News [Register] AMD agrees to cough up $35-a-chip payout over eight-core Bulldozer advertising fiasco

NostaSeronx

Platinum Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,998
584
126
"The agreement says the lawyers haven’t even discussed how much they are going to pay one another at this point but have kindly offered to “limit” their frees to no more than 30 per cent of the settlement fund - so $3.63m."
Nah, they should go for the full 12.1 million.
 

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
48,115
5,002
126
I bought, I think, 2x 8320E, 1x 8350, and 1x 6300. Do I need "original receipts" to get the payout?
 

Shivansps

Platinum Member
Sep 11, 2013
2,845
612
136
Well deserved, AMD had no right to consider that a Module had 2 full cores, it wast full cores. AMD did some very shady marketing for the FX, and for the APU was even more shady with those "10 Compute cores"...
That was just wrong.
 

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
48,115
5,002
126
and for the APU was even more shady with those "10 Compute cores"...
That was just wrong.
It was "stretching" the established notion of cores and existing CPU designs, certainly. Kind of like referring to a 4-door sedan with a spare tire in the trunk, as a "5-wheel car".
 

NostaSeronx

Platinum Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,998
584
126
Well deserved, AMD had no right to consider that a Module had 2 full cores, it wast full cores.
AMD's module does include two full cores.
APU was even more shady with those "10 Compute cores"...
Those were 10 compute cores, 4 CPU cores + 6 GPU cores = 10 Compute cores. What can run compute in HSA or in acceleration(CPU+GPU decode, etc), those 10-cores.
 
Last edited:

moinmoin

Golden Member
Jun 1, 2017
1,612
1,509
106
If the proposed settlement goes through anyone that bought one of seven different AMD chips that the company advertised as having eight cores, either through AMD’s website or while living in California, is entitled to an equal share in the $12.1m pot.

The insanity that is class action lawsuits has led both AMD and the plaintiff’s lawyers to argue to the judge that $12.1m is a “fair” amount of compensation, despite the fact that consumers paid an additional $60m in premiums for their “eight core” processors.

Only a fifth of eligible people are likely to even bother to apply for the compensation, the agreement notes, and that means the people that do apply will get half of what they want without the hassle of a trial. So everyone’s good, right?

Except of course, many people won’t be aware of the settlement. Others won’t bother because the figure is so small. And the deal is structured around a pot of money rather than a per-chip fee, so the more people that apply, the less they will get: some might argue creating an actual disincentive to apply.
Haha, Register articles are always a riot to read.
 

Thunder 57

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2007
1,409
1,183
136
Well deserved, AMD had no right to consider that a Module had 2 full cores, it wast full cores. AMD did some very shady marketing for the FX, and for the APU was even more shady with those "10 Compute cores"...
That was just wrong.
Not sure how I feel on this one. The problem is there was no easy way to define it to Joe Public. You can make an argument either way really. AMD probably should have just called them quad cores since they didn't exactly perform all that well anyway. The "10 Compute cores" was technically correct but very much stupid. I have rarely spoken highly of AMD's marketing team. "Gamecache" comes to mind as a recent example.

It was "stretching" the established notion of cores and existing CPU designs, certainly. Kind of like referring to a 4-door sedan with a spare tire in the trunk, as a "5-wheel car".
Let's be real, you just want $105 towards your next project, am I right? :p I wouldn't blame you, I got the $15 from Intel years ago. Anyone could submit those though. Here you have to have bought it from AMD or live in CA, interesting to see if that stands. And I did not lie on the Intel one, I did buy a P4, and an FX as well.
 

NostaSeronx

Platinum Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,998
584
126
I have rarely spoken highly of AMD's marketing team. "Gamecache" comes to mind as a recent example.
AMD markets against everyone; Intel's 16 MB of Smartcache has nothing on AMD's 64 MB of Gamecache: https://a.sellpoint.net/a/Qo3wL1no.jpg
AMD probably should have just called them quad cores since they didn't exactly perform all that well anyway.
How would they call four monolithic dual-cores a quad-core? //The module is clearly a glue-less dual-core. Any other dual-core composition is in majority inconsistent from the glue.
 
Last edited:

Panino Manino

Member
Jan 28, 2017
179
129
86
AMD probably should have just called them quad cores since they didn't exactly perform all that well anyway.
Exactly because they didn't performed well that AMD had to be very vocal about the core number as an advantage.

