Is this fraud?

[galego]

I already stated that it is not fraud because there is no law stating how clockspeed should be advertised.

I already stated in #5 that I think that there is no fraud. Are others who think otherwise.

 

[Idontcare]

I don't see any problem with it because I believe that under most circumstances the chip will be running at 5GHz.

I like that it has been validated as functioning correctly in terms of the computations at 5GHz.

That it scales back to 4.7GHz for power or temperature constraints is not unexpected, my 3770k will throttle back as well if it gets too hot (fan failure, silly high ambients, very poor case circulation, etc).

Alleviate the power or heat bottlenecks and you are assured of fault-free operation at 5GHz.

I can overclock my 2600K to 5GHz but I can't say with any certainty that it is functioning correctly across all 2000 instructions in the ISA.

I just think the 5GHz AMD chip is way cool for the validation aspect alone.

 

[SiliconWars]

Yeah it's impressive for a few reasons, regardless of the sky-high TDP and crazy price. I still won't be buying one though.

 

[Shift_]

Let's look at the facts presented in this thread.

Has Intel committed fraud? No. Tiger direct is able to advertise the products they sell however they like.

Has Tiger Direct committed fraud? Maybe...

Has AMD commuted fraud? Maybe...

Has Tiger Direct and AMD done something unethical? Yes they not advertising the true specifications... And are misleading customers... AMD is worse as its advertised in a much larger manner stating facts that are not true and also stated in press releases.

Is this thread's purpose to defame intel? Yes

 

[Arachnotronic]

Is this thread's purpose to defame intel? Yes

Dude, it's a galego thread. What do you expect?

 

[frozentundra123456]

I already stated in #5 that I think that there is no fraud. Are others who think otherwise.

Nice selective quote of only one part of my post. Why did you not quote the entire post?? (that is a rhetorical question BTW, which means the answer is obvious).

Edit: for those who do not wish to waste their time looking back, I said it was not fraud (in the USA) because there is no law stating how clockspeeds are to be stated, so technically they are not breaking the law (fraud). I also said I felt it was deceptive because it goes against the conventional way cpu clockspeeds are advertised.

 

[Idontcare]

Nice selective quote of only one part of my post. Why did you not quote the entire post?? (that is a rhetorical question BTW, which means the answer is obvious).

Edit: for those who do not wish to waste their time looking back, I said it was not fraud (in the USA) because there is no law stating how clockspeeds are to be stated, so technically they are not breaking the law (fraud). I also said I felt it was deceptive because it goes against the conventional way cpu clockspeeds are advertised.

Deception is probably a valid complaint. If I bought a processor that was advertised to run at 5GHz then I will certainly be disappointed to see it chugging along at 4.7GHz when I'm running a demanding application.

IMO AMD is setting themselves up to just have more disappointed customers. Let me buy the 4.7GHz processor only to be pleasantly surprised to see it running at 5GHz for lightly threaded apps.

Don't give your customers any psychological reason to have buyer's remorse. Unfortunately AMD isn't quite so concerned about that.

 

[galego]

Nice selective quote of only one part of my post. Why did you not quote the entire post?? (that is a rhetorical question BTW, which means the answer is obvious).

Edit: for those who do not wish to waste their time looking back, I said it was not fraud (in the USA) because there is no law stating how clockspeeds are to be stated, so technically they are not breaking the law (fraud). I also said I felt it was deceptive because it goes against the conventional way cpu clockspeeds are advertised.

I ignored silly parts like "Are you seriously advocating advertising based on overclocking?" and a repetition of what was already said before, because I was not going to answer that part. I am now leaving your new repetition for your pleasure.

 

[guskline]

In the U.S. I believe the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is primarily tasked with deceptive practice claims ( not sure if electronics fits under another Federal agency). I believe the standard is high, not as high as fraud but up there. Thus due to the standard I doubt even a deceptive practices claim will be found as I'm sure in the fine print AMD will mention the base clock of 4.7 Ghz. I also doubt a state court action would be brought in light of the limited number of 9590s likely to be sold.

I agree that the better practice would say the 9590 can clock up to 5 Ghz. For those who claim fraud, I invite you to do some research on the proof standard in the U.S. Not quite beyond a reasonable doubt ( criminal standard) but higher than a preponderance of the evidence (basic civil standard).

Reminds me of the story of the guy screaming "I'm going to sue" to the lawyer of the other side. The lawyer smiles, pulls out his business card, hands it to the screamer and says "You can serve me with the legal papers at this address. And, Oh by the way Thanks for the business!":biggrin::awe:

 

[ShintaiDK]

Guskline, we can already see the segregated listing of the product. in the EU where you would simply go to the police, no lawyers needed. Its listed as 4.7Ghz there. And in NA its 5.0Ghz. That alone raises a huge question about ethics and morality. Something businesses always fail.

It essentially open up the question on how much you can decieve the NA buyers. Could you sell an i7 4650U as 3.3Ghz instead of 1.7Ghz? The A8-5550M as 3.1Ghz instead of 2.1Ghz?

The problem is that you could end up in a scenario, where the turboclock would not kick in, even tho you are in a validated environment for the CPU. Simply because the CPU is not validated to run its turbomodes in all those environments.

 

[Rvenger]

The problem is that you could end up in a scenario, where the turboclock would not kick in, even tho you are in a validated environment for the CPU. Simply because the CPU is not validated to run its turbomodes in all those environments.

If turbo clock doesn't kick in, RMA the CPU, its defective.


AMD advertises "Up to 5ghz".. what don't you understand about that? You are beating a dead horse with this fraud speculation.

 

[ShintaiDK]

If turbo clock doesn't kick in, RMA the CPU, its defective.

Uhm, no. I dont think you understand the concept of turbomodes.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Guskline, we can already see the segregated listing of the product. in the EU where you would simply go to the police, no lawyers needed. Its listed as 4.7Ghz there. And in NA its 5.0Ghz. That alone raises a huge question about ethics and morality. Something businesses always fail.

It essentially open up the question on how much you can decieve the NA buyers. Could you sell an i7 4650U as 3.3Ghz instead of 1.7Ghz? The A8-5550M as 3.1Ghz instead of 2.1Ghz?

The problem is that you could end up in a scenario, where the turboclock would not kick in, even tho you are in a validated environment for the CPU. Simply because the CPU is not validated to run its turbomodes in all those environments.

Shintai, I appreciate most of your posts. But in this one you are fighting a losing battle. As much as you think every country in the world should hold to the standards of the EU, that is simply not what the laws are now. In fact, I think in the US there is considerable feeling that the EU occasionally goes overboard on regulation.

In the US, even though it goes against the conventional way of advertising clockspeed, there is no law stating how it must be listed, hence no fraud. Misleading and deceptive, yes, but not violating any known laws. In fact, knowing the allegiances of the poster, the title was obviously phrased so the the answer would portray AMD in a favorable light. A much more informative question would have been "is this practice misleading or deceptive?"

At most the FTC could threaten them with a fine, but I doubt that is likely to happen. In fact, I recall when Llano first came out, many places advertised by the turbo clock because the base clocks were so low. That no longer happens, but I do not know of any penalties that were ever enforced. At most they would have to add an "up to" qualifier or state somewhere in the fine print that 5.0ghz is a turbo frequency.

Rightly or wrongly, such advertising is used all the time. As far a businesses being ethical, well I dont want to go there. IMO "business ethics" is pretty much an oxymoron.

 

[Rvenger]

Uhm, no. I dont think you understand the concept of turbomodes.

If you run the recommended motherboard with the CPU, there is no reason it shouldn't turbo. If the chip exceeds it's TDP before hitting 5ghz, its defective. Plain and simple. And yes I know what turbo is.

 

[ShintaiDK]

If you run the recommended motherboard with the CPU, there is no reason it shouldn't turbo. If the chip exceeds it's TDP before hitting 5ghz, its defective. Plain and simple. And yes I know what turbo is.

Then you should also know that there is a thermal limit that depends on ambient temperature. Not to mention a higher ambient temperature also raises the power needed to run.

 

[Rvenger]

Then you should also know that there is a thermal limit that depends on ambient temperature.

Then fine, get a bigger heatsink. The CPU doesn't come with one anyways. It will more than likely have to be watercooled. Running a 220w CPU on air wouldn't be advisable anyways.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Then you should also know that there is a thermal limit that depends on ambient temperature. Not to mention a higher ambient temperature also raises the power needed to run.

And all modern processors will enter cripple mode if they overheat, reducing to ~1/3rd their stock clocks. OH NOES! FRAUD!

 

[ShintaiDK]

If turbomode was always on/avaliable, then there was no reason to call it turbo. Its called turbo because its not a garanteed function.

 

[Rvenger]

If turbomode was always on/avaliable, then there was no reason to call it turbo. Its called turbo because its not a garanteed function.

Well then I guess Nvidia GPU boost isn't guaranteed. What you are saying if Nvidia advertises 902mhz boost for a GTX 780 and it doesn't hit or exceed that target, then its not defective because it isn't guaranteed? ok...




Someone please close this thread.. this is getting stupid.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Someone please close this thread.. this is getting stupid.

Oh hey, did you know that a car won't always put out its rated horsepower? They don't tell you, but that's only peak horsepower. And if the ambient temperature is too high you won't even be able to make that.

The fraud! It's everywhere!

 

[Torn Mind]

Oh hey, did you know that a car won't always put out its rated horsepower? They don't tell you, but that's only peak horsepower. And if the ambient temperature is too high you won't even be able to make that.

The fraud! It's everywhere!

Perhaps hard drive manufacturers should be stating their capacity based on how much actual usable space is on there after it is formatted to the NTFS filesystem instead of just putting out 1 TB. It should instead be nine hundred-something.

 

[Torn Mind]

If turbomode was always on/avaliable, then there was no reason to call it turbo. Its called turbo because its not a garanteed function.

3.5 Ghz on a 4770K is not guaranteed. Most of the time, it's set to 1.6 Ghz thanks to SpeedStep. If you want complete accuracy, the headline should state "1.6 Ghz at idle, 3.5 Ghz on a four cores guaranteed no matter what, and somtimes a 3.9 Ghz error-free maximum on one or more cores if thermals are within spec.

 

[Idontcare]

3.5 Ghz on a 4770K is not guaranteed. Most of the time, it's set to 1.6 Ghz thanks to SpeedStep. If you want complete accuracy, the headline should state "1.6 Ghz at idle, 3.5 Ghz on a four cores guaranteed no matter what, and somtimes a 3.9 Ghz error-free maximum on one or more cores if thermals are within spec.

Isn't it though?

In that you are guaranteed it can run at 3.5GHz when fully loaded and won't throttle below that unless there is something seriously wrong with the rest of the supporting hardware and environment?

Sustaining 3.5GHz on a 4770k is not load-dependent, it will do it with even the most severe programs like linpack.

Sustaining 5GHz on a 9590 is going to be load-dependent, whereas sustaining 4.7GHz will not be load-dependent.

There is a difference and until now the difference has been universally accepted by both companies in their advertising and marketing of turbo-core/boost SKUs.

It is only with the advent of the FX-9590 that AMD marketing has chosen to break with established convention, and in doing so they are leveraging the fact that the majority of consumers have been conditioned to interpret marketing claims via one convention (that the base-clocks are being advertised, not the corner-case turbo-boost clocks) and so this gives AMD the ability to manipulate the expectations of the consumer when the consumer reads the AMD marketing material.

I think the deception aspect of this would not exist if AMD were to simultaneously invest as much effort into ensuring the reader of the marketing materials was made aware that AMD is breaking with convention. The deception here is that they are intentionally not doing that.

 

[Chiropteran]

Dude, it's a galego thread. What do you expect?

Not really. It might as well be ShintaiDK thread, the thread was started based on his comments that AMD was committing fraud.

 

[frozentundra123456]

Not really. It might as well be ShintaiDK thread, the thread was started based on his comments that AMD was committing fraud.

Perhaps, but is does appear quite defensive to start a whole thread to justify AMDs dubious marketing of this chip, especially when the consensus already was that it was not technically or legally fraud, despite ones opinion about the honesty or transparency of the advertising.