• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD to Cough Up $12.1 Million to Settle "Bulldozer" Core Count Class-Action Lawsuit

btarunr

Editor & Senior Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 9, 2007
Messages
44,050 (7.96/day)
Location
Hyderabad, India
System Name RBMK-1000
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5700G
Motherboard ASUS ROG Strix B450-E Gaming
Cooling DeepCool Gammax L240 V2
Memory 2x 8GB G.Skill Sniper X
Video Card(s) Palit GeForce RTX 2080 SUPER GameRock
Storage Western Digital Black NVMe 512GB
Display(s) BenQ 1440p 60 Hz 27-inch
Case Corsair Carbide 100R
Audio Device(s) ASUS SupremeFX S1220A
Power Supply Cooler Master MWE Gold 650W
Mouse ASUS ROG Strix Impact
Keyboard Gamdias Hermes E2
Software Windows 11 Pro
AMD reached a settlement in the Class Action Lawsuit filed against it, over alleged false-marketing of the core-counts of its eight-core FX-series processors based on the "Bulldozer" microarchitecture. Each member of the Class receives a one-time payout of USD $35 per chip, while the company takes a hit of $12.1 million. The lawsuit dates back to 2015, when Tony Dickey, representing himself in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, accused AMD of false-marketing of its FX-series "Bulldozer" processor of having 8 CPU cores. Over the following four years, the case gained traction as a Class Action was built against AMD this January.

In the months that followed the January set-up of a 12-member Jury to examine the case, lawyers representing the Class and AMD argued over the underlying technology that makes "Bulldozer" a multi-core processor, and eventually discussed what a fair settlement would be for the Class. They eventually agreed on a number - $12.1 million, or roughly $35 per chip AMD sold, which they agreed was "fair," and yet significantly less than the "$60 million in premiums" consumers contended they paid for these processors. Sifting through these numbers, it's important to understand what the Class consists of. It consists of U.S. consumers who became interested to be part of the Class Action, and who bought an 8-core processor based on the "Bulldozer" microarchitecture. It excludes consumers of every other "Bulldozer" derivative (4-core, 6-core parts, APUs; and follow-ups to "Bulldozer" such as "Piledriver," "Excavator," etc.).


Image Credit: Taylor Alger

View at TechPowerUp Main Site
 

Space Lynx

Astronaut
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
11,154 (3.75/day)
Location
Kepler-186f
Processor i5-13600kf
Motherboard GIGABYTE Z690 AERO G + Contact Frame
Cooling Vetroo V5 (2x Antec Storm fans in push/pull)
Memory DDR4 2x16gb 3800mhz DR CAS 19 Gear1
Video Card(s) MSI 6800 XT Trio Z
Storage Kingston KC3000 1TB
Display(s) NZXT 27" Canvas 2560x1440 IPS 165hz
Case Montech Air X (White)
Audio Device(s) SennHD58X, Schiit Asgard 2 AMP, Modi 3 DAC
Power Supply Corsair RM 850w Gold
Mouse Razer Naga X
Keyboard Anne Pro 2
tsk tsk AMD.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
4,836 (1.98/day)
Processor Ryzen 9 5900X
Motherboard MSI B450 Tomahawk ATX
Cooling Cooler Master Hyper 212 Black Edition
Memory VENGEANCE LPX 2 x 16GB DDR4-3600 C18 OCed 3800
Video Card(s) MSI GeForce RTX 2060 GAMING Z 6G
Storage 970 EVO NVMe M.2 500 GB, 870 QVO 1 TB
Display(s) Samsung 28” 4K monitor
Case Phantek Eclipse P400S (PH-EC416PS)
Audio Device(s) EVGA NU Audio
Power Supply EVGA 850 BQ
Mouse SteelSeries Rival 310
Keyboard Logitech G G413 Silver
Software Windows 10 Professional 64-bit v22H2
Benchmark Scores CB R23 - 20900
Always seen the first FX 8150 as nothing more than a Quad core with additional haradware to give the SMT extra punch when it could deliver.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
362 (0.13/day)
Always seen the first FX 8150 as nothing more than a Quad core with additional haradware to give the SMT extra punch when it could deliver.
Intel's CPUs with hyperthreading enabled, since Nehalem, don't actually have the claimed thread count because hyperthreading has to be disabled because it's a fundamentally insecure implementation.

