AMD Sued For Deceptively Marketing Computer Processors


For those of us who need computers that can
do a little bit more than basic web surfing and document editing, we always want to go
for the best available. And typically that means finding the computer
with the best processor, the fastest processor and the most cores. And so AMD, one of the top processor manufacturers
here in the United States has been marketing their bulldozer line of processors as having
eight cores, which is very attractive to people who need a very powerful computer. Of course, unfortunately for AMD, they actually
got hit with a class action lawsuit not that long ago because those eight core processors
actually only had four cores. They’ve now agreed to a 12 plus million dollar
settlement and I have Scott Hardy with me now to explain what’s happening. So Scott, before we talk about who is eligible
for this settlement, take us back and kind of run through what happened with this case. Sure. So AMD hopped on the bandwagon as Intel does. And just like you said, when you’re buying
a new computer processor for, you know, you’re buying a new computer, you’re like, man, I’m
going to be building my own computer. I want to get the most possible. Originally it was quad core, four cores, and
then you went, oh, this is the six core processor, this is great. Then AMB came out with their bulldozer processor. The nickname is the bulldozer, the FX line
of processors that had eight cores. And you go, well that’s an easy decision that’s,
you know, six or eight is better than six or four, so let’s go ahead and buy that. But the issue is when you’ve got the original
four cores or even the six core processors, those were all independent cores. So essentially they were four or six independent
processors that can all process instructions independently. While with the eight cores, that’s not really
the case. With the eight cores, it’s actually only four
independent processors. So you’re, you know, you can provide, you
can process four different lines of instruction at the same time instead of eight which was
marketed and promised according to the class action. And that’s what got AMD in trouble because
they sold more than a million of these processors. So there are a lot of people out there that
thought they were getting eight cores of computational power and in fact really were actually getting
more around the fact of four. So this settlement itself of 12 million, if
they sold more than a million, 12 million seems very small. Right? I mean computers are expensive. Processors are expensive. If you just go out and buy, you know, that
on your own to, to build your own. And so 12 million for 1 million people who
bought this thing that was falsely marketed. That does seem like a small amount. And I know we obviously, we have a lot of
people part of the settlement that won’t even claim it, that don’t even know it, that aren’t
paying attention right this second when they should be. So I don’t, what’s your thoughts on the number
here? Because again it, it seems small to me. Well, if they’re able to pay every buyer,
it’d be a $300 million settlement because that’s what they’re paying out per processors. They’re expecting to pay out around $300 per
claimant. But this only covers people who are in California
or bought their, bought their processor, processor through AMD. So it’s interesting, they’re expecting a disastrously
low claim rate to have that $12 million cap on it. And by selling people that they expect $300,
because if they get a very low claim rate and they get a less than a 1% claim rate,
then you know, you could see a very high settlement because the payments all depend, for this
particular settlement, on how many claims are submitted. So if they get very few claims, you could
get a lot more than $300 per processor. If you get, if there are a ton of claims,
then you might only get $10 or $20. But, it’ll be interesting to see how many
people actually submit their claims and they actually allow a fairly high number of CPU
purchases without proof of purchase to be submitted. So you can say if you bought them, you can
claim that you bought five CPU’s without submitting proof of purchase. Which I’m surprised at because you would think
these are marketed to consumers, consumers are going to buy one, two, maybe three if
they’re, you know, buying them for a LAN. But if you do have proof of purchase than
absolutely submit your receipts on this because you are guaranteed a higher payout. And, you know, if you’re a computer geek that
likes to build their own computers, chances are, and you bought it through amd.com then
you’ve got that email from AMD showing the number of processors you bought. I would recommend that you submit that proof
of purchase with your claim, even if you claim five or less. You know, that kind of beats any challenge
to your claim to the punch because administrators will challenge random claims and if you don’t
have that proof, then you’re out. So if you bought these processors, submit
that proof of claim along with your, submit that proof of purchase along with your claim
to maximize how much money you’ll be able to get back from this settlement because it
could be a lot of cash. And again, as you mentioned, this is for people
who bought it in California or purchased directly from the AMD website. There is a link in the description of this
video over to Top Class Actions and in that link you will be able to find the model numbers,
everything you need to know to identify whether or not your processor was part of this settlement. So I always encourage everyone, follow that
link, look at these model numbers, match them up against yours if you have an AMD processor
and see if you qualify. And if you do, obviously take the time, fill
out the forms, make this happen. And again, if you can find your receipt, your
proof of purchase, anything like that, emails, a best buy account, whatever it is, go through
and find that proof of purchase. Because it could save you a lot of hassle
and get you more money in your pocket. Scott Hardy, Top Class Actions, thank you
very much for telling us about this today. You’re welcome. Thanks for your time, Farron.

36 thoughts on “AMD Sued For Deceptively Marketing Computer Processors

  1. As always this episode of the show was of maximum interest.
    Can't say I have ever felt like I've wasted my time while watching this show.

  2. Youuuuuuuuuuuuuu meannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn the people that came out with the Ryzen, the best processor out there? Also, processors go on and off, they were always on, making it simulate an 8 core.

  3. I was/am eligible for this class action lawsuit …. But I don't even care at this point. They did false advertise I still own the FX850 which was sold as an 8-Core CPU but when I benched it, it was only a 4-Core CPU with 8 theoretical cores …basically each core was running with dual threads for each. Which makes sense to it's performance. But it's way to far out there. I'm already running the latest Zen2 Ryzen processors. It's old news and even if I got 2-3 hundred bucks…it's still not worth the effort. I bought mine directly from AMD as well and have it complete in box. I am collecting it as a collectable piece.

  4. thanks for the info otherwise i wouldn't have known. I've bought two processors from California and they are on the list. matter of fact the words I'm typing are being generated from one of the rouge processors right now.

  5. Original review of the Bulldozer architecture is quite explicit and well known. " A two module Bulldozer CPU, has four integer cores (and 2 FP cores) and is thus sold as a quad-core CPU. A four module Bulldozer part with eight integer cores is called an eight-core CPU." These could have been called 4 core 8 thread CPU's. Would that have made any difference to the purchasing outcome?

  6. The Bulldozer Core was also their worst lineup several years ago. Glad I skipped that generation, but I would have gotten a free processor out of it in the long run. I wonder how many people are still running AM3+ slots and DDR3, other than me.

  7. In computing terms 'core' does not mean anything. It is all how many threads the CPU can run, the bulldozer can run 8 threads concurrently. The only thing the 'cores' share is the floating point processing unit. This is a nothing lawsuit brought by lawyers who don't know the first thing about computing.

  8. Come on Ring of Fire…. what’s next… a class action lawsuit about the original iPod’s with monochrome screens?

    Somewhere in the specs for the Bulldozers, it more than likely states 8 cores ( 4 physical cores = 8 logical cores using Hyper Threading )

  9. Somehow I feel everybody is being sabotaged, one way or another. Haven’t you all, noticed it’s been back to back, so many businesses, are all suddenly corrupt, or incompetent, so they could be sued, or need to file bankruptcy, due to sudden malfunctions, misinformation, incompetence run amok everywhere you look? When things, for the most part, have been good businesses, now seems no good. One right after another, a lot of business closed shop, went out of business. What’s really going on? Is this the taking America down? Just check it out, for the last couple of years, seems to be picking up. Am I the only one to notice? And don’t forget PG&E, BOEING Airlines, So many Companies being, sued, fined, police actions, causing lawsuits, the list goes on… its like a force working against the USA, I have my opinions, to all this.i know about responsibility & accountability, and all that, something’s just not right.

  10. This is an old story, on the other hand, where is the class action lawsuit against Intel and Maxon, for actively putting in code to look for Genuine Intel for the benchmark Cinebench to run better on Intel products and poorly on AMD products, sound like a corrupt scheme to me… Intel is just as guilty of misleading customers, this happened during the Pentium Duo and Athlon X2 days, this was when the Athlon X2 was way faster than the Pentium Duo, however, on that particular benchmark Intel's Pentium Duo outperformed AMD's Athlon X2, even though the Athlon X2 was much faster in actuality.

  11. This is an oversimplification of the issue. It's a bit difficult to actually pin down what a cpu core is. Sure AMD'S cpu cores shared recources but the thing was still pretty dam good in programs that could utilize the full 8 cores.

  12. as I understand it, the "8 core" is 8 Integer cores and 4 floating point units, which in my opinion is a minor deception.

    but like many have said, this is kinda old news

  13. It is not 4 cores. It is 8 cores but it is only 4 floting points procesors but 8 of all the rest… so old 286 and 386 were not procesors? They did not had floting point integreted into procesor…

  14. Well, hell… I am typing this on my AMD FX 8150 powered computer… IN NEW ZEALAND!!! SO I don't get to claim my money back. FCUK!!!

  15. This is really old news! Not sure why it's being covered now. This happened to AMD's FX cpu series from like 4 or 5 years ago. Right now AMD is killing it with Ryzen!!!

  16. omg this is a very old news. they don't even make bulldozer anymore. They actually have the fastest cpu right now with their Rysen CPU's. Omg stick to politics. This was embarrassing

  17. What the hell? This is computer geek news… got any class actions involving Milwaukee or Rigid power tools? Or how about Sherwin Williams paints? … there’s a definite winner. Their paint is a huge ripoff.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *