AMD this month has agreed to pay compensation that totals $12.1 million to users who purchased FX-8000/9000 CPUs via its website or in the state of California. The case comes down to AMD advertising these processors as having 8 cores, and the claim that a shared FPU unit within a 'dual core' module does not constitute an actual core of performance similar to a separate core/FPU unit. Users who qualify for the compensation are estimated to recieve in the region on $35, depending on the exact uptake, and no one person can claim more than $7500.

AMD’s Bulldozer microarchitecture used 'dual-core modules' containing two independent ALUs and a shared FPU. AMD believed that such design allowed it to call its FX-8000 and FX-9000 series processors as the industry’s first eight-core desktop CPUs, yet the latter were quite often behind their quad-core rivals from Intel in terms of performance. As a result, a group of people from California filed a class action suit that accused AMD of false advertising back in 2015.

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.

Under the terms of the deal, AMD has to create a $12.1 million settlement fund that will cover compensations to the end users, attorney fees, and settlement administration fees. The Class Counsel agreed to limit its petition for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses to no more than 30% of the fund, or $3.630 million, whereas the costs of settlement administration will be between $350,000 and $700,000. As a result, the pot to share between the actual purchasers of AMD’s select FX processors will be between $7.77 million and $8.12 million.

Purchasers entitled for up to $7500 total, have a confirmed purchase(s), and to have purched one of the processors while living in California or from AMD's website. It is noteworthy that people who bought AMD’s FX-8000E series CPUs with reduced power consumption are not eligible to get a reimbursement, and neither are people who purchased AMD’s six-core and quad-core FX-6000 and FX-4000 products.

It is hard to estimate how much money will each owner of AMD’s FX-8120, FX-8150, FX-8320, FX-8350, FX-8370, FX-9370, and FX-9590 processors will get, but considering the fact the settlement is limited to select CPUs and residents of California and those from AMD.com, actual sums may be quite sizeable. Should the actual value per unit be over $300, this will be subject to court approval.

AMD and the Settlement Administrator are order to crease a website at www.AMDCPUSettlement.com that should include the ability to file claim forms online. At press time, the website was offline, but it should be up shortly. We are awaiting AMD's official press release on the matter.

Update:

AMD has given an official comment on the result:

"AMD is pleased to have reached a settlement of this lawsuit. While we believe the allegations are without merit, we also believe that eliminating the distraction and settling the litigation is in our best interest."

 

Related Reading

Sources: PACER, The Register (click through for document filing)

POST A COMMENT

80 Comments

View All Comments

  • Korguz - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link

    simple, like one person on here thinks, intel is the god of the cpu world, and can do nothing wrong, but does everything right. and also seems to imply, that intel has done more for the cpu, then any one else in the world, thats why amd doesnt get a shake.
    " Intel didn’t need to put anything substantially better out " but they COULD of, instead, they stagnated cpu development, kept mainstream stuck at quad core, and kept raising prices. if it wasnt for Zen, we could very well be still have quad cores in the mainstream, and cpu prices, could of been even higher. maybe he is blaming amd, because we all have been screwed by intel for so long, we dont know the difference ?
    Reply
  • plewis00 - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link

    If you’re stupid enough to read and misinterpret my comment as ‘Intel are gods’ then I’m not wasting more time - it’s easy to take an argument to extremes for your own end. If this was the other way round, everyone would be happy to get the pitchforks out. The Bulldozer setup was awful, it misled buyers into thinking they had a great multi-core setup in the same way as Intel did the clockspeed race before it. And don’t say ‘buyers should have done their research’ as they don’t - I still see people ‘buying an i7’ because it’s ‘better for gaming’ when they’re choosing an ultrabook. Instead of chasing IPC, you got power savings for the last few years. Of course it’s cool to hate Intel but you need two or more chip makers in the market, and you’ll buy the best, which is basically Zen right now. Reply
  • Korguz - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link

    FYI.. plewis00.. i wasnt referring to you.... Reply
  • plewis00 - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link

    Ok sorry. Miscommunication, my apologies. Reply
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link

    AMD also decided to try to get profit from enterprise by making Bulldozer an enterprise-centric design.

    Had it decided to go after gamers it wouldn't have cut the floating point resources, obviously. It wouldn't have gone for 8 cores. It would have, instead, released the Cinebench killer — a CMT part with 8 floating point cores and 4 integer cores!
    Reply
  • Haawser - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link

    Was a garbage lawsuit when it started and is still garbage. AMD probably figured it was cheaper to just pay $12m now than keep hiring lawyers to take it through endless plaintiff appeals.

    Given that the bloodsuckers have already racked up $3.6m... they're probably right.
    Reply
  • 0iron - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link

    It amazed me that the lawyer got 30%, it should be 10% max. Reply
  • Charlie22911 - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link

    Tangentially related: Waiting on lawsuits against ISPs marketing “Unlimited” internet. I’ll go ahead and hold my breath. Reply
  • Samus - Wednesday, August 28, 2019 - link

    I'm waiting for the lawsuit against zero calorie "naturally" flavored waters that actually have around 5 calories :) Reply
  • Thunder 57 - Thursday, August 29, 2019 - link

    Didn't you read, zero calories "per serving". The whole serving thing is so stupid since they are unrealistic 98% of the time. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now