Intel's CPUs with hyperthreading enabled, on the market after hyperthreading's insecurity (which requires disabling hyperthreading to fix) was made public don't actually have the claimed thread count — because hyperthreading has to be disabled because it's a fundamentally insecure implementation.

CPUs, including Intel CPUs, that don't have AVX-512 enabled or included aren't real CPUs. They simply don't have real cores. Real cores have to have AVX-512.

CPUs that don't have AVX-512 enabled or included aren't real CPUs if they came out after Intel's first consumer-grade CPU with AVX-512 hit the market. These imitation CPUs don't have real cores. Real cores have AVX-512.

CPUs that don't have the ability to process AVX-256 in a single cycle aren't real CPUs.


These are the kind of claims that fit right in with this lawsuit and how you see the FX 8150. They are arbitrary decisions made by the viewer, not backed by reality. (The only one of those claims with any teeth is the claim that Intel shouldn't be selling hyperthreading CPUs with an insecure implementation under the claimed thread count, unless it can be proven that Intel withheld knowledge of its hyperthreading insecurity for a number of years, in which case earlier CPUs would also be relevant. I am including this claim in my sample, though, to illustrate a few points that I think people can figure out on their own, given the context.)

The FPU count of a core is an arbitrary matter. Many CPUs have been sold that didn't even have FPUs. No CPUs have ever been sold that only have FPU cores, which is why counting the number of integer cores is non-arbitrary.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
422 (0.12/day)
Location
Hungary
System Name masina
Processor AMD Ryzen 5 3600
Motherboard ASUS TUF B550M
Cooling Scythe Kabuto 3 + Arctic BioniX P120 fan
Memory 16GB (2x8) DDR4-3200 CL16 Crucial Ballistix
Video Card(s) Radeon Pro WX 2100 2GB
Storage 500GB Crucial MX500, 640GB WD Black
Display(s) AOC C24G1
Case SilentiumPC AT6V
Power Supply Seasonic Focus GX 650W
Mouse Logitech G203
Keyboard Cooler Master MasterKeys L PBT
Software Win 10 Pro
tsk tsk AMD.

Bulldozer and it's iterations trough out the years had modules with two pipelines in them, so technically they did sell people said amount of processing cores albeit some of the front end and FP was shared.
Guess you can view these modules as double wide INT pipelines and call these 4C/8T instead of 8C/8T, but that would not be completely true now would it?

Did AMD lie about the architecture? Not really. Block diagrams show whats what. G
Did AMD lie about core counts? Bit of grey area depending on how one views the architecture as a whole.
Was Bulldozer uarch good? Hell no.
Does this entitle anyone to get money back cause they had chosen poorly even after the reviews? Not really at least in my opinion.

But seemingly you can sue back money if you band together with other people who had bought into FX even after reading trough the benchmarks, not once but even after years of Excator and Piledriver reviews.
'Murica at work right there.
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2011
Messages
512 (0.12/day)
These class actions are disgrace. Nobody wins exept the lawyers. There should be a real punishment system to get companies to follow to rule of law. These "settlements" are not even a slap on the wrist.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
362 (0.13/day)
These class actions are disgrace. Nobody wins exept the lawyers. There should be a real punishment system to get companies to follow to rule of law. These "settlements" are not even a slap on the wrist.
You've already pointed to other people (not just lawyers) winning via these suits. Look at your post again. Who benefits from slaps on wrists? Not just lawyers. Lawyers are easy to blame but they're not the cause of the system of justice we have, certainly not the sole cause.

The system benefits the wealthy who don't care about the environment. In a nutshell.
 

Frick

Fishfaced Nincompoop
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
17,748 (2.90/day)
Location
Piteå
System Name Black MC in Tokyo
Processor Ryzen 5 2600x
Motherboard Asrock B450M-HDV
Cooling Be Quiet! Pure Rock 2
Memory 2 x 8GB G-skill Aegis 3000 or somesuch
Video Card(s) Gainward RTX 3060ti Ghost OC
Storage Kingston A400 240GB | WD Black SN750 2TB |WD Blue 1TB x 2 | Toshiba P300 2TB | Seagate Expansion 8TB
Display(s) Samsung U32J590U 4K + BenQ GL2450HT 1080p
Case Fractal Design Define R4
Audio Device(s) Line6 UX1 + some headphones
Power Supply Seasonic Core GC500
Mouse Logitech G602
Keyboard Dell Sk3205
VR HMD Acer Mixed Reality Headset
Software Windows 10 Pro
Benchmark Scores Rimworld 4K ready!
Intel's CPUs with hyperthreading enabled, since Nehalem, don't actually have the claimed thread count because hyperthreading has to be disabled because it's a fundamentally insecure implementation.

