Any links to share ? It’s all fine and dandy here. (It would be incredibly easy just to flash the old bios back if anyone has issues after updating microcode)
@liveonloan @OldTarget Check whether inSpectre utility is 32-bit or 64-bit. It is known strange behaviour on some installations of 64-bit Windows - 32-bit process gets results different from 64-bit process with exact same source code.
https://www.win-raid.com/t3352f47-First-Aid-by-CPU-Microcode-Update-via-UBU-Tool.html Don`t know whether it is relevant to CPU you discuss with Emperor though.
All done to make you buy new hardware, also this tool is it to check weather they can still back door me? Or to open another back door so in 5 years they can reopen this can of worms. Smmh, We all know from the news who is and who isnt. I'll not be using anything SUGGESTED on my computer, cause I don't have 3K to go out and replace what little i do still have.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1645289/...spectre-performance-and-stability-differences Several others reported the same, I would skip this update.
Cheers for that i’ll keep an eye out. Not seen or noticed anything untowards here yet, but if i do I can go back to rev 22. I’m the meantime i’ll stay on 23. My overclock is rock solid stable as it always was.
Only source is author of that InSpectre utility. I have not searched for the original author page with links - may be he offered both versions. You can send personal message to big boss Hilbert and ask whether he got the contacts of inSpectre author. PS Also you can try my utility which is made from PowerShell script published by Microsoft, but I am almost certain that it will give same results as mentioned script.
AFAIK, there is *no known malware* called either Spectre or Meltdown--these are the nicknames of *vulnerabilities* that have been shown to exist by proof-of-concept but for which there is as of yet no malware exploitation existing in the public domain. Hence it is improper to say "protected against Spectre" since no malware by that name exists. Seems to me that all diagnostic software should rightfully say, "You have the Spectre vulnerability" or "You do not have the Spectre vulnerability"--likewise for Meltdown (the people who thought of these worm-like names for mere proof of concept vulnerabilities should be hung up by their toenails, imo... Most of the time, proof of concept vulnerabilities are referred to by innocuous names like "I-312572," etc. And they are quietly patched and shored up.) So what happens if you do not patch against the Spectre or Meltdown vulnerability at the present time? Nothing, because there is no software which is exploiting either vulnerability. If there is it might be nice if some of these "security firms" would tell us about it and identify it, don't you think? I certainly do. Patching is up to the individual, but I think it only fair that people get the straight scoop on this--because if either of these vulnerabilities has been exploited by any software in the public domain I have yet to hear of it. Ergo, you cannot "get" either Spectre or Meltdown atm. You may have the theoretical proof-of-concept vulnerabilities, but as of now there is no software that exploits either--so you cannot "get" them. I will patch at the appropriate time, but I am in no hurry. Already seedy lawyers are beginning class action suits against Intel and AMD for vulnerabilities that have not been exploited and by which no one has been damaged...! IMO, the people behind the sky-is-falling names like Spectre and Meltdown are the same ones pushing the lawsuits. It's disgusting how corrupt things have gotten these days.
ASUS ROG Maximus X Hero (Wi-Fi AC) Intel Core i7-8700K Meltdown - Safe Spectre - Safe Performance - Good
EVGA has already issued updates for all their X99 boards. Mine is fully stable, and is fully patched.
So using InSpectre utility with admin and clicking the remove meltdown protection what does it do exactly to disable it? Remove the update from Windows? Just curious how it removes it to make sure it has.
No. There are registry values for that. Described here https://support.microsoft.com/en-us...ive-execution-side-channel-vulnerabilities-in
So it uses registry values to stop the patch? As long as it's not in use like the utility says thats good.
Not a good idea, it seems most have whea errors(just leave hwinfo64 on while doing stuff). Anyways the fact that it's wide spread enough, it doesn't matter that a few report "i have no issues". For the general public, it's better to wait.
I saw your single link. Are there other reports besides that one? After all you're pretty much claiming every single BIOS update for millions of processors is flawed.
Nope^...He said> ..."For the general public, it's better to wait." I sure do hope he's right ...my sandy bridge has no hope otherwise.
Many thanks Hilbert for posting this! I have been using some of Steve Gibson's software for over a decade; he is truly an amazing utility creator.
I'm not making claims. Data is there. I've seen it on one of my sytems and if you actually read that thread many people have said the same thing. Even Intel says do not update the microcode if you haven't. If you read, intel specifically states that recommendation for haswell/broadwell. Point is, if intel says not to update and others have reported issues, why take the risk? They will be implementing a newer revision.
