AMD said to be readying Ryzen 5 5500, 5600 and Ryzen 7 5700X CPUs to reduce Alder Lake's...

[Squid Surprise]

It was 8-core CPU. It performed like 8-core CPU, of course.

How about sticking with facts, not opinions? You are saying it's not "true 8 core CPU, what that is supposed to mean? Did not perform like 8-core CPU, like what? You do realize there were plenty 8-core CPU's on phones around that time (2013). And FX demolished all of them.

Wow... it beat mobile phones... this was a flagship CPU for desktops though...

AMD FX-8150 review

AMD's new Bulldozer processors appear at last. But are they any good?

www.techradar.com

Let's read the pertinent paragraph together:
"Take Intel out of the equation and we'd be lauding the Bulldozer architecture as a truly remarkable thing.

The problem is Intel is most definitely in this equation and we've had this sort of performance, for around this sort of price, since we first clapped benchmarks on Sandy Bridge."

It couldn't even outperform Sandy Bridge... and how many cores did that have? Hint: it wasn't 8!!

The Bulldozer Review: AMD FX-8150 Tested

www.anandtech.com

And the pertinent paragraph:
So what do you do if you're buying today? If you have an existing high-end Phenom II system, particularly an X4 970 or above or an X6 of any sort, I honestly don't see much of a reason to upgrade. You're likely better off waiting for the next (and final) iteration of the AM3+ lineup if you want to stick with your current platform. If you're considering buying new, I feel like the 2500K is a better overall part. You get more predictable performance across the board regardless of application type or workload mix, and you do get features like Quick Sync. In many ways, where Bulldozer is a clear win is where AMD has always done well: heavily threaded applications. If you're predominantly running well threaded workloads, Bulldozer will typically give you performance somewhere around or above Intel's 2500K.

Somewhat rosier - but still... even in multi-threaded workloads, only on par or slightly better than the 2500... Performing like an 8-core CPU you say? Then why is the 4-core CPU from Intel matching or beating it??

Oh... and lastly...

AMD Bulldozer 'Core' Lawsuit: AMD Settles for $12.1m, Payouts for Some

www.anandtech.com

Pertinent paragraph:
In early 2019, the Northern District Court of California sided with the plaintiffs and ruled that AMD’s FX-8120, FX-8150, FX-8320, FX-8350, FX-8370, FX-9370, and FX-9590 processors were incorrectly advertised as having eight cores. On August 23, the court published the class action settlement agreement under which AMD agreed to pay plaintiffs and the settlement class a compensation.

I'm going to go with: AMD admits it was false advertising...

 

[HardReset]

Wow... it beat mobile phones... this was a flagship CPU for desktops though...

And? It didn't perform like 8-core CPU should have? Defeating every smartphone CPU and all but one desktop CPU brand? Really? Like I said, stick with facts.

AMD FX-8150 review

AMD's new Bulldozer processors appear at last. But are they any good?

www.techradar.com

Let's read the pertinent paragraph together:
"Take Intel out of the equation and we'd be lauding the Bulldozer architecture as a truly remarkable thing.

The problem is Intel is most definitely in this equation and we've had this sort of performance, for around this sort of price, since we first clapped benchmarks on Sandy Bridge."

It couldn't even outperform Sandy Bridge... and how many cores did that have? Hint: it wasn't 8!!

So because Bulldozer beat everything else than Sandy Bridge, it's not 8-core CPU?

Like Coffee Lake didn't beat Zen3, it was not 8-core CPU?

The Bulldozer Review: AMD FX-8150 Tested

www.anandtech.com

And the pertinent paragraph:
So what do you do if you're buying today? If you have an existing high-end Phenom II system, particularly an X4 970 or above or an X6 of any sort, I honestly don't see much of a reason to upgrade. You're likely better off waiting for the next (and final) iteration of the AM3+ lineup if you want to stick with your current platform. If you're considering buying new, I feel like the 2500K is a better overall part. You get more predictable performance across the board regardless of application type or workload mix, and you do get features like Quick Sync. In many ways, where Bulldozer is a clear win is where AMD has always done well: heavily threaded applications. If you're predominantly running well threaded workloads, Bulldozer will typically give you performance somewhere around or above Intel's 2500K.

Somewhat rosier - but still... even in multi-threaded workloads, only on par or slightly better than the 2500... Performing like an 8-core CPU you say? Then why is the 4-core CPU from Intel matching or beating it??

"Like 8-core performance" is therefore defined by how well it performs against Intel CPUs? With that in mind, you should charge smartphone manufacturers because their 8-core CPUs perform much worse than Intel's 8-core CPUs. Console manufacturers are also good target.

Basically you make own goalposts and then claim your opinion is right based on those goalposts you defined yourself.