Intel's CPUs with hyperthreading enabled, on the market after hyperthreading's insecurity (which requires disabling hyperthreading to fix) was made public don't actually have the claimed thread count — because hyperthreading has to be disabled because it's a fundamentally insecure implementation.

CPUs, including Intel CPUs, that don't have AVX-512 enabled or included aren't real CPUs. They simply don't have real cores. Real cores have to have AVX-512.

CPUs that don't have AVX-512 enabled or included aren't real CPUs if they came out after Intel's first consumer-grade CPU with AVX-512 hit the market. These imitation CPUs don't have real cores. Real cores have AVX-512.

CPUs that don't have the ability to process AVX-256 in a single cycle aren't real CPUs.


These are the kind of claims that fit right in with this lawsuit and how you see the FX 8150. They are arbitrary decisions made by the viewer, not backed by reality. (The only one of those claims with any teeth is the claim that Intel shouldn't be selling hyperthreading CPUs with an insecure implementation under the claimed thread count, unless it can be proven that Intel withheld knowledge of its hyperthreading insecurity for a number of years, in which case earlier CPUs would also be relevant. I am including this claim in my sample, though, to illustrate a few points that I think people can figure out on their own, given the context.)

The FPU count of a core is an arbitrary matter. Many CPUs have been sold that didn't even have FPUs. No CPUs have ever been sold that only have FPU cores, which is why counting the number of integer cores is non-arbitrary.

I like to define a core as something a real man uses. I has cores, but not many, but after my core enhancement surgery I’ll be loaded with the bastards.

Anyway. Yawn. I don’t agree with this. Also wasn’t there a time when Windows displayed the 8xxx cpu’s as quad cores with SMT?
 

Space Lynx

Astronaut
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
11,154 (3.75/day)
Location
Kepler-186f
Processor i5-13600kf
Motherboard GIGABYTE Z690 AERO G + Contact Frame
Cooling Vetroo V5 (2x Antec Storm fans in push/pull)
Memory DDR4 2x16gb 3800mhz DR CAS 19 Gear1
Video Card(s) MSI 6800 XT Trio Z
Storage Kingston KC3000 1TB
Display(s) NZXT 27" Canvas 2560x1440 IPS 165hz
Case Montech Air X (White)
Audio Device(s) SennHD58X, Schiit Asgard 2 AMP, Modi 3 DAC
Power Supply Corsair RM 850w Gold
Mouse Razer Naga X
Keyboard Anne Pro 2
Bulldozer and it's iterations trough out the years had modules with two pipelines in them, so technically they did sell people said amount of processing cores albeit some of the front end and FP was shared.
Guess you can view these modules as double wide INT pipelines and call these 4C/8T instead of 8C/8T, but that would not be completely true now would it?

Did AMD lie about the architecture? Not really. Block diagrams show whats what. G
Did AMD lie about core counts? Bit of grey area depending on how one views the architecture as a whole.
Was Bulldozer uarch good? Hell no.
Does this entitle anyone to get money back cause they had chosen poorly even after the reviews? Not really at least in my opinion.

But seemingly you can sue back money if you band together with other people who had bought into FX even after reading trough the benchmarks, not once but even after years of Excator and Piledriver reviews.
'Murica at work right there.

You misunderstand, I actually don't care either way, I mean tsk tsk as in AMD's legal department wasn't smart enough to prevent this sort of thing to begin with. I'm sure Nvidia consults many lawyers over every tiny little detail, but even then they aren't perfect, aka the .5 gb of vram debate LOL nvidia lost that one in a lawsuit too

these things are going to happen in this industry, they happen to all of them, I honestly don't think it has anything to do with deceit really. /shrug most people go to work 9 to 5, they don't live and breathe this stuff like a lot of us here do... also /reddit showerthoughts - maybe these companies should hire us as consultants LOL
 
Joined
May 9, 2012
Messages
7,738 (2.00/day)
Location
Ovronnaz, Wallis, Switzerland
System Name main/SFFHTPCARGH!(tm)/Xiaomi Mi TV Stick/Poco F3 5G/Formuler Z7+/Realme Pad
Processor Ryzen 5 3600 @4.2/i7-3770/S905X/Snapdragon SD870 5G/HiSilicon Hi3798MV200/Helio G80
Motherboard MSI MAG B550 Tomahawk/HP SFF Q77 Express/uh?/uh?/uh?/UH?!?!?!???
Cooling Enermax ETS-T50 Axe aRGB /basic HP HSF /Aluminum heatsink/Heatpipe/Aluminum heatsink/Aluminum
Memory 2x8gb G.Skill Aegis DDR4/8gb DDR3 1600/2gb LPDDR3/6gb LPDDR5 dual channel/2gb LPDDR4/6gb LPDDR4x
Video Card(s) Powercolor Red Devil RX 6700 XT 12gb/Asus GT 730 2gb/Mali 450MP5/Adreno 650/Mali 450MP4/Mali-G52 MC2
Storage 250gb 870EVO/500gb 860EVO/2x1tb/NVMe 512gb+1tb/1tbSE770G&P1-Arion/500gb/8gb/128gb/8gb+uSD 64gb/128gb
Display(s) X58222 32" 2880x1620/273E3LHSB 27" 1920x1080/Samsung E4 6.67" FHD+120hz/32"FHDTV/10.4" IPS 1200x2000
Case Cougar Panzer Max/Elite 8300 SFF/None/back/front glass GG5/OTT/Aluminum
Audio Device(s) Logitec Z333/SB Audigy RX/HDMI/HDMI/Dolby Atmos+Fiio KA1+Fiio FH1s 26Ω+Nowsonic Prinz 40Ω
Power Supply Chieftec Proton BDF-1000C /HP 240w/12v 1.5A/4Smart VoltHub PD/QC3.0 9-12V 1.96A
Mouse Speedlink Sovos Vertical-Asus ROG Spatha-Logitech MX Ergo/Xiaomi XMRM-006/touch/Formuler Q2F9
Keyboard Deltaco DK440R/none/touch/Formuler RCU 02F9
VR HMD Medion Erazer
Software Win10 64/Win8.1 64/Android 5.1.1 custom/Android TV 8.1/Android 12/Android 7.0/Android 11
Benchmark Scores bench...mark? i do leave mark on bench sometime, to remember which one is the most comfortable. :o
Always seen the first FX 8150 as nothing more than a Quad core with additional hardware to give the SMT extra punch when it could deliver.
but there was 8 Physical core .... only the FP, scheduler was shared ... so it was a octacore no matter how you look at it, which in term of performance it gave them 80% of a octacore so basically just like a hexacore but with 8 Physical cores, extra hardware core are a core.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,255 (5.08/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X12 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
This post...
How many "cores" do you see in this picture?

How many in this picture?

Remember, Feng's slides saying "core replication obvious." The defense has the uphill battle here, not the plaintiff. The pictures above make the plaintiff's case as plain as day. Honestly, AMD is better off settling out of court.
…totally called it, especially that last sentence.

