Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, May 15, 2019.
Seems to me like Intel may have been "ignoring" security in the name of speed.
The security issue is not overhyped. Why fix anything if it's not that bad? Intel themselves prove you wrong by working on a fix.
Easily patched via a microcode update? I don't get those for my mainboard / CPU anymore, Haswell-E did not get the last fixes like Skylake etc., de facto I have no way to fix this as a user besides hacking a bios. That's not "easily" done, even for people around here on the forums.
Minimal performance impact, yeah sure. The least impact is on Skylake, the rest is actually pretty hefty. Read the benchmarks. And even if it's just a few %, add it up with 3 major issues and you get -15%. That is not minimal.
The reason you don't feel any more or less secure is because it was researches who discovered this vulnerability, not a black hat hacker. If so, we're back to wannacry that crippled virtually every PC or endangered it, as well as infrastructure. In these modern times, sorry to say, we as simple users are not the target. But have fun with your all so secure Intel CPU when the hackers switch off your districts power grid because an Intel CPU is in the server farm managing the grid. And it's not like this never happened before.
Sure, "lower per core performance" is lower in some scenarios, and higher in others with AMD. Especially for productivity you get a better deal with AMD, not sure what you are specifically referring to that makes Intel shine there. Gaming, you might be right, but not above 1080p. Then the CPU becomes less important, and when you're playing 4K AMD is just as good as Intel right now.
But hey, stay with your Intel CPUs it's fine, to each their own. I don't want a product that's faulty for a premium price when I can very well get by with something else without any issues like breaking OS features with mitigations, crippling performance people paid for, and not even having a fix for everything offered to everybody because older CPUs aren't interesting to them anymore.
And yes Intel does deserve bashing here, why should they not? It's pretty clear that their product has issues, yet they always sold it for a premium price. They didn't know? Too bad, just because I don't know there's a law forbidding something doesn't make me innocent when I still break it.
"Sorry I didn't know every CPU we sold is de facto 10% slower an average than we said because we need to fix so many vulnerabilites the average user doesn't even know, but thanks for your money, we used it well to NOT improve our products that much at all, but our company's officers earned a few good bonuses."
You Intel fanboy realise, that the patches and microcode updates probably won't be available for every one of those older CPUs? Like the last vulnerabilities still haven't reached an available patch state for Haswell and before that? So no, I'm actually less safe than yesterday because now the vulnerability I can't patch is publicly known.
But yeah, go ahead on your high horse and enjoy your security issues and the "better performance" in "every" application (which simply is not true, but read it up yourself).
And yes guys, I'll enjoy my new CPU, thanks Enjoy your old ones as well, I'm sure you performance will only increase with those fixes!!1! INTEL 4 EVA!!1!
A) how you know none used em?
B) if they are known since 2008 how this makes intel look not fixing em in 11 years??
C) with this reasoning if there is no burglary on your neighbor last few years stop locking your door and instead just leave em wide open!
Just build new gaming rig for my nephew. It was my fist AMD build and surprisingly to me it is a nice running machine. Waiting for Ryzen 3000 to build something for my self.
Microcode updates for every intel cpu are available from microsoft, haswell included, they just released one yesterday, I have installed it, it loads before the kernel , not needing any bios or firmware update. My OS is fully mitigated now, so should be yours(1903 latest cumulative update)
Performance is hit to where most people don't even notice it in real life usage. And even then with the "hit", you are still faster than AMD.
I can image that datacenter clients are sooo happy right now...
They cannot, or they will destroyed in never-ending legal trials loop by datacenter/HTPC OEMs and clients
lol, when running benchmarks @720p/50y old software thats not up to date and doesnt know how to run on more than 4 cores?
wow are we going to go to the playground next?
i own both AMD and Intel. however, i used to buy Intel HEDT, but not now. i'm gladly and proudly running Threadripper, which Intel cannot touch. i know this because i use it for work and play, replacing my x79/x99
i also have a Ryzen (+) system... for all of the Intel fanboy's whining about performance hits "not seen in everyday use", that's precisely the case in Ryzen vs I-7/9 performance. very few people "need" (as opposed to want) the fps advantage in games, and as the majority do not game at all they have "moar cores" to get work done.
as far as mobile computing, i'm still rocking Intel/Nvidia despite the price premium, although i expect that to change next year.
as an old fart, i hasten to remind the youngsters that the performance delta between Intel and AMD mainstream processors are less than the former difference between an I-5 and I-7.
I can assure you that Intel does not view the issue as an "ant hill"... Far from it. OTOH, you are certainly making a molehill of the fact that in terms of bang-for-the-buck, AMD is a much better buy. Additionally, the "faster in games" thing has to do with specific game-engine optimizations--that will be ending soon, too. Same exact situation developed when the original Athlon was released, too--soon as game devs used optimized Athlon compilers Intel got left behind with the original Pentium (which Intel wound up cancelling, entirely. I had a few Pentiums and a few Athlons in the day--I know.)
OS microcode patching stinks, imo, for a variety of reasons. Foremost, though, is that every time you reinstall the OS you have to reapply the OS patches. If you want to run another OS you are simply out of luck. With bios/firmware updates you are good to go regardless of OS or Windows reinstalls. Also, Intel is using OS microcode patching only because they cannot do it in their bios/firmware for various reasons on various of their cpus. This issue is a simple one. AMD cpus are simply much more recently designed cpus--much newer architectures--hence the problems in terms of vulnerabilities are quite a bit less in comparison with Intel's much older architectures.
waltc is the man.
dead on about old uArch, how many people b*tch and moan about AMD gpu refreshes when Intel has been doing nothing except cpu refreshes for almost ten years.
If only you believed in facts rather then nonsense.
Not exactly true, with windows 10 anyways. Every time i reformat and reinstall windows 10 i get the latest version of it on a bootable usb drive. I believe they only update the installation media on big updates, so for instance i wanna say the current one is 1809 without the last 4-5 months or updates, but once 1903 comes out then that won't be the case.
Hence why i say its not exactly true, as it depends on if you use the most updated version of the installation software as well as which exact patch someone might be concerned about. But it also does depend on OS.
The evidence is mounting that says they didn't care. However I'm sure they'll start caring soon™
Is there some reason whenever AMD security vulnerabilities get announced, it's always shortly after the Intel ones are announced? And, why are they always given such cheesy names? Sure, Meltdown was a little bit cheesy, but, Intel wasn't the only one affected either.
"Minimal" my ass. Have you seen before and after benchmarks of OSes and microcode mitigations applied? Because in a lot of cases, the performance difference is so great that in cases where Intel had a lead over Ryzen, they lost that lead.
Can you not troll topics like this? This is now the second warning you're getting, no more of this.
Can hate towards Intel also be moderated please
There's a vast difference between criticising a multi-billion dollar corporation and insulting actual people because you don't like what they have to say about a multi-billion dollar corporation. Critique is not 'hate' -- honestly I'm sick of the sight of that word.
I'd also like to add that 1984 is not an instruction manual.
Agreed, but so far in this topic I haven't seen any hate.