[Ars] AMD sued over allegedly misleading Bulldozer core count

[TheELF]

What i do is trying to educate people that Core i7 is not always 4C 8T :sneaky:

Or that Celeron and Pentium are not always what they think they are but could also be ATOMs :sneaky:

The naming is striktly there to provide a base of comparison between CPUs not to indicate core count or anything else,celerons are the weakest pentiums are next then i3, i5 and i7 and that is the same for mobile or desktop.(not the chips but the relative performance amongst them)

It's just as AMD has A4, A6, A8 and so on,it doesn't indicate what the chip is but how much faster/slower it is.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

An i3 is sold as a dual core. And i7 is sold as a quad etc.

Dont try and change the goalpost just because your precious company likes to mislead people.

Fine, now I will sue Intel for all the dual core i7 laptops they make. After all, the i7 is marketed as a quad core. This lawsuit is going nowhere...

 

[ShintaiDK]

Fine, now I will sue Intel for all the dual core i7 laptops they make. After all, the i7 is marketed as a quad core. This lawsuit is going nowhere...

No its not. But you already knew.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

No its not. But you already knew.

Sometimes, you just are beyond totally lost.

Dual Core i7 / Only 4 Threads:

http://ark.intel.com/products/81015/Intel-Core-i7-4510U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz

Straight from the Intel web site -- I think they know more about it than you do.

I'd know that if I owned a desktop i7 -- then bought one of the laptop i7 dual cores, I'd be mighty ticked off by the performance disparity.

And yes, "quad core" marketing is all over their i7 desktop retail boxes -- so most consumers identify the i7 as a quad core because of this.......

Yeah, that's checkmate for your post.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Sometimes, you just are beyond totally lost.

Dual Core i7 / Only 4 Threads:

http://ark.intel.com/products/81015/Intel-Core-i7-4510U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_10-GHz

Straight from the Intel web site -- I think they know more about it than you do.

I'd know that if I owned a desktop i7 -- then bought one of the laptop dual cores, I'd be mighty ticked off by the performance disparity.

i7 is still not marketed as quad core that you claim. It never was. Your statement backfired on you and now you try to get out of it.

After all, the i7 is marketed as a quad core.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

i7 is still not marketed as quad core that you claim. It never was. Your statement backfired on you and now you try to get out of it.

I guess you didn't notice the giant attached retail box image from the previous post.
But again.....

Anything else you'd like to stick your foot in your mouth about now -- while you're at it?

 

[ShintaiDK]

I guess you didn't notice the giant attached retail box image from the previous post.
But again, have fun with it. Did you parents drop you on your head? Serious question.

i7 still isn't marketed as quad cores. That's simply something you make up of thin air. And you have as expected provided absolutely nothing to prove it.

i7 covers dual, quad, hex and octo cores.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

i7 still isn't marketed as quad cores. That's simply something you make up of thin air. And you have as expected provided absolutely nothing to prove it.

i7 covers dual, quad, hex and octo cores.

Your parents must be so proud.

The photo is from the retail box for the first gen i7's. They didn't make hex or octo back then. You said "It Never Was." You are wrong -- that is an actual fact. Facts can be researched and verified.

Hint: type Core i7 920 retail box into the search engine of your choice, rocket scientist

 

[ShintaiDK]

Your parents must be so proud.

The photo is from the retail box for the first gen i7's. They didn't make hex or octo back then. You said "It Never Was." You are wrong -- that is an actual fact. Facts can be researched and verified.

You just link a single SKU. It still never was marketed as a quad core. Certain SKUs? Sure. But not the i7 moniker.

You claimed i7=Quad Core.

 

[Sweepr]

I'd know that if I owned a desktop i7 -- then bought one of the laptop i7 dual cores, I'd be mighty ticked off by the performance disparity.

Just like the performance disparity between a FX9590 power-hog and a mobile FX8800P then? Well, at least mama AMD got it fixed by stating it has more 'compute cores', easier to mislead consumers (according to your logic).

 

[Magic Carpet]

With the release of the Nehalem microarchitecture in November 2008,[16] Intel introduced a new naming scheme for its Core processors. There are three variants, Core i3, Core i5 and Core i7, but the names no longer correspond to specific technical features like the number of cores. Instead, the brand is now divided from low-level (i3), through mid-range (i5) to high-end performance (i7),[17] which correspond to three, four and five stars in Intel's Intel Processor Rating[18] following on from the entry-level Celeron (one star) and Pentium (two stars) processors.[19] Common features of all Nehalem based processors include an integrated DDR3 memory controller as well as QuickPath Interconnect or PCI Express and Direct Media Interface on the processor replacing the aging quad-pumped Front Side Bus used in all earlier Core processors. All these processors have 256 KB L2 cache per core, plus up to 12 MB shared L3 cache. Because of the new I/O interconnect, chipsets and mainboards from previous generations can no longer be used with Nehalem-based processors.

i7s are just top of the line consumer CPUs in each generation/socket/TDP package regardless of core numbers. Has been so for a while now. Maybe confusing a bit, but not as bad as AMD's stunt with underperforming modules/cores. Heh.

 

[Dresdenboy]

That's a direct quote from the document, for such a (relatively) short it is it wasn't proof read very well. There are a number of mistakes.

Oh, I missed that from glancing over it.

IMO the case might go on by trying to define cores and learning, that cores aren't equal and have very different characteristics.

K5 had a 29k core derivative inside. So where are the borders of its true core?

How about Crusoe/Efficeon?

PD could be called unbalanced if fetch, FPU and cache bandwidths are seriously limiting 2T operation.

Edit: iTunes 10.4 as cited in the filing was single threaded back then. No CMT penalty, no "8 complex calculations", just a little core stomping along.

http: //www.tomshardware.com/reviews/core-i7-3720qm-ivy-bridge-mobile-ultrabook,3185-5.html

 

[Puffnstuff]

I still maintain that their resource sharing scheme is an awful lot like hyper-threading and intel doesn't count hyper-threading as cores. From a consumer standpoint, this certainly seems like an intentional misrepresentation of the product along the lines of what VW has done with their diesel emissions. I stopped using amd in my own systems when intel released core2duo. I did use a 1090t in my youngest sons system and it performs very well.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Just like the performance disparity between a FX9590 power-hog and a mobile FX8800P then? Well, at least mama AMD got it fixed by stating it has more 'compute cores', easier to mislead consumers (according to your logic).

How is it misleading? No more than hyperthreading. If the software is written for HSA -- then the software uses all those cores..... It's the same for hyperthreading cpu's. If the software doesn't support HT -- then that extra hardware is pretty useless. Tomato / Tomatoe.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

i7s are just top of the line consumer CPUs in each generation/socket/TDP package regardless of core numbers. Has been so for a while now. Maybe confusing a bit, but not as bad as AMD's stunt with underperforming modules/cores. Heh.

Yeah, too bad a desktop Pentium G3258 is faster than a laptop i7 4510U. The 4510U shouldn't earn the i7 branding IMO. Too much performance was sacrificed for the battery life.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4510U+@+2.00GHz

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+G3258+@+3.20GHz

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, too bad a desktop Pentium G3258 is faster than a laptop i7 4510U. The 4510U shouldn't earn the i7 branding IMO. Too much performance was sacrificed for the battery life.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4510U+@+2.00GHz

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+G3258+@+3.20GHz

Comparing laptop to desktop?

How is that fair, or relevant?

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Comparing laptop to desktop?

How is that fair, or relevant?

We're talking about a lawsuit about misleading marketing.....

Selling a Core i7 that is slower than a Pentium is a pretty great example that both CPU makers are guilty of it. Afterall, the basis of this lawsuit is about the performance of said CPU.

 

[Magic Carpet]

Yeah, too bad a desktop Pentium G3258 is faster than a laptop i7 4510U. The 4510U shouldn't earn the i7 branding IMO. Too much performance was sacrificed for the battery life.

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4510U+@+2.00GHz

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Pentium+G3258+@+3.20GHz

If you compare the performance in the similar TDP envelope, that i7 cpu has better specs/performance than its Celeron/Pentium/i3/i5 counterparts. Confusing a little? yeah, but I don't see any problem with false advertising. Never I seen or remember Intel associating the i7 brand with any fixed number of cores. It's just a top consumer part in each market segment.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

If you compare the performance in the similar TDP envelope, that i7 cpu has better specs/performance than its Celeron/Pentium/i3/i5 counterparts. Confusing a little? yeah, but I don't see any problem with false advertising. Never I seen or remember Intel associating the i7 brand with any fixed number of cores. It's just a top consumer part in each market segment.

But no more or less confusing than AMD FX marketing. Which is exactly why this lawsuit will probably go nowhere. All AMD's lawyer needs to do is point to this 8 Core chip's marketing:

http://event.mediatek.com/_en_octacore/

IMO, Mediatek overhypes their stuff more than AMD.

Pretty much its over. The bottom line -- they all hype their products. All the defense needs to do is ask the plaintiff why he didn't look at the benchmarks prior to his purchase. Then the judge probably tosses it. It's a dumb lawsuit.

 

[gus6464]

Funny how none of the AMD fanboys remember 2006 when Intel had their quad cores which were 2 dies sandwiched as one and AMD had all sorts of marketing material spouting that it's not a true quad core blah blah.

They get what they deserve mostly for coming out with garbage CPUs that can't compete.

 

[TheELF]

How is it misleading? No more than hyperthreading. If the software is written for HSA -- then the software uses all those cores..... It's the same for hyperthreading cpu's. If the software doesn't support HT -- then that extra hardware is pretty useless. Tomato / Tomatoe.

The only thing Hyperthreading needs is software ,nothing special about it,just any program, unless you are runing DOS you will have tons of threads from the OS alone that will be shared amongst real and Ht giving you better performance, add a demanding program(or 2 or 3 etc) and you get even more performance.

HSA on the other hand...give one example,one usefull program that uses it.

 

[AtenRa]

The only thing Hyperthreading needs is software ,nothing special about it,just any program, unless you are runing DOS you will have tons of threads from the OS alone that will be shared amongst real and Ht giving you better performance, add a demanding program(or 2 or 3 etc) and you get even more performance.

HSA on the other hand...give one example,one usefull program that uses it.

1: You need a HyperThreading enable Operating System for HT to work properly/efficiently. HT on Win 2K was a nightmare and HT is not working with Win 95/98.

2:You also need a Multi-Threaded application or Multi-Tasking environment/workload for HT to really perform at the level it was intended.

3. HSA hardware(Kaveri) was only released last year (2014)

 

[Dresdenboy]

They get what they deserve mostly for coming out with garbage CPUs that can't compete.

That's what happens in an economics+shareholders driven world with a small company still wanting to sell stuff. Of course there are so many cool uarch ideas and processes and for the fun of it I'd like to put some $100M at it to see it come to life. But first I'm still lacking that money and second, many would call me crazy, as this is not the economic way of doing things. Like F1 vs. VW.. hehe.

 

[BigDaveX]

Anyone remember those "Why buy a 32-bit PlayStation for $299 when you can buy a 64-bit Jaguar for $149" ads from the 90s? If AMD ran any adverts like those, implying that their cores were directly comparable to (and by implication, superior to) Intel's, then they might be in some amount of trouble (albeit probably nothing major). Otherwise, I don't expect this'll go anywhere.

 

[dark zero]

This is not going anywhere. Mediocrity is not illegal but is enough to kill the brand