• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Faces Lawsuit Over Bulldozer Cores

Associate
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
1,631
Whilst I imagine nothing too serious will come of this, I do hope that it's not too trying for AMD when they have a genuine chance of regaining their place as a contender next year.

It will be interesting to see what comes out, although enthusiasts have long known the limitations of these CPUs, they are very much branded as having 8 cores IMO.

Source:
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/amd-faces-lawsuit-over-core-count-on-bulldozer.html
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,695
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
This basically comes down to how one interprets a core.


Is a Core the integer unit inside the module or is it the whole module?


People can interprate that how they like but common wisdom has it at "the integer unit"


There is confusion about what is a module and what is a core.
I think the best way to explain that would be this, a (single Core CPU) would have:

1x Integer Unit (its Core)
1x L1
1x L2
1x L3


The Bulldozer architecture looks like this.

8 Integer units (Cores)
8x L1 Cache
8x L2 128Bit Cache Floating Point calc / 4x L2 256Bit Cache Integer Calc
1x L3 Cache


So by architectural definition Bulldozer does indeed have 8 cores. BUT, and this is where the argument originates; The 2 Cores inside each of Bulldozers Modules while separate are not fully independent from each-other because for Integer calc they share the L2 Cache.


IMO this is a somewhat far fetched argument to present as "deliberately misleading" and yet because people do smell blood from AMD they fancy their chances, no doubt.
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,695
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
I have one of these - I wasn't "mis-led", it was made clear on the specs how the architecture worked...

Yeah, read signature, How the architecture works was published all over, AMD were proud of the architectural design and its programmable flexibility which is derived from the way in which its designed.

With that one cannot sue someone for ones own ignorance, but then this is America.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
1,631
^ Indeed that would seem to be the biggest part of the problem. Although the definition of a core/module is perhaps not as clear cut as it has been with previous designs, a short amount of research would give any prospective buyer the relevant information.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
33,188
I got bored of reading after the "it couldn't do 8 instructions at one time" twaddle. Take any Intel core, old AMD core or future cores, most have multiple potential instructions but can't utilise all of them in one clock, it's a fairly fundamental way cpus are designed. They aren't inherently supposed to calculate one of each type of instruction or a load on every clock cycle so using that as a reason it's not full cores is bogus because full cores don't do it either.

Bulldozer was as someone else said, fully explained and also has significantly better scaling than HT precisely because they are real integer cores rather than filling up the existing ones better. Case will get nowhere at all.
 
Associate
Joined
21 May 2013
Posts
1,975
I guess he's just chancing it hoping for a quick buck with how weak AMD are looking.

I do think it was a poor choice to advertise them as "8-core" processors though. It's like saying an i7 is an "octo-core" because it shows up as 8 processors in Windows.

Just a thought: in the unlikely event that he walks away with a win, it could have a knock-on effect for the mobile industry. A lot of SoC manufacturers advertise them as "8-core", but due to the configuration only 4 are active at a time (see ARM's big.LITTLE architecture).
 
Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
47,695
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System
I guess he's just chancing it hoping for a quick buck with how weak AMD are looking.

I do think it was a poor choice to advertise them as "8-core" processors though. It's like saying an i7 is an "octo-core" because it shows up as 8 processors in Windows.

Just a thought: in the unlikely event that he walks away with a win, it could have a knock-on effect for the mobile industry. A lot of SoC manufacturers advertise them as "8-core", but due to the configuration only 4 are active at a time (see ARM's big.LITTLE architecture).

Thats because the i7 is a 4 core, it has 4 integer units, Bulldozer has 8.
To advertise Bulldozer as a 4 core would have been wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom