Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

AMD Sued by Customer Over Misrepresentation of "Multicore"

posted by janrinok on Saturday November 07 2015, @03:12AM   Printer-friendly
from the 8=4 dept.

zugedneb writes:

In 2011 AMD released the Bulldozer architecture, with a somewhat untraditional implementation of the "multicore" technology. Now, 4 years later, they are sued for false advertising, fraud and other "criminal activities". From TFA:

In claiming that its new Bulldozer CPU had "8-cores," which means it can perform eight calculations simultaneously, AMD allegedly tricked consumers into buying its Bulldozer processors by overstating the number of cores contained in the chips. Dickey alleges the Bulldozer chips functionally have only four cores—not eight, as advertised.

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
AMD Sued by Customer Over Misrepresentation of "Multicore" | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 36 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @03:15PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 07 2015, @03:15PM (#259980)

    I can find valid reasons to default to low levels of optimization on another product vs one that is produced by the compiler vendor and if it is documented this isn't inherently a bad thing. It is bad to cheat and lie, it is not bad to clearly state you will optimize conservatively for an architecture that was not produced in house, and it is good to clearly document that behavior.

    This does not have to be evil, it could be stupidity.

    I would not put it past Intel to try to slide this in and cover it up under a false flag, but I don't necessarily see anything wrong with not fully optimizing for execution on another chip *by default.*

  • (Score: 2) by zugedneb on Saturday November 07 2015, @06:51PM

    by zugedneb (4556) on Saturday November 07 2015, @06:51PM (#260053)

    I can find valid reasons...

    There are none.
    Nobody working with consumer products asks a compiler to do work for a specific _brand_.
    They want to compile to a specific set of _instructions_.

    It is not the job of the compiler writer to be paranoid about some vendor not implementing the instruction set correctly. The job is to make the compiler produce as requested.

    --
    old saying: "a troll is a window into the soul of humanity" + also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax