Jump to content

AMD: Difference between revisions

From Consumer Rights Wiki
Reform (talk | contribs)
Fixed template mixing up with paragraph
Reform (talk | contribs)
m (it's broken for some reason so I removed the "Main article: link to main article" template)
Line 22: Line 22:


==="Bulldozer" CPU false advertisement lawsuit (2015-2019)===
==="Bulldozer" CPU false advertisement lawsuit (2015-2019)===
{{Main|link to the main article}}AMD settled the lawsuit with a $12.1 million fine paid to customers who bought a Bulldozer CPU, which is estimated to have compensated up to $35 per proven applicant. The complaint was about the Bulldozer processors being marketed as the "first native 8-core desktop processor", while this was allegedly false advertising. The CPU has 4 modules with each 2 cores that shared resources instead of 8 independent cores that could perform separately and simultaneously<ref>{{Cite web |last=Martin |first=Dylan |date=27 Aug 2019 |title=AMD Reaches $12.1M Settlement In Bulldozer False Advertising Suit |url=https://www.crn.com/news/components-peripherals/amd-reaches-12-1m-settlement-for-bulldozer-false-advertising-suit |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240810172133/https://www.crn.com/news/components-peripherals/amd-reaches-12-1m-settlement-for-bulldozer-false-advertising-suit |archive-date=10 Aug 2024 |access-date=2 Dec 2025 |website=CRN}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Hachman |first=Mark |date=28 Aug 2019 |title=AMD settles Bulldozer class-action suit that could pay out up to $35 per chip |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/397954/amd-settles-bulldozer-class-action-suit-that-could-pay-out-up-to-35-per-chip.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241003044413/https://www.pcworld.com/article/397954/amd-settles-bulldozer-class-action-suit-that-could-pay-out-up-to-35-per-chip.html |archive-date=3 Oct 2024 |access-date=2 Dec 2025 |website=PCWorld}}</ref> And it was demonstrated that the alleged customer damages caused by the allegedly misleading claims can be measured on a class-wide basis.<ref>{{Cite web |date=22 Jan 2019 |title=Dickey v. Advanced Micro Devices |url=https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/01/22/amd-core-class-action.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240217004410/https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/01/22/amd-core-class-action.pdf |archive-date=17 Feb 2024 |access-date=2 Dec 2025 |website=The Register}}</ref>
AMD settled the lawsuit with a $12.1 million fine paid to customers who bought a Bulldozer CPU, which is estimated to have compensated up to $35 per proven applicant. The complaint was about the Bulldozer processors being marketed as the "first native 8-core desktop processor", while this was allegedly false advertising. The CPU has 4 modules with each 2 cores that shared resources instead of 8 independent cores that could perform separately and simultaneously<ref>{{Cite web |last=Martin |first=Dylan |date=27 Aug 2019 |title=AMD Reaches $12.1M Settlement In Bulldozer False Advertising Suit |url=https://www.crn.com/news/components-peripherals/amd-reaches-12-1m-settlement-for-bulldozer-false-advertising-suit |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240810172133/https://www.crn.com/news/components-peripherals/amd-reaches-12-1m-settlement-for-bulldozer-false-advertising-suit |archive-date=10 Aug 2024 |access-date=2 Dec 2025 |website=CRN}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Hachman |first=Mark |date=28 Aug 2019 |title=AMD settles Bulldozer class-action suit that could pay out up to $35 per chip |url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/397954/amd-settles-bulldozer-class-action-suit-that-could-pay-out-up-to-35-per-chip.html |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241003044413/https://www.pcworld.com/article/397954/amd-settles-bulldozer-class-action-suit-that-could-pay-out-up-to-35-per-chip.html |archive-date=3 Oct 2024 |access-date=2 Dec 2025 |website=PCWorld}}</ref> And it was demonstrated that the alleged customer damages caused by the allegedly misleading claims can be measured on a class-wide basis.<ref>{{Cite web |date=22 Jan 2019 |title=Dickey v. Advanced Micro Devices |url=https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/01/22/amd-core-class-action.pdf |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240217004410/https://regmedia.co.uk/2019/01/22/amd-core-class-action.pdf |archive-date=17 Feb 2024 |access-date=2 Dec 2025 |website=The Register}}</ref>


==Products==
==Products==

Revision as of 18:40, 2 December 2025

Article Status Notice: This Article is a stub


This article is underdeveloped, and needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Learn more ▼

AMD
Basic information
Founded 1969-05-01
Legal Structure Public
Industry Semiconductors, Computer hardware
Also known as
Official website https://www.amd.com/

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.' or AMD is an American technology company that designs and sells computer components such as central processing units (CPUs), graphics processing units (GPUs) and related products for both commercial and enterprise use. It was founded on May 01, 1969, by Jerry Sanders and a group of his colleagues from Fairchild Semiconductor.[citation needed (2 Dec 2025)]

Consumer-impact summary

Overview of concerns that arise from the conduct towards users of the product (if applicable):

  • User Freedom
  • User Privacy
  • Business Model
  • Market Control

Add your text below this box. Once this section is complete, delete this box by clicking on it and pressing backspace.


Incidents

This is a list of all consumer-protection incidents this company is involved in. Any incidents not mentioned here can be found in the AMD category.

Abandonment of the sTRX4 platform (2019)

Main article: link to the main article

On November 25, 2019, AMD released the sTRX4 socket alongside their Threadripper 3000 series of HEDT (high-end desktop) processors with the promise of long term support for the platform.[1][2] This along with the strong reputation of socket AM4 led many people to invest into the platform. Despite the promises made, AMD ultimately fell flat and only supported a total of one generation of CPUs before freezing the regular Ryzen Threadripper lineup till the release of Threadripper 7000 on socket sTR5.

"Bulldozer" CPU false advertisement lawsuit (2015-2019)

AMD settled the lawsuit with a $12.1 million fine paid to customers who bought a Bulldozer CPU, which is estimated to have compensated up to $35 per proven applicant. The complaint was about the Bulldozer processors being marketed as the "first native 8-core desktop processor", while this was allegedly false advertising. The CPU has 4 modules with each 2 cores that shared resources instead of 8 independent cores that could perform separately and simultaneously[3][4] And it was demonstrated that the alleged customer damages caused by the allegedly misleading claims can be measured on a class-wide basis.[5]

Products

CPUs:

GPUs:

See also

Intel

Nvidia

Qualcomm

References

  1. AMDOfficial. "Performance Preview: 3rd Gen AMD Ryzen Threadripper Processors for Creators". Reddit. Archived from the original on 2025-08-02. Retrieved 2025-08-02.
  2. Jeffrey, Cal (2019-11-12). "AMD commits to 'long-term' support for sTRX4 CPU socket used with third-gen Threadripper". TechSpot. Archived from the original on 2025-08-02. Retrieved 2025-08-02.
  3. Martin, Dylan (27 Aug 2019). "AMD Reaches $12.1M Settlement In Bulldozer False Advertising Suit". CRN. Archived from the original on 10 Aug 2024. Retrieved 2 Dec 2025.
  4. Hachman, Mark (28 Aug 2019). "AMD settles Bulldozer class-action suit that could pay out up to $35 per chip". PCWorld. Archived from the original on 3 Oct 2024. Retrieved 2 Dec 2025.
  5. "Dickey v. Advanced Micro Devices" (PDF). The Register. 22 Jan 2019. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 Feb 2024. Retrieved 2 Dec 2025.