AMD suited for selling 4 core chips as 8 core chips.

Another chip company in trouble because of "fraud",

AMD suited for selling 4 core chips as 8 core chips:

http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510...ion-of-new-cpu

I am happy to see these lawsuits.

I hope CEOs of these companies take time to have a serious chat with their
marketing departments cause it's costing them and will cost them hundreds of
millions of dollars. Unless CEO was a dumbass himself !

I also recommend share holders to press CEO on this and ask some serious
questions about this or take other actions !

http://media.bestofmicro.com/upgrade...-402801-22.jpg

http://ic.tweakimg.net/ext/i/1318259668.png

Bye,
Skyfraud ! =D

P.S.: Fraud is the last thing I need right now in the computer bizz !
Privacy and overheat/dust issues is already bad enough !

On 8/11/2015 1:19 PM, Skybuck Flying wrote:
Another chip company in trouble because of "fraud",

AMD suited for selling 4 core chips as 8 core chips:


So, what, exactly, is a core? How much hardware can be shared between
two cores before they cease to be two cores? Who decides?

If consumers get stung by latching onto marketing words that have no
widely agreed meaning, then they deserve what they get.

Sylvia.

On 11/8/2015 12:09 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 8/11/2015 1:19 PM, Skybuck Flying wrote:
Another chip company in trouble because of "fraud",

AMD suited for selling 4 core chips as 8 core chips:


So, what, exactly, is a core? How much hardware can be shared between
two cores before they cease to be two cores? Who decides?

If consumers get stung by latching onto marketing words that have no
widely agreed meaning, then they deserve what they get.

Really? What should they use, clock speed? Benchmarks? No one has
ever come up with a good way to measure performance. I think "cores" is
as good as any mostly because they are easy to count... at least they
used to.

Intel doesn't count hyper-threading as cores do they? I think the AMD
thing is similar to that in that you are using less functional units
than a full core.

You ask how to define a core? Let AMD define it by their other
products. If they have four full cores in one chip and they count 8
cores in another, but the hardware is only four units with a core and a
half each, which is really a core? Obviously one is wrong.

--

Rick

On 8/11/2015 4:26 PM, rickman wrote:
On 11/8/2015 12:09 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 8/11/2015 1:19 PM, Skybuck Flying wrote:
Another chip company in trouble because of "fraud",

AMD suited for selling 4 core chips as 8 core chips:


So, what, exactly, is a core? How much hardware can be shared between
two cores before they cease to be two cores? Who decides?

If consumers get stung by latching onto marketing words that have no
widely agreed meaning, then they deserve what they get.

Really? What should they use, clock speed? Benchmarks? No one has
ever come up with a good way to measure performance. I think "cores" is
as good as any mostly because they are easy to count... at least they
used to.

Intel doesn't count hyper-threading as cores do they? I think the AMD
thing is similar to that in that you are using less functional units
than a full core.

You ask how to define a core? Let AMD define it by their other
products. If they have four full cores in one chip and they count 8
cores in another, but the hardware is only four units with a core and a
half each, which is really a core? Obviously one is wrong.


Or "core" was never well defined, was always just marketing speak, and
no one should have assumed that it corresponded to performance.

Sylvia.

On 11/8/2015 12:49 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 8/11/2015 4:26 PM, rickman wrote:
On 11/8/2015 12:09 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 8/11/2015 1:19 PM, Skybuck Flying wrote:
Another chip company in trouble because of "fraud",

AMD suited for selling 4 core chips as 8 core chips:


So, what, exactly, is a core? How much hardware can be shared between
two cores before they cease to be two cores? Who decides?

If consumers get stung by latching onto marketing words that have no
widely agreed meaning, then they deserve what they get.

Really? What should they use, clock speed? Benchmarks? No one has
ever come up with a good way to measure performance. I think "cores" is
as good as any mostly because they are easy to count... at least they
used to.

Intel doesn't count hyper-threading as cores do they? I think the AMD
thing is similar to that in that you are using less functional units
than a full core.

You ask how to define a core? Let AMD define it by their other
products. If they have four full cores in one chip and they count 8
cores in another, but the hardware is only four units with a core and a
half each, which is really a core? Obviously one is wrong.


Or "core" was never well defined, was always just marketing speak, and
no one should have assumed that it corresponded to performance.

I have never considered "core" to be marketing speak. Is there anything
that is *not* marketing speak in your world?

--

Rick

In comp.arch rickman wrote:
On 11/8/2015 12:09 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 8/11/2015 1:19 PM, Skybuck Flying wrote:
Another chip company in trouble because of "fraud",

AMD suited for selling 4 core chips as 8 core chips:


So, what, exactly, is a core? How much hardware can be shared between
two cores before they cease to be two cores? Who decides?

If consumers get stung by latching onto marketing words that have no
widely agreed meaning, then they deserve what they get.

Really? What should they use, clock speed? Benchmarks? No one has
ever come up with a good way to measure performance. I think "cores" is
as good as any mostly because they are easy to count... at least they
used to.

Intel doesn't count hyper-threading as cores do they? I think the AMD
thing is similar to that in that you are using less functional units
than a full core.

You ask how to define a core? Let AMD define it by their other
products. If they have four full cores in one chip and they count 8
cores in another, but the hardware is only four units with a core and a
half each, which is really a core? Obviously one is wrong.

Well, I definitely prefer that manufacurers give clear and
precise information. However, I think that AMD was right
to say that thay have 8 core chip. Consider simple thougt
experiments. First, disable FPU-s. IIUC then you get
machine with 8 core that are as independent as it gets.
Second, split FPU-s into half and assign each half to
a sigle core. Again this is clearly 8 core machine,
with possible not so fast FPU. Now, AMD claims that
shared FPU is in practice faster than splitting it
into two halfs and assigning each half to single core.
Now, if this claim is true, then there is no deception.
Anyway, shared FPU was clearly mentioned in all
texts that I saw.

You ask how to judge speed: simple measure is maximal
number of instructions that can be done in a single
cycle. Now, this is something that could be improved:
modern processors claim to support FMA and claim
capability to perform two floating point operations
per cycle. But a[5~t least from marketing speak it is
not clear if one can do 2 full-width FMA-s per cycle
(which for appropriate workload give 4 arithmetic
operations per cycle) or if 2 instructons case is
limited to one being multiply (maybe FMA) and the
other addition.


--
Waldek Hebisch

On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 03:19:06 +0100
"Skybuck Flying" wrote:

Fixed that for you (subject).

Another chip company in trouble because of "fraud",

AMD suited for selling 4 core chips as 8 core chips:

http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510...ion-of-new-cpu

I am happy to see these lawsuits.

I'm not. Not long ago AMD was a rather competent competitor to Intel.
Currently they're losing tons of money already, and these lawsuits, if
taken seriously by the courts it might be the end.
Then Intel has no more serious competition in the PC area.
I don't like the idea.

O.t.o.h. I think this lawsuit is frivolous and should be thrown out.
For the same reasons as Waldek has mentioned in his reply.

joe

}snip{

On 11/8/2015 2:50 AM, Joe Hey wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 03:19:06 +0100
"Skybuck Flying" wrote:

Fixed that for you (subject).

Another chip company in trouble because of "fraud",

AMD suited for selling 4 core chips as 8 core chips:

http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510...ion-of-new-cpu

I am happy to see these lawsuits.

I'm not. Not long ago AMD was a rather competent competitor to Intel.
Currently they're losing tons of money already, and these lawsuits, if
taken seriously by the courts it might be the end.
Then Intel has no more serious competition in the PC area.
I don't like the idea.

O.t.o.h. I think this lawsuit is frivolous and should be thrown out.
For the same reasons as Waldek has mentioned in his reply.

I haven't looked at AMD recently, but some years ago they fell behind in
the process technology by more than a year. At that point, I realized
they could never compete again with Intel. In the old days, they were
around six months behind in process technology which could be overcome
by good architecture design. More than a year is too much with both
speed advantages as well as cost advantages. So now AMD has to have a
significantly higher ASP than Intel just to break even and their
disadvantage in processing technology makes it harder to even reach the
same ASP.

The only reason they are even around is because Intel lost an
anti-competitive lawsuit and paid AMD about $2 billion if I recall. $2
billion doesn't last long in the semi business. It's all gone, as are
many of the AMD fabs and now they have no lever to even catch up with
Intel.

This lawsuit is many dB below the financial noise for AMD. BTW, the
article says the suit claims the chips "cannot perform eight
instructions simultaneously and independently as claimed". That sounds
like it can be verified.

Years ago I advised friends to invest in AMD at times I could see they
were going to pull out of an apparent nose dive and become profitable.
Three times I was right. I no longer see this happening again short of
winning more lawsuits.

--

Rick

On 11/8/2015 10:19 AM, Skybuck Flying wrote:
Another chip company in trouble because of "fraud",

AMD suited for selling 4 core chips as 8 core chips:

http://legalnewsline.com/stories/510...ion-of-new-cpu


I am happy to see these lawsuits.


There is another pending lawsuit against AMD on APU:

AMD Sued for Overestimating APU Success to Investors
http://www.techpowerup.com/196941/am...investors.html

On 11/8/2015 4:08 PM, rickman wrote:
The only reason they are even around is because Intel lost an
anti-competitive lawsuit and paid AMD about $2 billion if I recall. $2
billion doesn't last long in the semi business. It's all gone, as are
many of the AMD fabs and now they have no lever to even catch up with
Intel.

I wonder how these 2 billions were "laundered"...