And what about Intel now selling CPUs with "AI" powers, because they can do AVX-512. Is that "AI"?
 

Thunder 57

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2007
1,409
1,183
136
AMD markets against everyone; Intel's 16 MB of Smartcache has nothing on AMD's 64 MB of Gamecache: https://a.sellpoint.net/a/Qo3wL1no.jpgHow would they call four monolithic dual-cores a quad-core? //The module is clearly a glue-less dual-core. Any other dual-core composition is in majority inconsistent from the glue.
I'm aware of Smartcache, but that's a much better marketing term than Gamecache. They could have called it Turbocache, or Supercache, or Fastcache. The problem is calling it Gamecache implies it's only useful for games. I guess I just hate most marketing terms in general, going back to "Netburst" and "Quantispeed". I was OK with some though, for example "Centrino". That meant a laptop had certain parts, not a certain CPU.

Exactly because they didn't performed well that AMD had to be very vocal about the core number as an advantage.

And what about Intel now selling CPUs with "AI" powers, because they can do AVX-512. Is that "AI"?
Ehh maybe. Doesn't mean I agree with it. And yeah, Intel with AI now lol. And people get paid to come up with this stuff.
 

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
48,115
5,002
126
Let's be real, you just want $105 towards your next project, am I right?
More or less. I could really use $105. Maybe I'll turn around and buy another R5 3600, they're $189.99 FS right now at Newegg ($10 off!).

BullDozer was (mostly) (maybe semi-) garbage, but it did support more opcodes than most CPUs of the day, and was fairly inexpensive in the end. But Zen/Zen+/Zen2/future Zen is way more advanced and performant, so I'll gladly roll some of that payoff money towards Zen-family CPUs.
 

VirtualLarry

Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
48,115
5,002
126
Here you have to have bought it from AMD or live in CA, interesting to see if that stands.
Was this a California-specific (state) lawsuit, or federal claim? If it was just a state claim, then how would that effect purchases from Newegg, who has their home base in Cali.

Edit: You know what they SHOULD have done... should have offered every purchaser (for every unit) that bought an FX 8-core, 6-core, whatever CPU, a $20 off coupon valid for any US reseller, off of a 3000-series Ryzen CPU/APU. Honestly, they are selling well, but I think that would actually go a long way towards repairing their customer trust, by those people that were "burned" by Bulldozer (and Piledriver)'s lack of performance, especially in gaming.

Edit: Or use this as a way to move older 1st-gen Ryzen inventory.

Edit: Or maybe even tier the coupons, like, if you bought 4-"core" FX, get a coupon for $20 off a 2200G or a Ryzen 3 1200. Bought a 6-"core" FX, get a coupon for $20 off of a Ryzen R5 1600 or 3600. Bought an 8-"core" FX CPU, get a $20 off coupon for a Ryzen R7 1700/2700/3700X.

That would have made a lot more sense to me, from a business perspective. Maybe the courts wouldn't concur. I would have done it for 100% of the class, though, and not just on the assumption that only 20% would redeem their vouchers or whatever.
 
Last edited:

Thunder 57

Golden Member
Aug 19, 2007
1,409
1,183
136
More or less. I could really use $105. Maybe I'll turn around and buy another R5 3600, they're $189.99 FS right now at Newegg ($10 off!).

BullDozer was (mostly) (maybe semi-) garbage, but it did support more opcodes than most CPUs of the day, and was fairly inexpensive in the end. But Zen/Zen+/Zen2/future Zen is way more advanced and performant, so I'll gladly roll some of that payoff money towards Zen-family CPUs.
BD was pretty much garbage. PD was better and did well in MT tasks, including Battlefield 1. Otherwise, meh. The APU's though with SR and XV. Amazing they got the power down to what they did and on a "not memorable" 28nm node.

Was this a California-specific (state) lawsuit, or federal claim? If it was just a state claim, then how would that effect purchases from Newegg, who has their home base in Cali.

Edit: You know what they SHOULD have done... should have offered every purchaser (for every unit) that bought an FX 8-core, 6-core, whatever CPU, a $20 off coupon valid for any US reseller, off of a 3000-series Ryzen CPU/APU. Honestly, they are selling well, but I think that would actually go a long way towards repairing their customer trust, by those people that were "burned" by Bulldozer (and Piledriver)'s lack of performance, especially in gaming.

Edit: Or use this as a way to move older 1st-gen Ryzen inventory.