AMD could never win this argument without changing over a decade of precedents including by competitors like Sun, ARM, IBM, Intel, and even themselves (Athlon 64 X2). "Integer core" got lost in marketing translation to become something it isn't, a "core." If AMD accurately advertised the product as having "8 integer cores" this lawsuit would have never been filed.
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
1,222 (0.27/day)
Location
USA, Arizona
System Name SolarwindMobile
Processor AMD FX-9800P RADEON R7, 12 COMPUTE CORES 4C+8G
Motherboard Acer Wasp_BR
Cooling It's Copper.
Memory 2 x 8GB SK Hynix/HMA41GS6AFR8N-TF
Video Card(s) ATI/AMD Radeon R7 Series (Bristol Ridge FP4) [ACER]
Storage TOSHIBA MQ01ABD100 1TB + KINGSTON RBU-SNS8152S3128GG2 128 GB
Display(s) ViewSonic XG2401 SERIES
Case Acer Aspire E5-553G
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC255
Power Supply PANASONIC AS16A5K
Mouse SteelSeries Rival
Keyboard Ducky Channel Shine 3
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit (Version 1607, Build 14393.969)
Always seen the first FX 8150 as nothing more than a Quad core with additional haradware to give the SMT extra punch when it could deliver.
In which, you are wrong.
Bulldozer and it's iterations trough out the years had modules with two pipelines in them, so technically they did sell people said amount of processing cores albeit some of the front end and FP was shared.
Guess you can view these modules as double wide INT pipelines and call these 4C/8T instead of 8C/8T, but that would not be completely true now would it?
Bulldozer and forwards are dual-core modules, or monolithic dual-cores without the glue. The front-end, floating-point unit, and L2 unit might be shared, but they are heavily optimized for dual-core(thus, dual-threaded) functionality.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,255 (5.08/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X12 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
Bulldozer and forwards are dual-core modules, or monolithic dual-cores without the glue. The front-end, floating-point unit, and L2 unit might be shared, but they are heavily optimized for dual-core(thus, dual-threaded) functionality.
Nope, the "modules" are in fact dual-thread cores (see second point #5 in the quote below: Core Interface Unit). Cores are wholistic CPUs which "integer cores" are not:
Maybe you can't, but I (and others) did, repeatedly. Have a recap:
1. Shared fetcher.
2. Depending on iteration, shared decoder.
3. Depending on iteration, shared dispatcher.
4. Shared floating point units.
5. Shared Core Interface Unit.
...we also got into why these are a problem:
1. The fetcher is incapable of saturating the ALUs in a lot of cases where it has to service both integer clusters. Thuban was able to in the same scenarios.
2. + 3. AMD choose to split the decoder and dispatcher for reasons revolving around power efficiency and performance.
4. AMD was really fixated on the idea that GPUs would take over FPU so, per thread, Bulldozer really offers no improvement over Thuban. Because collisions can happen, in practice it can be slower.
5. All communication with the rest of the system flows through this unit. Windows 10 sees the Core Interface Unit and believes it is looking at a core. It looks at the fetcher offering to take two threads and interprets that as two logical processors.

Overall, a Bulldozer module is a lot of transistors short of a dual-core. That was their intent, after all.
This is evidenced in various benchmarks that show under many load conditions, Bulldozer's performance plummets compared to Thuban cores (predating Bulldozer). Either advertising on Thuban was wrong, or Bulldozer is wrong. Thuban fit the mold of what is a core, Bulldozer does not; ergo, Bulldozer was misrepresented, not Thuban.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
1,222 (0.27/day)
Location
USA, Arizona
System Name SolarwindMobile
Processor AMD FX-9800P RADEON R7, 12 COMPUTE CORES 4C+8G
Motherboard Acer Wasp_BR
Cooling It's Copper.
Memory 2 x 8GB SK Hynix/HMA41GS6AFR8N-TF
Video Card(s) ATI/AMD Radeon R7 Series (Bristol Ridge FP4) [ACER]
Storage TOSHIBA MQ01ABD100 1TB + KINGSTON RBU-SNS8152S3128GG2 128 GB
Display(s) ViewSonic XG2401 SERIES
Case Acer Aspire E5-553G
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC255
Power Supply PANASONIC AS16A5K
Mouse SteelSeries Rival
Keyboard Ducky Channel Shine 3
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit (Version 1607, Build 14393.969)
Nope, the "modules" are in fact dual-thread cores.
Nope, the dual-core modules are in fact two single-thread cores.

=> Each core is dedicated to a thread and contains a four-wide integer execution unit, issue/retire logic, 16-KB four-way set associative L1data cache, and a load/store unit.
Of which there are two.
Cores are wholistic CPUs which "integer cores" are not. This is evidenced in various benchmarks that show under many load conditions, Bulldozer's performance plummets compared to Thuban cores (predating Bulldozer). Either advertising on Thuban was wrong, or Bulldozer is wrong. Thuban fit the mold of what is a core, Bulldozer does not; ergo, Bulldozer was misrepresented, not Thuban.
None of this proves what you have stated.

1. The fetcher is incapable of saturating the ALUs in a lot of cases where it has to service both integer clusters. Thuban was able to in the same scenarios.
2. + 3. AMD choose to split the decoder and dispatcher for reasons revolving around power efficiency and performance.
4. AMD was really fixated on the idea that GPUs would take over FPU so, per thread, Bulldozer really offers no improvement over Thuban. Because collisions can happen, in practice it can be slower.

