In a filing first spotted by The Register, AMD has offered the settlement based on the court's rejection of the company's argument that ' a significant majority' of the processor-buying public would understand that marketing its Bulldozer chips as the first eight-core desktop processor would mean eight-integer-cores-plus-four-FPUs. The case has been running through the courts still, though, and now AMD is wanting it over and done with - and has proposed a settlement of £9.85 million to close it. Since the lawsuit was filed, the Bulldozer architecture has been dumped in favour of a more traditional microarchitecture family dubbed Zen - just as Intel dropped its own underperforming long-pipeline NetBurst microarchitecture. Tom Dickey, who brought the suit, disagreed: The paired integer cores shared hardware, including a single floating-point unit (FPU) this, Dickey argued, made the paired cores more akin to a single physical core with some multi-threading capabilities - able to execute two integer operations in parallel, but only one floating-point operation. When counting up the cores of a Bulldozer design, AMD counted pairs of integer cores as distinct processor cores - thus making the top-end parts an eight-core chip. Disappointing performance is one thing, but there was a bigger complaint: In 2015 a class-action lawsuit alleged that AMD was mis-selling the parts, based on a disagreement on exactly what constitutes a processor core. Echoing rival Intel's own NetBurst flop, Bulldozer was a long-pipeline design which proved unable to compete head-to-head with Intel's NetBurst successors. AMD has reached an agreement in the class-action suit alleging it misled buyers as to the core count of its Bulldozer-era processors, pledging to pay £9.85 million to close the case.Īnnounced back in 2007 and first shipped in 2011, AMD's Bulldozer architecture was a gigantic misstep for the company.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |