUS VE247H - 1080p Gateway FPD1960 - 1280x1024 Samsung S20D300 - 900p, portrait Rosewill RK9000I - Cherry MX Blue 
PowerCaseMouseOther
Rosewill HIVE 650W Riotoro CR1080 SteelSeries Rival 100 CyberPower 1500PFCLCD 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD A10-7870K ASRock FM2A88X-ITX+ G.Skill Ripjaws X - 2x4GB @ 2400MT/s Samsung 840 120GB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Evercool EC-HPS-810CP Windows 7 Pro 64-bit PicoPSU-120-WI-25 Mini-Box M350 
  hide details  
Reply
Triumvirate
(20 items)
 
Osmium
(8 items)
 
For Sale: [FS] Z97 system: Xeon and RAM
$160 (USD) or best offer
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7-5775C ASUS Sabertooth Z97 Mark 2 Sapphire RX 480 (reference) MSI Low-Profile 750Ti 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Corsair Dominator Platinum - 2x8GB Crucial M500 - 960GB Samsung 840 - 250GB WD Scorpio Blue - 1TB 
Hard DriveCoolingCoolingOS
ADATA SP900 - 64GB Scythe BIG Shuriken 2 Rev. B PNY Quadro 600 blower Windows 10 
MonitorMonitorMonitorKeyboard
ASUS VE247H - 1080p Gateway FPD1960 - 1280x1024 Samsung S20D300 - 900p, portrait Rosewill RK9000I - Cherry MX Blue 
PowerCaseMouseOther
Rosewill HIVE 650W Riotoro CR1080 SteelSeries Rival 100 CyberPower 1500PFCLCD 
CPUMotherboardRAMHard Drive
AMD A10-7870K ASRock FM2A88X-ITX+ G.Skill Ripjaws X - 2x4GB @ 2400MT/s Samsung 840 120GB 
CoolingOSPowerCase
Evercool EC-HPS-810CP Windows 7 Pro 64-bit PicoPSU-120-WI-25 Mini-Box M350 
  hide details  
Reply
post #154 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by superstition222 View Post

Cinebench, by the way, erroneously labels the modules "cores." So, instead of 8C/8T, Cinebench calls the FX chip "4C/8T." It should be either 8C/8T or 4M/8T.

I wonder if the lawyer will try to use Cinebench's error as evidence. Of course, it's not particularly good quality since it says "eight core" in the descriptive text. rolleyes.gif
post #155 of 333
Quote:
There wouldn't have been a lawsuit if Bulldozer was good.

Eh, we had more terrible procs in the market from other makers that didn't get a lawsuit.
Quote:
I wonder if the lawyer will try to use Cinebench's error as evidence. Of course, it's not particularly good quality since it says "eight core" in the descriptive text. rolleyes.gif

Thing is, I don't believe anyone is going to fire up CPUZ and the like to prove it, because if a court of law is silly enough to accept this sort of suit I can guarantee you they'll dismiss all benchmarking software as potentially dishonest.

Which is pretty ironic since some of them are known to favor Intel.
Edited by GreatChicken - 11/7/15 at 8:47pm
post #156 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

Neat, but that's a slightly anemic definition. More examples and history than a rigorous definition. Still, the important part
is the very first sentence. And as I posted in my wall of text a while ago, Bulldozer modules consist of two complete processors.

An ALU cluster isn't a processor nor a core. They're execution resources in the end. Like I've said before, ALU's can only execute/store while fetching decoding (theyre also units) is also a part of the processing cycle which is the front-ends job. You don't have a CPU just with a execution resources only. There has to be something to drive them.
post #157 of 333
this is just some bs. people trying to squeeze money out of anyone these days. i was happy with my bulldozer and it may not have been 8 true cores but it was 8 threads which is what counted for me anyways.
igame
(8 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4790k z97x gaming 5 gtx 1070 gaming x  gskill sniper 1600 4x4 gb 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
ssd 212 evo win 10 pro corsair 750w 
  hide details  
Reply
igame
(8 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7-4790k z97x gaming 5 gtx 1070 gaming x  gskill sniper 1600 4x4 gb 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
ssd 212 evo win 10 pro corsair 750w 
  hide details  
Reply
post #158 of 333
Lets slow down.