1. 4 macro-ops goes to 4 ALUs+4 AGUs
2. The split decoder is 2 macro-ops for 2 ALUs+2 AGUs.
3. The FPU has 2x 128-bit FMACs + 2x 128-bit MMXs; 2x the FMA capability and 2x the FMISC capability compared to Thuban.
 
Last edited:

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,255 (5.08/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X12 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
Cores share nothing other than memory ("core replication is obvious"). Bulldozer violates that by sharing fetchers, decoders, dispatchers, and Core Interface Unit. That's shared logic, not just memory.
 
Joined
Jan 15, 2015
Messages
362 (0.13/day)
Anyway. Yawn. I don’t agree with this. Also wasn’t there a time when Windows displayed the 8xxx cpu’s as quad cores with SMT?
Windows has bugs so you'll have to come up with a stronger argument. It's common for software, from CPU-Z to Sandra to anything else that displays spec info — to get those specs wrong until the software is fully updated.

Windows had never seen a CPU with Bulldozer's configuration before. There is also the matter of arbitrary/political choices made by coders and their managers.
Cores share nothing other than memory.
Citation please.
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
1,222 (0.27/day)
Location
USA, Arizona
System Name SolarwindMobile
Processor AMD FX-9800P RADEON R7, 12 COMPUTE CORES 4C+8G
Motherboard Acer Wasp_BR
Cooling It's Copper.
Memory 2 x 8GB SK Hynix/HMA41GS6AFR8N-TF
Video Card(s) ATI/AMD Radeon R7 Series (Bristol Ridge FP4) [ACER]
Storage TOSHIBA MQ01ABD100 1TB + KINGSTON RBU-SNS8152S3128GG2 128 GB
Display(s) ViewSonic XG2401 SERIES
Case Acer Aspire E5-553G
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC255
Power Supply PANASONIC AS16A5K
Mouse SteelSeries Rival
Keyboard Ducky Channel Shine 3
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit (Version 1607, Build 14393.969)

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,255 (5.08/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X12 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
Citation please.
It's all in this thread:

I'm not going to reargue all this when it's been settled. :roll:


Here's the specific quote though, just for you (page 11):
 
Low quality post by Deleted member 163934
D

Deleted member 163934

Guest
The FPU count of a core is an arbitrary matter. Many CPUs have been sold that didn't even have FPUs. No CPUs have ever been sold that only have FPU cores, which is why counting the number of integer cores is non-arbitrary.

When "Bulldozer" was released how many PC CPUs (sold as new) had less FPU cores count compared to integer cores?

"Bulldozer" architecture was and still is a disgrace.
The FX-4100 running at 3,6Ghz (can boost to 3,8 Ghz) is advertised as a 4 cores cpu.
Athlon II x4 640 is running at 3 Ghz (no boost) and is a 4 cores cpu.
Main problem is that in single-threaded performance the FX-4100 is scaling worst that the Athlon II x4 640 and in term of multi-threaded performance the FX-4100 is actualy worst than the Athlon II x4 640.
So basicaly we had a newer architecture that had worst performance/clock compared to the older architecture. This is something that you see during development phase. So what's the point to push on the market a product that sucks compared to the older architecture?!?

Why AMD insisted with the Faildozer revisions is beyond my understanding. At that time the only real solution to upgrade from a K10 family cpu was an Intel CPU (visible in their shitty market share during Faildozer era).

If it was me taking the call at AMD after seeing how crap is the Faildozer architecture I would had see if it's possible to actually get a bit higher clocks from K10 family and add SSE 4.1/4.2 and AVX and actually try to work on a new CPU architecture (trust me without a single person that took part in the development of Faildozer).

Not really related to this topic. I kinda got tired and sick of people praising/defending AMD. They kinda forget that AMD actually wanted to sell Faildozer at some prices that have nothing to do with the reality of that architecture, that in Windows case AMD drivers were and still are pure junk, that AMD decided to no longer release drivers for Win 8.1 an use that still has more than 3 years to live, that each Ryzen release iteration has been full of problems (you kinda expect the 3rd iteration to be smooth but well not in AMD case... most likely because they just rush the products on the market without real testing something that I said about AMD 7 years ago). I'm not bashing AMD, just pointing to problems that AMD just doesn't care! I don't like Intel or Nvidia, the deal is that Intel, Nvidia and AMD have all 3 shady marketing technique (people accused NVIDIA of crippling the performance of older architectures in drivers, if you think AMD is better maybe you should check better because AMD might had done something that is far worst).
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,255 (5.08/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X12 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
Why AMD insisted with the Faildozer revisions is beyond my understanding. At that time the only real solution to upgrade from a K10 family cpu was an Intel CPU.
Because of a paper written in the 2000s that suggested you could vastly improve integer performance with only a 10-15% increase in transistors by having more than one integer cluster per core. AMD tried it and it didn't go over so great because software couldn't really make heads or tails of the thing. Software was compiled for complete processors, not dual-thread--asymmetric processor designs. Bulldozer could have been great if software was compiled to take advantage of it. ...but that doesn't really matter because AMD still lied about how many "cores" their Bulldozer products had.
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
1,222 (0.27/day)
Location
USA, Arizona
System Name SolarwindMobile
Processor AMD FX-9800P RADEON R7, 12 COMPUTE CORES 4C+8G
Motherboard Acer Wasp_BR
Cooling It's Copper.
Memory 2 x 8GB SK Hynix/HMA41GS6AFR8N-TF
Video Card(s) ATI/AMD Radeon R7 Series (Bristol Ridge FP4) [ACER]
Storage TOSHIBA MQ01ABD100 1TB + KINGSTON RBU-SNS8152S3128GG2 128 GB
Display(s) ViewSonic XG2401 SERIES
Case Acer Aspire E5-553G
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC255
Power Supply PANASONIC AS16A5K
Mouse SteelSeries Rival
Keyboard Ducky Channel Shine 3
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit (Version 1607, Build 14393.969)
When "Bulldozer" was released how many PC CPUs (sold as new) had less FPU cores count compared to integer cores?
Bulldozer's FPU is in fact two FPUs in one. It is shared between the cores because that was a key advantage of a monolithic dual-core over a glued dual-core.
 

FordGT90Concept

"I go fast!1!11!1!"
Joined
Oct 13, 2008
Messages
26,255 (5.08/day)
Location
IA, USA
System Name BY-2021
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 5800X (65w eco profile)
Motherboard MSI B550 Gaming Plus
Cooling Scythe Mugen (rev 5)
Memory 2 x Kingston HyperX DDR4-3200 32 GiB
Video Card(s) AMD Radeon RX 6800 XT
Storage Samsung 980 Pro, Seagate Exos X12 TB 7200 RPM
Display(s) Nixeus NX-EDG274K (3840x2160@144 DP) + Samsung SyncMaster 906BW (1440x900@60 HDMI-DVI)
Case Coolermaster HAF 932 w/ USB 3.0 5.25" bay
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC1150, Micca OriGen+
Power Supply Enermax Platimax 850w
Mouse SteelSeries Sensei RAW
Keyboard Tesoro Excalibur
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit
Benchmark Scores Faster than the tortoise; slower than the hare.
Do a 256-bit FMAC operation and the thread on the other integer cluster is stalled until it completes. Impossible on a dual-core processor.
 
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
1,222 (0.27/day)
Location
USA, Arizona
System Name SolarwindMobile
Processor AMD FX-9800P RADEON R7, 12 COMPUTE CORES 4C+8G
Motherboard Acer Wasp_BR
Cooling It's Copper.
Memory 2 x 8GB SK Hynix/HMA41GS6AFR8N-TF
Video Card(s) ATI/AMD Radeon R7 Series (Bristol Ridge FP4) [ACER]
Storage TOSHIBA MQ01ABD100 1TB + KINGSTON RBU-SNS8152S3128GG2 128 GB
Display(s) ViewSonic XG2401 SERIES
Case Acer Aspire E5-553G
Audio Device(s) Realtek ALC255
Power Supply PANASONIC AS16A5K
Mouse SteelSeries Rival
Keyboard Ducky Channel Shine 3
Software Windows 10 Home 64-bit (Version 1607, Build 14393.969)
Do a 256-bit FMAC operation and the thread on the other integer cluster is stalled until it completes. Impossible on a dual-core processor.
None of the general purposes cores get stalled from anything on the FPU core. They are distinct from the FPU.
 
Top