 

[Squid Surprise]

And? It didn't perform like 8-core CPU should have? Defeating every smartphone CPU and all but one desktop CPU brand? Really? Like I said, stick with facts.

So because Bulldozer beat everything else than Sandy Bridge, it's not 8-core CPU?

Like Coffee Lake didn't beat Zen3, it was not 8-core CPU?

"Like 8-core performance" is therefore defined by how well it performs against Intel CPUs? With that in mind, you should charge smartphone manufacturers because their 8-core CPUs perform much worse than Intel's 8-core CPUs. Console manufacturers are also good target.

Basically you make own goalposts and then claim your opinion is right based on those goalposts you defined yourself.

Really? "Only one desktop brand"

Now who's being disingenuous? There was (and still is) only ONE desktop brand that AMD competed with... and that was Intel!!

 

[HardReset]

Really? "Only one desktop brand"

Now who's being disingenuous? There was (and still is) only ONE desktop brand that AMD competed with... and that was Intel!!

Yes, your definition in short: if 8-core desktop CPU does not perform like Intel CPU with 4 cores or more, it's not 8-core CPU. Right?

 

[Squid Surprise]

Yes, your definition in short: if 8-core desktop CPU does not perform like Intel CPU with 4 cores or more, it's not 8-core CPU. Right?

It boils down to that... but the REASON for why it couldn't match Intel was because it wasn't truly an 8 core CPU... the CPU did have 8 Integer execution "Cores", but only 4 Floatpoint execution cores, so each integer core had to share a floatpoint with another integer core. That's not a true 8-core CPU...

 

[meric]

Seriously, how are these not obvious releases?

Its what AMD has always done since the inception of the zen microarch.
Not a direct response to anything.
Theyve always added new skus at the end of a microarch's life cycle, just prior to the release of a new generation.

How has no-one else mentioned this?
Its what AMD do.

R5 3600 and X were launched the same day and there's like 3 months gap between 3700 and the x. I don't remember AMD releasing a non X variant with more than a year gap.

 

[HardReset]

It boils down to that... but the REASON for why it couldn't match Intel was because it wasn't truly an 8 core CPU... the CPU did have 8 Integer execution "Cores", but only 4 Floatpoint execution cores, so each integer core had to share a floatpoint with another integer core. That's not a true 8-core CPU...

No and no. Around 90% of all code is integer and that's about only real reason why AMD decided to go with CMT. When executing integer code, amount of FPU capabilities doesn't matter at all.

True 8-core CPU, well, that's just your definition. And we are still talking about 8-core CPU, not "true 8-core CPU"...

 

[Sausagemeat]

Yes, your definition in short: if 8-core desktop CPU does not perform like Intel CPU with 4 cores or more, it's not 8-core CPU. Right?

Dude, AMD themselves admitted they deceived customers. Give it up, all you are doing is making
yourself look stupid for defending AMDs lies which they themselves admitted they said.

And we all know who you are, if Intel did this you’d be screaming about how “anti consumer” it is to lie about core count.

 

[HardReset]

Dude, AMD themselves admitted they deceived customers. Give it up, all you are doing is making
yourself look stupid for defending AMDs lies which they themselves admitted they said.

And we all know who you are, if Intel did this you’d be screaming about how “anti consumer” it is to lie about core count.

Where they admitted it? Providing source is always good idea...

 

[Shadowboxer]

Ryzen 5000 was the first AMD CPU to beat Intel at gaming in over a decade. Because of this AMD knew customers would pay a premium for them. Thats why they omitted the non-X variants of their CPUs for so long. But Alder lake is out now and its rendered almost the entire "X" series 5000 CPUs obsolete either on price or performance or both. So AMD is rolling out a new line of cheaper CPUs to try compete with Alder Lake.

I imagine a 5800 non X would be indistiguishable from my 5800X in games or most tasks and will probably represent the better buy than the 5800X. But it needs to price favourably against the 12700k or the 12700 to make it worth it today. Currently if I were buying my CPU now I would get the 12700K.

Also just a prediction but I think the 5800X3D is going to be a meme. Im guessing AMD will charge more than the $450 MSRP of the 5800X, so $500? And for maybe 1-5% faster. I could be wrong but they have also reduced the clock speeds so games really need to get a boost from that extra cache.

 

[Sausagemeat]

Where they admitted it? Providing source is always good idea...

They settled out of court. This means AMD themselves believed they would lose the case. It’s as good as an admission of guilt.

 

[HardReset]

They settled out of court. This means AMD themselves believed they would lose the case. It’s as good as an admission of guilt.

Like I said, you probably have never been on court. Last year I settled case I believed was a sure win for me. Why did I settle? Because 1. it was faster 2. it was possibly cheaper. You can never know what court decides. Like I said, court decisions are Not predictable.

For AMD settling case was faster and very probably cheaper too when considering reputation also. It makes AMD show bad if there is court case going on. Majority of people are stupid when it comes to tech.

Settling out = admission of guilt. About most *****ic comment I have read this year.

 

[3ogdy]

Where did I say they didn't have the right to know?
And I have no idea what you're talking about in the second half of your comment.

Your question : What is 10 cores gonna tell the average consumer? That it can do 10 things at once?

My answer: Yes, that it can run 10 CPU-intensive applications simultaneously without impacting performance, through affinity.

 

[Sausagemeat]

Like I said, you probably have never been on court. Last year I settled case I believed was a sure win for me. Why did I settle? Because 1. it was faster 2. it was possibly cheaper. You can never know what court decides. Like I said, court decisions are Not predictable.

For AMD settling case was faster and very probably cheaper too when considering reputation also. It makes AMD show bad if there is court case going on. Majority of people are stupid when it comes to tech.

Settling out = admission of guilt. About most *****ic comment I have read this year.

Lmao. All your comments are “*****ic”. Particularly here where you are genuinely trying to claim that AMD didn’t lie. All the facts go against you. AMD definitely lied. You are probably the only person in the world who believes otherwise..

 

[Squid Surprise]

True 8-core CPU, well, that's just your definition. And we are still talking about 8-core CPU, not "true 8-core CPU"...

My first question to you - which you continue to dodge - was
"Can you REALLY state, in all honesty, that AMD delivered a true 8-core CPU that ACTUALLY PERFORMED LIKE AN 8-CORE CPU with their FX?"

So yes, I was talking about a TRUE 8-core CPU... which AMD did NOT deliver.

The first REAL consumer 8-core CPU would be the Intel 5960 - it cost about $1000 but actually did what an 8-core CPU should do... and yes... it wiped the floor with any FX chip.

 

[HardReset]

Lmao. All your comments are “*****ic”. Particularly here where you are genuinely trying to claim that AMD didn’t lie. All the facts go against you. AMD definitely lied. You are probably the only person in the world who believes otherwise..

How about providing proof for AMD lying?

I have been asking sources and proof for long time now. And still all you can do is to say I'm wrong.

My first question to you - which you continue to dodge - was
"Can you REALLY state, in all honesty, that AMD delivered a true 8-core CPU that ACTUALLY PERFORMED LIKE AN 8-CORE CPU with their FX?"

Like I already answered, yes they did.

So yes, I was talking about a TRUE 8-core CPU... which AMD did NOT deliver.

The first REAL consumer 8-core CPU would be the Intel 5960 - it cost about $1000 but actually did what an 8-core CPU should do... and yes... it wiped the floor with any FX chip.

Who defined what is "true" 8-core CPU? You?

Expect that $300 CPU is equal to $1000 CPU? That's what really makes lawsuit laughable.

 

[Squid Surprise]

How about providing proof for AMD lying?

I have been asking sources and proof for long time now. And still all you can do is to say I'm wrong.


Like I already answered, yes they did.

Who defined what is "true" 8-core CPU? You?

Expect that $300 CPU is equal to $1000 CPU? That's what really makes lawsuit laughable.

lol... you really DO have blinders on... I'm curious, how much does AMD pay you? And if the answer is "nothing", perhaps you might want to ask them for something?

It's one thing to settle a court case because it's faster or easier... but not when it involved a payout of millions AND basically ended the FX line as a viable Intel alternative.

They settled because they knew they would lose.

Had they simply kept their PR department away from "# of cores", priced the FX a bit cheaper, it actually might have done well. They weren't terrible CPUs - just not competition for Intel.

 

[HardReset]

lol... you really DO have blinders on... I'm curious, how much does AMD pay you? And if the answer is "nothing", perhaps you might want to ask them for something?

Nothing.

It's one thing to settle a court case because it's faster or easier... but not when it involved a payout of millions AND basically ended the FX line as a viable Intel alternative.

It probably cost millions to maintain years long court case too.

Ended what? Most people never heard about that case.

They settled because they knew they would lose.

Had they simply kept their PR department away from "# of cores", priced the FX a bit cheaper, it actually might have done well. They weren't terrible CPUs - just not competition for Intel.

I asked for proof. Your illusion that "they lost" when they actually didn't is not a proof of any kind.

 

[Squid Surprise]

Nothing.

It probably cost millions to maintain years long court case too.

Ended what? Most people never heard about that case.

I asked for proof. Your illusion that "they lost" when they actually didn't is not a proof of any kind.

Hmmm.... well, obviously it can't be 100% proven any way unless we can interview an AMD exec... but... let's check out this article written before it was settled...

