Exterminator

Community Manager
Verified
Staff member
Chip-maker AMD has been struck by a class action lawsuit, after it was revealed that they falsely advertised the number of cores in their Bulldozer processor range. The lawsuit from San Jose’s district court claims that while a Bulldozer processor may offer eight cores, these only function as four. AMD’s micro-architecture is largely to blame; due to how separate cores operate within the unit. While each processor may indeed offer eight cores, these cores have been modified, and cannot work independently as a result.

In an eight core Bulldozer chip, eight cores are indeed present, however many surrounding components are shared by a second core. This is due to ‘module’ technology adapted by AMD, where two cores work alongside one another with improved optimization.

Currently AMD dispute these claims, stating the design of these modules has minimal affect on their chip’s performance. The lawsuit goes against this, stating that the decrease in performance is deceiving less technically-knowledgeable consumers:

In fact, the Bulldozer chips functionally have only four cores — not eight, as advertised. Notably, AMD built the Bulldozer processors by stripping away components from two cores and combining what was left to make a single 'module.' But by removing certain components of two cores to make one module, they no longer work independently. As a result, AMD’s Bulldozers suffer from material performance degradation and cannot perform eight instructions simultaneously and independently as claimed.

As AMD have not publicly advertised this design, the firm may be in breach of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law and be guilty of false advertising, fraud, breach of express warranty, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The result of this lawsuit looks unclear, however if AMD do lose this case, the business may be looking at charges of a least $5 million.

Source: Legal Newsline via Engadget | Image via Financial Post
 

darko999

Level 17
Verified
It was pretty clear for me when I bought it, 8 cores, 2 per module with shared cache. I don't see like AMD tried to scam anyone. If you count the cores, there are 8 cores; how they work based on the architecture of the chip is different story, but yea there are 8 cores for sure and they work pretty much damn good on my FX-8350 piledriver.
 

Smoke

Level 4
Verified
I also have an FX-8350 and while they work fairly good on multi-core games (like Battlefield 4 etc...) in single core games they're absolutely horrendous.
 

jamescv7

Level 85
Verified
Trusted
One of the example is a thread posted

AMD FX-8350 contains 8 cores, many said its 4 cores only however a good information to understand the equivalent of modules.

4 core = 2 module, 6 core = 3 module, 8 core = 4 module.
 

SloppyMcFloppy

New Member
One of the example is a thread posted

AMD FX-8350 contains 8 cores, many said its 4 cores only however a good information to understand the equivalent of modules.
Its 4 strong cores 8 modules because every AMD strong core divide by two low cores, and it doesn't make any sense that 8 cores AMD FX 8350 lose against i7 4770k which have 4 stronger cores. So yeah, benchmarks speaking that AMD literary have 4 strong core, but they divide each core into two separate cores and that also explain why their CPU TDP higher than Intel. if you think about this, 8 is bigger than 4 like 2 times right? Then how come AMD FX 8350 lose against i7 4770k where the AMD FX 8350 have " 8 cores" and i7 4770k have 4 cores. Unlike Intel, their 8 cores CPU > 4 cores CPU, and that makes more sense than AMD does.
 

darko999

Level 17
Verified
Its 4 strong cores 8 modules because every AMD strong core divide by two low cores, and it doesn't make any sense that 8 cores AMD FX 8350 lose against i7 4770k which have 4 stronger cores. So yeah, benchmarks speaking that AMD literary have 4 strong core, but they divide each core into two separate cores and that also explain why their CPU TDP higher than Intel. if you think about this, 8 is bigger than 4 like 2 times right? Then how come AMD FX 8350 lose against i7 4770k where the AMD FX 8350 have " 8 cores" and i7 4770k have 4 cores. Unlike Intel, their 8 cores CPU > 4 cores CPU, and that makes more sense than AMD does.
"AMD Literary have 4 strong core" and "but they divide each core into two separate cores and that also explain" that also explains nothing since it has 8 cores. It does not have 8 modules, there are 4 modules; 8 cores.

AMD FX-8350 has 8 cores, 2 cores per module with shared cache. If you use your fingers to count, there are 8 cores in total. If you talk about performance, AMD has less performance per MHZ so there is nothing new about Intel being superior in performance, yet 8 cores can give you a decent performance in multi-core applications at a nice price. It all depends on your needs, I'm cool on my Oce'd FX-8350. If I need more performance then I'll just throw more money on Intel. But seeing a nice push on multi-core software there is no reason for me to change my FX as it gets the job done.
 

jamescv7

Level 85
Verified
Trusted
@user102:

Testimonies mentioned that it has 8 integer cores + the advertisement didn't include as 8 real cores, however AMD may misinterpret if prove those test fail.

Well in order to check it accurately, going to task manager from CPU graph; the number of cores should have.

In terms of performance hence we all know that Intel provides more in action through hyperthreading which some cases that products are better than AMD.
 

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
Not everyone is accustomed to AMD and how their CPU's work, similar argument for all other hardware chip makers. However, everyone should do research and read reviews before purchasing anything. It's your best defence against getting mis-sold (buying not what you wanted) or in more extreme cases getting scammed.
 

RaDi0AcTiVe MaN

New Member
After the positive news of "Zen". Hope this wont damage AMD. Mainly because I want competition. Intel without AMD, can easily call their next
CPU "Monopoly"
 
Top