Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteAMD agreed to pay $12.1 million to settle a class action alleging that it falsely marketed certain Bulldozer-based FX processors as having eight cores. The Northern District of California approved the settlement on February 21, 2020. That approval resolved the case; it was not a trial finding that AMD’s marketing was false or an admission of liability.
What the AMD Bulldozer lawsuit alleged
Filed on October 26, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Dickey et al. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., No. 15-cv-04922, challenged how AMD described certain FX processors built on its Bulldozer architecture. The plaintiffs alleged that AMD marketed the chips as having “eight cores,” but that their module-based design could not perform eight calculations simultaneously without restriction. The court’s final approval order summarizes the plaintiffs’ position as a claim that the processors’ cores could not operate and multitask simultaneously like “actual cores.” These were allegations, not uncontested technical facts or findings after trial. AMD’s 2019 filing describes the claims as allegations as well. The complaint asserted consumer-protection, false-advertising, fraud, express-warranty, and negligent-misrepresentation theories. AMD’s 2019 filing Court’s final approval order Complaint
Which AMD FX processors were included?
The settlement class covered purchasers of these seven models:
- FX-8120
- FX-8150
- FX-8320
- FX-8350
- FX-8370
- FX-9370
- FX-9590
Under the court’s class definition, a purchaser had to have bought one or more of the listed processors while residing in California or after visiting AMD.com. Ryzen and EPYC processors were expressly excluded. The settlement concerned purchases covered by that historical class definition; it did not make later purchases or current resale listings eligible. Court’s final approval order AMD’s SEC disclosure
#1 Best Overall
How much was the settlement, and what did consumers receive?
AMD agreed to a $12.1 million non-reversionary settlement fund. In its 2020 approval order, the court estimated an average payment of about $30.40 per purchased processor. That figure was an estimate, not a guaranteed payment for every chip or a separate award owed to each buyer.
The court cited 123,437 valid and approved claims covering 274,376 chips when discussing the complexity of maintaining the certified class. It also said the fund exceeded 20% of estimated maximum potential exposure when assessing the settlement. The order allowed for a possible second pro rata distribution of residual funds and a cy pres distribution to the Rose Foundation for qualifying amounts remaining afterward. The available court record cited here does not establish a final audited total distributed, so the fund amount and estimated average should not be read as proof of what each claimant ultimately received. Court’s final approval order Court’s discussion of claims and exposure
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
Key dates in the case
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| October 26, 2015 | Complaint filed in the Northern District of California. |
| January 17, 2019 | Court granted class certification. |
| June 3, 2019 | Ninth Circuit denied AMD’s petition seeking appellate review of aspects of the class-certification order. |
| May 9, 2019 | AMD’s filing says the parties reached a tentative settlement at mediation. |
| August 9, 2019 | Parties entered the settlement agreement, according to the final approval order. |
| October 4, 2019 | Court granted preliminary approval, according to AMD’s filing. |
| February 20–21, 2020 | Court held the fairness hearing on February 20 and granted final approval on February 21. |
AMD’s 2019 filing Court’s final approval order
What the court’s approval means
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. wrote that the settlement amount was reasonable given the complexity of the litigation and the risks plaintiffs faced in pursuing the claims. That was the court’s explanation for approving the compromise, not a ruling that AMD committed fraud or falsely advertised the processors. The settlement ended the lawsuit without a trial verdict on the allegations. Court’s final approval order
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Can buyers still file a claim?
The settlement and its approval are historical. The court order cited here does not establish a current claim deadline or an open filing process. Anyone wondering about an existing claim or payment should verify information with an official settlement administrator; the old settlement should not be treated as an invitation to submit a new claim.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