Edit: Or maybe even tier the coupons, like, if you bought 4-"core" FX, get a coupon for $20 off a 2200G or a Ryzen 3 1200. Bought a 6-"core" FX, get a coupon for $20 off of a Ryzen R5 1600 or 3600. Bought an 8-"core" FX CPU, get a $20 off coupon for a Ryzen R7 1700/2700/3700X.

That would have made a lot more sense to me, from a business perspective. Maybe the courts wouldn't concur. I would have done it for 100% of the class, though, and not just on the assumption that only 20% would redeem their vouchers or whatever.

Sure, maybe they could have worked it out like one of those ways. But lawyers tend to complicate things. And I don't blame you for wanting $105, I mean I'd take that too. It's basically "free" money.
 

Maxima1

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2013
3,079
555
126
How is this really different than one company selling a CPU with a "proper" core but much lower IPC?
 

BigDaveX

Senior member
Jun 12, 2014
440
209
116
I'm guessing that AMD realized they're going to be raking in megabucks from Zen 2 for the foreseeable future, and just decided "Eh, screw it, we can afford to settle."
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
3,802
477
126
BullDozer was (mostly) (maybe semi-) garbage, but it did support more opcodes than most CPUs of the day, and was fairly inexpensive in the end.
That has always been an advantage of AMD. They don't artificially limit the instruction set on their cheaper CPUs.

But, yeah original BD was garbage. Piledriver could at least be useful in situations which played to it's strengths.

The APU's though with SR and XV. Amazing they got the power down to what they did and on a "not memorable" 28nm node.
You really got to hand it to the engineers who worked on Carrizo/Bristol Ridge. Amazing job. What's more, it was likely done on the back burner, while the main focus was on Zen.
 

NostaSeronx

Platinum Member
Sep 18, 2011
2,998
584
126
What's more, it was likely done on the back burner, while the main focus was on Zen.
Actually, it was done in sequence. Excavator taped out in 2014(both Carrizo and Stoney) and Zen(Summit) taped out in 2015.
Carrizo Platform (2014), Stoney Platform (2014)

Better APU only;
-> Carrizo
Jul 2013 – Jul 2014
-> Stoney
Jul 2014 – Feb 2015
-> Raven
Feb 2015 – Feb 2016
-> Raven 2
Mar 2016 – Mar 2017
-> Renoir
-> Dali

//I won't bring up the 22FDX/12FDX projects, so don't ask me about them! Involves forbidden keywords like cost-effective process and aimed at price-sensitive markets(Africa, South America, the Middle East and parts of Asia). *recoils in disgust* Only near-$1000 APUs/CPUs please!
 
Last edited:

Abwx

Diamond Member
Apr 2, 2011
9,099
858
126
It say that the tech people have lost any form of power or credbility in their own domain, nowadays it is lawyers and other accountants who decide what is a core out of a uarch, no actual knowledge is required other than spin capabilities around vaguely technical IT press articles a la WCCFTech...
 

Jimzz

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2012
4,329
120
106
This seems to only apply if you bought it in CA or through AMDs site...

"If the proposed settlement goes through anyone that bought one of seven different AMD chips that the company advertised as having eight cores, either through AMD’s website or while living in California, is entitled to an equal share in the $12.1m pot."
 

EXCellR8

Diamond Member
Sep 1, 2010
3,691
649
126
I owned both a FX-6350 and FX-8350 and both did not perform very well at all. They weren't even that great of an upgrade over a old-as-dirt i7 920 in 2013 lol

And what was up with the "Black Edition" everything? I never once saw a different SKU advertised.
 

Shivansps

Platinum Member
Sep 11, 2013
2,845
612
136
Not sure how I feel on this one. The problem is there was no easy way to define it to Joe Public. You can make an argument either way really. AMD probably should have just called them quad cores since they didn't exactly perform all that well anyway. The "10 Compute cores" was technically correct but very much stupid. I have rarely spoken highly of AMD's marketing team. "Gamecache" comes to mind as a recent example.
Here in my country the "10 computes cores" was used to lie to buyers saying the PC had 10 cores. And they used "its written on the box" as a excuse. AMD knew this would happen when they used that denomination and is the reason of why is not used anymore.

For the FX thing, is not a quad core / octa core for EVERY TASK, it is for a specific kind of load only, this is why it cant be considered as one.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY