The class action lawsuit, which struck last week on the desk
AMD executives, had cause considerable consternation in
struggling with many other problems the company. The company was
before the court dystryktowym the State of California in San Jose accused
defrauding clients out of the number of processor cores placed in
their processors Bulldozer, false advertising and unfair
enrichment, and reason demands
damages, an award fine, reimbursement of legal costs
and other measures as may be deemed appropriate.
Analysts warn – lost in the process may completely
AMD ruin. Is it really the end of the red?
The lawsuit is a man named Tony Dickey. He maintains that the AMD
Customer inclined to buy Bulldozer processors through
presenting them as ośmiordzeniowych systems (which in his opinion
It means the ability of the eight calculations simultaneously).
Meanwhile, in his opinion, these processors have only four cores.
According to the lawsuit, this design was created by removing
Components with two cores connected to what’s left in
single module. As a result of this connection cores can no longer
operate independently – and that means that Bulldozer processors
They act worse than he could have expected a typical
consumer, taking at face value to provide the manufacturer, and not
having technical knowledge, allowing him to ascertain the nature of the
architecture. As a result, tens of thousands of customers were
encouraged to buy ośmiordzeniowych processors that do
eight-core are not because they can not simultaneously perform
eight instructions.
Before we dance on the grave of AMD, let’s look more closely
legitimacy posed objections here. Despite the use of
technically imprecise language, not been committed facts
errors. In Bulldozerach we are dealing with construction, in which
two separate cores are joined into a single package, referred to
by the manufacturer as “a module two closely paired cores. FROM
the perspective of the operating system, each module is seen as two
cores, but those cores share a floating point unit
and mechanisms for downloading and decoding instructions.
The Bulldozer module diagram
But actually this architecture meant that AMD deliberately
misled its customers about the number of cores? We looked at
exactly to that achieved by a bulldozer in the benchmarks, and
a commercially available processor architectures – and we are
convinced that this whole lawsuit is just aggressive trolling
devoid of any technical strengths. The question is whether
California court will understand?
Now in testing these processors was confirmed that
performance of a further core scales less than
Intel multi-core processors (which cores are much
more independent), but far ago to the claims of Mr. Dickey.
In most of the tests gains using
all the cores with respect to at least one core was
sixfold. That’s right, each Bulldozer cores in
Performance fared worse than the previous Intel cores
AMD architectures, but it is not the objection raised in the lawsuit against
- AMD benchmark results after the company did not hide. Because
You can not say that this architecture has led to
a situation in which the number of modules should be treated as
The “true” number of cores.
Equally nonsensical is the argument about the impossibility of execution
eight instructions simultaneously. That’s right, each pair of cores
shares in the module one floating point unit (which
incidentally, it can be treated either as a single unit of 256-bit,
or two units of 128-bit), but still the vast majority
instructions that the processor is a fixed point
(at least under typical workloads from which they
customers want to use). Each core module has the
Fixed Point four separate streams, separate planners and
a separate cache, and the processor decodes not eight,
but 16 instructions per clock cycle. Does this mean that it is able
“Execute eight instructions simultaneously”? Neither yes nor no, and
Just the wording of the statement of claim is devoid of technical meaning.
If the California court sees fit plaintiff’s arguments, it
the situation will be boring not only for AMD. The problem because in that
that among the multitude of CPU architectures that do not have one
universal definition of the core. Something else is the core of the
Oracle’s SPARC servers, something else in common
used in smartphones big.LITTLE systems with ARM family and
something else in desktop Core processors. Mr. Dickey apparently
demands that the court created a universal definition of the core,
apparently on the basis of what Intel offers.
But why should we rely on ideas from Intel?
Recall times when CPUs were not built-in
all memory management units (MMUs) and coprocessors
floating point (FPU) when installing, on plates
additional systems such as the 80,387th If the court finds that today
the core is merely a combination of CPU, FPU and MMU, why not
to go further, and not zarządać in the presence of the GPU core, and
the future of quantum computing unit? Because
remains only hope that the courts will not be interfered
the things that usually do not have a clue, and manufacturers will
could invent such a processor architecture which, in their opinion,
best will implement founded workloads.
No comments:
Post a Comment