Something i had been b****ing about since i first purchased one and found out later that it is not a *true* 8 core processor.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/16...ass-action-lawsuit-bulldozer-piledriver-money

 

The only AMD processors I ever "bought" came in some used computers I bought for parts. One of humongous heatsinks on one of the processors wasn't seated properly (possibly due to rough handling). I turned the computer on to see if it worked and the processor fried itself in a few seconds; giving off a horrible stench.

 

The only AMD processors I ever "bought" came in some used computers I bought for parts. One of humongous heatsinks on one of the processors wasn't seated properly (possibly due to rough handling). I turned the computer on to see if it worked and the processor fried itself in a few seconds; giving off a horrible stench.

Hi,

Wow that's nasty. Today they have thermal shutdown built in.

But my gripe is and always has been that there are not really 8 cores by the standard set among CPU makers around that time and before that. A 'core' had become known or believed to be made up of two main math parts (along with the normal processing parts):
The integer math unit and the floating point math unit, and that makes up one true core.
What AMD did was they put in 8 integer units, but only put in 4 floating point units. That makes it less than 8 cores where half of them are inferior.
That means if you are doing floating point intensive calculations your processing time will suffer. Funny they did not realized this and they did get hit in the test numbers.

Now fast forward to today, and they came out with a brand new line of CPU's i can only guess has the required number of floating point units along with the integer units. They now call them "Ryzen".
From my previous experience with AMD products though i am going to try to stay away from them if i can afford it later on. Their price has always been lower than Intel, but i am not sure it is worth it in the long run. I do a lot of calculations on my PC that can involve hours of processing time. If i can cut that in half it is worth it to me to go to a better manufacturer.

I am part of the class action lawsuit so i am anxious to find out how much i will get payed back for putting up with their nonsense for years now. I think the last court battle is in February of 2020 so i think i have to wait until after that to see any return. The maximum return is 300 dollars USD per CPU but it depends highly on how many people are taking part in the lawsuit and ultimately on the count of CPU's being compensated for.

 

Hi,

Wow that's nasty. Today they have thermal shutdown built in.

But my gripe is and always has been that there are not really 8 cores by the standard set among CPU makers around that time and before that. A 'core' had become known or believed to be made up of two main math parts (along with the normal processing parts):
The integer math unit and the floating point math unit, and that makes up one true core.
What AMD did was they put in 8 integer units, but only put in 4 floating point units. That makes it less than 8 cores where half of them are inferior.
That means if you are doing floating point intensive calculations your processing time will suffer. Funny they did not realized this and they did get hit in the test numbers.

Now fast forward to today, and they came out with a brand new line of CPU's i can only guess has the required number of floating point units along with the integer units. They now call them "Ryzen".
From my previous experience with AMD products though i am going to try to stay away from them if i can afford it later on. Their price has always been lower than Intel, but i am not sure it is worth it in the long run. I do a lot of calculations on my PC that can involve hours of processing time. If i can cut that in half it is worth it to me to go to a better manufacturer.

I am part of the class action lawsuit so i am anxious to find out how much i will get payed back for putting up with their nonsense for years now. I think the last court battle is in February of 2020 so i think i have to wait until after that to see any return. The maximum return is 300 dollars USD per CPU but it depends highly on how many people are taking part in the lawsuit and ultimately on the count of CPU's being compensated for.

How do you demonstrate how many of these have you actually bought? Curious.

 

How do you demonstrate how many of these have you actually bought? Curious.

They know you bought at least one so you dont have to provide proof of purchase.
In fact, if you bought up to five CPU's you dont have to provide proof but six or more you have to show proof of purchase.

 

sorry for my ignorance but... what is the complaint actually? that 8 core processor has less than 8 cores? or that 8 core processors does not perform as expected from an 8 core processor? if performance is impaired, by how much? 10%? 90%?
what is the actual loss?

and if the retail price is $200 up to some $245 for flagship model, how is one supposed to get more back ($300 or whatever)?

 

sorry for my ignorance but... what is the complaint actually? that 8 core processor has less than 8 cores? or that 8 core processors does not perform as expected from an 8 core processor? if performance is impaired, by how much? 10%? 90%?
what is the actual loss?

and if the retail price is $200 up to some $245 for flagship model, how is one supposed to get more back ($300 or whatever)?

Did you read the link in the original post? Your questions are answered there. And you don’t get MORE back, $300 is the upper limit of the settlement.

 

Did you read the link in the original post? Your questions are answered there. And you don’t get MORE back, $300 is the upper limit of the settlement.

Is that per processor or total?

kv

 

Is that per processor or total?

kv

I just checked the link again to be sure of what I thought. It’s per CPU in the article. Which in context with the rest of the statement, is their CPU with purportedly 8 cores.

 

sorry for my ignorance but... what is the complaint actually? that 8 core processor has less than 8 cores? or that 8 core processors does not perform as expected from an 8 core processor? if performance is impaired, by how much? 10%? 90%?
what is the actual loss?

and if the retail price is $200 up to some $245 for flagship model, how is one supposed to get more back ($300 or whatever)?

Hi,

Actually the price was higher when the CPU's first came onto the market.

What is wrong is that the standard unit for a CPU is a "Core".
A "Core" is made up out of what can be explained as 3 parts:
1. Integer math unit
2. Floating point math unit
3. Basic processing base

This is the way processors are advertised as having a certain number of cores. If the ad says it has 4 cores than it has all three of the above 4 times over, so you in effect have 4 complete CPU's inside of one package. Likewise, if the ad says it has 8 cores then it has all three of the above 8 times over, so you have in effect 8 complete CPU's inside of one package.

Now enter the AMD problem CPU's. They have only half the number of floating point units as integer math units. So each core effectively has:
1. Integer math unit
2. 1/2 of a floating point unit (because it is shared with another integer math unit)
3. Basic processing base

But to break it down into an easier to comprehend form, their 8 core processor has:
1. 8 integer math units
2. 4 floating point units
3. Basic processing base

while a 'normal' core has:
1. 8 integer math units
2. 8 floating point units
3. Basic processing base

Now for an application that runs integer math most of the time, both of these kinds of CPU's would take about the same time to finish a complex task. But if both of these kinds of CPU's were to run math that takes floating point calculations most of the time, then we would be looking at 8 float units for the normal CPU but only 4 float units for the AMD CPU. Obviously if they are both the same speed then 8 float units must be better than 4. Having only 4 float units is like having a normal CPU with 4 real cores, that is a quad processor not an 8 core processor.

So the main issue is that they advertise as an "8 core processor" when really they are a defunct version of an 8 core processor. You cant leave out 1/2 of the float units and still call it an 8 core processor because that's not the consumers expectation of what an 8 core processor is.

What surprises me is that it took this long for anyone to do anything about this issue. I found out years ago after i bought the processor.

Does it work? Yes it works. But i had to convert some of my programs to all integer calculations using a pseudo float technique where all calculations done as integers yet interpreted as floats at the end of the calculation. Most of the applications where graphic image enhancement programs that normally work well using floating point.

You can look online for the comparison numbers but you have to be sure the test is using floating point. One application would be a spreadsheet that uses all floating point calculations.

 

thank you for taking time to write it in depth. i was curious and followed the link but could not see what is the issue was all about.

 

Lemme get this straight --- Folks purchased AMD processors then were suprised they failed to receive the preformance they paid for? --- SMH!

So... Was it down to failed observance of 'caveat emptor'? Espousal of 'penny wise and pound foolish' (or merely following Mr. King's Pennywise into the sewer)? -- I don't know where to begin

Best regards
HP

 

Lemme get this straight --- Folks purchased AMD processors then were suprised they failed to receive the preformance they paid for? --- SMH!

So... Was it down to failed observance of 'caveat emptor'? Espousal of 'penny wise and pound foolish' (or merely following Mr. King's Pennywise into the sewer)? -- I don't know where to begin

Best regards
HP

Hi,

In these kinds of cases it does not matter if the consumer did or did not do their homework before the purchase. What matters is truth in advertising. They can not say 8 cores if the market expectation for each 'core' is not what they are actually selling.

Hey dont make too many waves i think they have one last chance to defend. I want my money so i can go out and buy an Intel :--)
<chuckle>

 

What matters is truth in advertising. They can not say 8 cores if the market expectation for each 'core' is not what they are actually selling.

I hear that! It's shades of NTE (i.e. New Tone Electronics) semiconductor 'specing' policies... As an irksomely non-anomalous example, there's the strange case of their NTE-473 VHF BJT which being (in essence) specified as a 2N3553 (most significantly: BVceo [i.e. typical floating-base C to E breakdown EMF] = 40V) as per it's online datasheet since the availability of said references (2001) --- Yet, to this day, said device's packaging and NTE's hard-bound databooks spec the '473 as, essentially, a 2N6255 (BVceo =18V!) --- Not surprisingly, consultation with NTE techs (as to which set of data are correct) yields a less-than-helpful ≈ 55/45 'consensus' in favor of the PDF -- Well, ok... In this case, the 'answer' lies well within reach of a curve tracer or --for those with a preference for 'slumming it'-- a 10MΩ resistor an adjustable DC PSU and a μA indicator -- No! I'm not hijacking your thread to 'have a go' at NTE! - I promise! --- My point is merely this:

It would seem that miss and/or ambiguous specification plagues all electronic components - from WSIs on down to 'umble discretes! - Fortunately the trend has been to under-specify (as attested, for example, by 'over-clockability' of most processors)... Somehow it doesn't surprise me that AMD chose to 'buck' said trend

I want my money so i can go out and buy an Intel :--)

Sounds like a plan!

Best regards
HP

 

I'd be so outraged, I'd move to BIG CITY JUST SO i COULD TAKE A DUMP ON THE SIDEWALK

 

i am not surprised that adds are exceeding expectations, nothing new there, specially in murky areas.
i grew up with computers from pretty much their infancy so historically FPU was a rare and expensive OPTION.

Pentium (a non-AMD product) was first to integrate FPU with CPU. Eventually it was common that desktop processors include CPU and FPU in a same product. but i would have yet to see any "standard" where number of CPU cores and FPU cores need to match.

i may have a different perspective but fail to see why
"CPU" = CPU + FPU
or why there need to be some specific ratio?

from what i see is ads are stating "8-core CPU", and not "8-core FPU" so i think complaint is very weak.

just like "truck" does not mean 18-wheeler, do all truck owners get to sue car companies for "missing wheels" on their trucks?

or is there a standard that defines that house should have certain ratio of bedrooms and washrooms? i don't mean to irritate or antagonize you and any claimant but have to wonder why do you think that adds were misleading? clearly complaint was about advertising but to me it was perfectly reasonable (and i am not an AMD fan or user).

"....found out later that it is not a *true* 8 core processor "

i am not aware of official definition of *true* N-core but if such does exist, was AMD using "true-core" in their ads?

 

Hello again,

I can see some of you have doubts as to if this is a legit claim or just hyped up.
If you look at the evolution of the CPU "core" you can begin to understand better. I followed CPU's and their evolution since the 1970's starting with the first 4 bit CPU (looking back that's a joke now ha ha).
It started with a 'regular' CPU with no math processor. Then eventually you could get a math unit to go with your CPU, and that meant really two CPU's on one board one was the regular and the other the math unit (see the 386 processor and its partner coprocessor). Then came the 486 CPU and that set the standard. All CPU's after that had both regular processor plus math coprocssor unit all in one package. Then came dual core CPU's. They had two of both regular processor plus math unit. Then came quad core CPU's and they had four of EVERYTHING.
Now suddenly a manufacturer decides to skimp on the math units, that's where the AMD problem came in.

But some of you are still wondering why this issue might be being singled out. If in fact it really is different than other component myths.
For one thing, it is a very expensive part. It's not your typical 25 cent transistor. It's a major product that goes into many machines around the world.
But also along side that, some group has decided to actually step up to the plate and do something about this, unlike some other parts being sold. It's not really alone though, i recently got another notice that there was a class action suit on another part i bought in the past which were electrolytic capacitors. So i had a stake in that claim too.

But perhaps more important is that group decided to do something about this and they did. That is unlike a lot of other parts too that go unchallenged. But it did not happen overnight it took several years to develop. Maybe too many people got fed up. To give you some idea, i purchased my chip back in 2011 and now it is the end of 2019. So it took 7 or 8 years for anyone or group to do anything about it.
Again though the most important point was that something was actually done about this part that's not true of other parts that have problems.

And clearly if you cant see why there is a problem when all other CPU's that say they have 8 cores have 8 float point units and AMD's only had 4 (which is half the number) then i cant help you :--)
That is in essence like saying that when doing floating point intensive multi thread calculations the 8 core suddenly becomes just a quad core processor, just because you needed to do a lot of floating point calculations instead of integer.

And also indicative of the problem was the fact that i had to convert some of my programs to use 64 bit integers instead of floating point. That way my programs always used all 8 cores not just 4 out of 8. If i did not have to do that i may have never cared about this issue, but speed became an issue so i was forced to do something about it which meant finding a work around to work around the floating point deficiency.

What puzzles me a little is why AMD chose to do this. I know they started to run out of real estate when designing the chip but how could they have expected 4 float point units to show up good in tests when they had to compete with 8 float point units on other CPU's. I can only guess that they needed a quick fix when they started to run out of physical space during the chip design process.

 

Hello again,

Little update.

Previously i found out the max payout was 300 dollars USD per CPU purchased.
Yesterday however i found out because there were so many claimants and their CPU purchases the payout is now down to just 25 dollars USD.

Isnt that amazing. They falsely advertise the product and then only have to pay back 25 dollars per CPU.

 

Welcome to the class action rip off. The lawyers get the money and the plaintiffs get pretty much nothing. The last one I was in on ( for milk price fixing) has now gone on for several years and my potential payout has gone from $24 to $6 to nothing. It’s a total scam where the attorneys find a friendly court and they get paid while the case goes on forever with no real chance of reward for the plaintif’s. Go ahead and register for one on these cases but don’t depend on it.

 

Welcome to the class action rip off. The lawyers get the money and the plaintiffs get pretty much nothing. The last one I was in on ( for milk price fixing) has now gone on for several years and my potential payout has gone from $24 to $6 to nothing. It’s a total scam where the attorneys find a friendly court and they get paid while the case goes on forever with no real chance of reward for the plaintif’s. Go ahead and register for one on these cases but don’t depend on it.

--Emphasis Added--

Agreed! -- Equitable compensation (or, at very least, something like 'justice' [where legal fees are unrecoverable]) demand a 'private action suit' which, of course, only seldom being worth the time of an individual plaintiff -- hence the prevalence of false advertising.

For all that, there is a definite --even if rather fine-- 'line' intervening (civil) 'significantly not as advertised' and straight up (criminal) fraud. Granted! Successful criminal prosecution will not materially compensate the plaintiff - howbeit the satisfaction attending the veritable 'punch' dealt the defendant{s} is not to be exchanged for pearls and rubies!

With best regards (and humble apologies to FB Long)
HP