The issue people have with the GTX 970 is that it was dishonest. Yeah, the performance you saw in benchmarks was what you got, if not more because of driver improvements and what not. The issue is that NVIDIA didn't disclose how the VRAM was partitioned when they gave samples to the media, which made us take our word for it that it indeed had an fully intact 256-bit bus. This makes it different from the GTDX 660 and the 660 Ti, where NVIDIA told you that the bus was only 192 bits wide, and reviewers deducted that there was VRAM partitioning.

There just wasn't a need to sell it as a 4GB card. The GTX 970 isn't limited by 3.5GB of VRAM at all with the settings you would reasonably run it with. The slower VRAM partition has a whopping speed of 28GB/s, which you can probably pull off with overclocked DDR3 anyway, making that VRAM partition functionally useless. To make it worse, the 970 seems like it has to perform a very expensive context switch to access the last 512MB of VRAM it has, which not only negates the benefit of more VRAM but hurts performance.

If the last 512MB does nothing useful, then why include it? NVIDIA is known for being miserly with VRAM but they are including VRAM on a card that will never use it. Its hard to give them the benefit of the doubt once you realize that a 4GB card is way more marketable than a 3.5GB one, especially when the rivaling GPUs (290/290x) have 4GB of frame buffer, too.

With AMD's Bulldozer, there were charts and layouts of the architecture provided on the day of release by review websites, so you know what you were getting in terms of "cores".
First Build
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i3-4370 ASROCK H97M PR04 380x Nitro Corsair 8GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOS
Crucial M500 120GB Seagage 320GB Caviar Blue 1TB Windows 8.1 x86-64 
PowerCase
XFX 550W PS07B 
  hide details  
Reply
First Build
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i3-4370 ASROCK H97M PR04 380x Nitro Corsair 8GB 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOS
Crucial M500 120GB Seagage 320GB Caviar Blue 1TB Windows 8.1 x86-64 
PowerCase
XFX 550W PS07B 
  hide details  
Reply
post #159 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by NuclearPeace View Post

The GTX 970 isn't limited by 3.5GB of VRAM at all with the settings you would reasonably run it with.
I don't agree with this, particularly with SLI setups in DX 11 at 4K.

Even at 1080 there is a game or two that can exceed that amount of VRAM with high-resolution packs and such (Shadow of Mordor...).
Quote:
Originally Posted by buttface420 View Post

it may not have been 8 true cores
rolleyes.gif

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/217672-analysis-amd-lawsuit-over-false-bulldozer-chip-marketing-is-without-merit
Edited by superstition222 - 11/7/15 at 9:02pm
post #160 of 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by CynicalUnicorn View Post

Native eight core. All of them are on a single die. Core2Quad used two dual-core dies while the Phenom x4 had a single quad-core die. FX is a single piece of silicon with eight cores.

It would be inaccurate to call their G34 chips native X-core CPUs however, as those use two dies.

This isn't that uncommon though. VIA Nano Quadcore, Intel Core2Quad and Pentium D, AMD Opteron 6000 series, IBM POWER8, and so on and so forth. "Native quad-core" would simply have been used to emphasize that they beat Intel to market with the first true (x86) quad-core CPU.

Right, AMD said years ago that their true "native" design was a true quad core design which would lead to better scaling The terms were used interchangeably. Phenom didn't really scale well but this was ironed out. Now they screwed themselves AGAIN by designing a shared FPU per 2 cores that sometimes splits, resulting in crappy scaling. Now they have native sometimes non true, sometimes true 8 core...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Guru3D] AMD faces Lawsuit over Core Count on Bulldozer