AMD sued: Number of Bulldozer cores in its chips is a lie, allegedly

When does a slab of transistor gates become a processor – the big question

www.theregister.com

Notice how it states that if AMD loses, they might have to pay about $5 million in damages? Now... they ACTUALLY settled for over $12 million.... does this sound like an amount they would "settle" on if they felt they were "in the right"?

Now, I know you will say something that sides with AMD... but since I am hoping other Techspot readers are still paying attention to this thread (I'd understand if they all lost interest at this point), I'm thinking that everyone ELSE will be siding with "AMD lied"...

Kind of like OJ and his murder case... no, we can't prove he did it... but...

 

[HardReset]

Hmmm.... well, obviously it can't be 100% proven any way unless we can interview an AMD exec... but... let's check out this article written before it was settled...

AMD sued: Number of Bulldozer cores in its chips is a lie, allegedly

When does a slab of transistor gates become a processor – the big question

www.theregister.com

Notice how it states that if AMD loses, they might have to pay about $5 million in damages? Now... they ACTUALLY settled for over $12 million.... does this sound like an amount they would "settle" on if they felt they were "in the right"?

Of course it can be proven. Just provide source that AMD lost that case or outright lied. Simple.

"The biz may have to fork out at least $5m in damages and legal bills if it is defeated."

That was just guess.

Now, I know you will say something that sides with AMD... but since I am hoping other Techspot readers are still paying attention to this thread (I'd understand if they all lost interest at this point), I'm thinking that everyone ELSE will be siding with "AMD lied"...

Kind of like OJ and his murder case... no, we can't prove he did it... but...

Read page number 2 from this thread. There are many that disagree with you. Another problem is that even I cannot remember what AMD supposedly lied...

 

[Squid Surprise]

Of course it can be proven. Just provide source that AMD lost that case or outright lied. Simple.

"The biz may have to fork out at least $5m in damages and legal bills if it is defeated."

That was just guess.

Read page number 2 from this thread. There are many that disagree with you. Another problem is that even I cannot remember what AMD supposedly lied...

lol... since the case never happened, it can't be proven that "they would have lost"... but circumstantial evidence clearly leans that way.

Yes, it was just a guess - but a pretty good one! That the case, INCLUDING LEGAL FEES would have cost about $5 million means that their legal fees were NOT the reason that they decided to settle for $12 million.... the far more likely scenario is that they settled because they were going to lose - and that there would have been an actual definition of "cores" that the courts would have handed down - which would have meant no future lying either!

 

[HardReset]

lol... since the case never happened, it can't be proven that "they would have lost"... but circumstantial evidence clearly leans that way.

Yes, it was just a guess - but a pretty good one! That the case, INCLUDING LEGAL FEES would have cost about $5 million means that their legal fees were NOT the reason that they decided to settle for $12 million.... the far more likely scenario is that they settled because they were going to lose - and that there would have been an actual definition of "cores" that the courts would have handed down - which would have meant no future lying either!

If AMD loses case and it costs $5 million, and then AMD settles for $12 million "because they would lose", it does not make any sense. Also if AMD felt they would lose, it would have been much cheaper to settle right away without long legal battle.

Basically, if you are sure you will lose on court, it makes no sense to make case any longer because it will add more cost.

 

[hahahanoobs]

Your question : What is 10 cores gonna tell the average consumer? That it can do 10 things at once?

My answer: Yes, that it can run 10 CPU-intensive applications simultaneously without impacting performance, through affinity.

"The average consumer doesn't NEED to know core count or clock speed. If they do, they'll do the research. What is 10 cores gonna tell the average consumer? That it can do 10 things at once? The salesman is going to tell them the same as they did with 4, 6, 8+ core parts. It will or it won't do what they want the computer for."

 

[Squid Surprise]

If AMD loses case and it costs $5 million, and then AMD settles for $12 million "because they would lose", it does not make any sense. Also if AMD felt they would lose, it would have been much cheaper to settle right away without long legal battle.

Basically, if you are sure you will lose on court, it makes no sense to make case any longer because it will add more cost.

But they DID settle for $12 million!! So by your own logic, it doesn't make sense that they did this because of legal fees! They did it because they knew they would lose - and they knew the damages would be WORSE than $12 million, both as payouts to the affected customers and to their brand's reputation...

 

[HardReset]

But they DID settle for $12 million!! So by your own logic, it doesn't make sense that they did this because of legal fees! They did it because they knew they would lose - and they knew the damages would be WORSE than $12 million, both as payouts to the affected customers and to their brand's reputation...

You just provided source that AMD would lose $5 million if they lose. AMD should have lost immediately and save $7 million if they thought they were wrong. Battling for years tells that AMD thought they were right.