anotherriddle

The 8700K is already sucks up a bunch of power, will be interesting to see if an eight core version sets fire to the socket like X299 does.
 
Shitposting aside, I don't think the average consumer really cares about power consumption that much, it's really only vitally important for mobile platforms (including laptops). I much prefer this universe where a manufacturer is willing to produce a CPU with a silly TDP in the name of competition rather than one where they don't because "muh power draw would be too high".
 
Products like this and for example 7990 are stupid, but they are on the enthusiast side of things anyway, people who buy them don't really care if they consume 400W or 500W, in much of the world electricity is cheap as chips. 

thank you! It is frustrating how often this argument of blocking mining comes up. Blocking arbitrary code in hardware is not in the interest of consumers.

thank you! It is frustrating how often this argument of blocking mining comes up. Blocking arbitrary code in hardware is not in the interest of consumers.

It would set a bad precedent that they can choose what you want to do with the hardware. And it really wouldn't be that simple. Miners can change their code to evade any blocking attempt, and it'll just end up being a pointless war, and all users will suffer as the chances are there will be collateral damage along the way.
Where are you located? Most nvidia pricing has been near enough back at pre-mining levels for some time, at least in UK.

This is why I said I agree mostly with your statement.
I have a problem with the first bit
This makes it sound like VMs and virtualisation is not used a lot in the in the industry and (for me) by extension downplays any other potential vulnerabilities regarding VMs too.

I agree mostly with your statement, ... but
can we please stop all those comments (regarding Intel and AMD) that something is only a minor issue when a problem only affects virtualisation.
 
Almost everything to do with cloud, distributed compute services, webservers and services, some remote storage solutions, use virtualisation to some extend. This is a huge part of the industry. Some comments regarding Spectre and Meltdown read like "well, I am not running VMs, I am clear -> this is not a problem". Everybody that uses websites and online services is affected by these problems by extension.
 
Sorry, I am just a bit frustrated by this.

I agree mostly with your statement, ... but
can we please stop all those comments (regarding Intel and AMD) that something is only a minor issue when a problem only affects virtualisation.
 
Almost everything to do with cloud, distributed compute services, webservers and services, some remote storage solutions, use virtualisation to some extend. This is a huge part of the industry. Some comments regarding Spectre and Meltdown read like "well, I am not running VMs, I am clear -> this is not a problem". Everybody that uses websites and online services is affected by these problems by extension.
 
Sorry, I am just a bit frustrated by this.

There are always bugs, the problem is that the current thing is for someone to click-bait it massively. In this case, it was a UK outfit. The CTS Labs one was odd because it was the company itself that was doing it.

EPYC? I haven't actually seen that many at all, only recently did there get real offerings from the "big" server names for the main product lines.
 
As for this I think it's really important to point out this does not allow a VM on the host to read any other VM's ram, it can only read it's own. The attack concept they are showing is dumping the full memory content of a target VM remotely that is running on a modified KVM host. SEV VM encryption is still in effect and protects VMs from each other, to remotely dump the memory of a victim VM it must have a public service running like a web server.
 
So in short even with this security flaw the end result is a slight step higher than an Intel Xeon, unless you are doing VM encryption another way which there are solutions for.
 
Edit:
Also the research paper itself does not seem to be a hit job, the reporting on it, honestly not looked at many articles.

Bad, but how many people are actually running "malicious hypervisors". Have to wonder first of all, other than a dodgy hosting company, how an attacker would get a hypervisor on a system without anyone noticing. If you're going with a back ally "I've got a deal for you" hosting company you probably have bigger problems.
 
Bit of a credibility knock for AMD though, SEV was supposed to be an actual feature they could leverage to get cloud hosters to move over from Intel as there isn't really a fully equivalent solution from Intel for SEV.

This is why I said I agree mostly with your statement.
I have a problem with the first bit
This makes it sound like VMs and virtualisation is not used a lot in the in the industry and (for me) by extension downplays any other potential vulnerabilities regarding VMs too.

I agree mostly with your statement, ... but
can we please stop all those comments (regarding Intel and AMD) that something is only a minor issue when a problem only affects virtualisation.
 
Almost everything to do with cloud, distributed compute services, webservers and services, some remote storage solutions, use virtualisation to some extend. This is a huge part of the industry. Some comments regarding Spectre and Meltdown read like "well, I am not running VMs, I am clear -> this is not a problem". Everybody that uses websites and online services is affected by these problems by extension.
 
Sorry, I am just a bit frustrated by this.

This is why I said I agree mostly with your statement.
I have a problem with the first bit
This makes it sound like VMs and virtualisation is not used a lot in the in the industry and (for me) by extension downplays any other potential vulnerabilities regarding VMs too.

I agree mostly with your statement, ... but
can we please stop all those comments (regarding Intel and AMD) that something is only a minor issue when a problem only affects virtualisation.
 
Almost everything to do with cloud, distributed compute services, webservers and services, some remote storage solutions, use virtualisation to some extend. This is a huge part of the industry. Some comments regarding Spectre and Meltdown read like "well, I am not running VMs, I am clear -> this is not a problem". Everybody that uses websites and online services is affected by these problems by extension.
 
Sorry, I am just a bit frustrated by this.

I agree mostly with your statement, ... but
can we please stop all those comments (regarding Intel and AMD) that something is only a minor issue when a problem only affects virtualisation.
 
Almost everything to do with cloud, distributed compute services, webservers and services, some remote storage solutions, use virtualisation to some extend. This is a huge part of the industry. Some comments regarding Spectre and Meltdown read like "well, I am not running VMs, I am clear -> this is not a problem". Everybody that uses websites and online services is affected by these problems by extension.
 
Sorry, I am just a bit frustrated by this.

Or alternatively that it is hard enough to exploit...
Well, it's not like people will buy Epyc CPUs to play Minecraft...  
 
That is a much more sensible qualifier. 
 
Coupled with its low installed based, I think that's the largest impact of this news.
 
True, but they are also not using Epyc for the same reason  

Tis is not what I needed to see when I woke up this morning.

1970-2017 : Very few CPU vulnerabilities, it is an event if one if found.
2018: Researchers start releasing them in batches of 3-12. Reaction reduced to " Another one?"
 

They have tens of thousands of unfulfilled pre-orders, but at the same time claiming that there isn't enough demand for the product due to slow adoption of virtual reality?
Sounds like bullshit to me.

You are my hero, I didn't know about those! This is amazing, I have to read into this. Mind you, I am just some student that likes to tinker with stuff and have already too many projects on my hand but this just too useful. There go a couple of weekends

You are my hero, I didn't know about those! This is amazing, I have to read into this. Mind you, I am just some student that likes to tinker with stuff and have already too many projects on my hand but this just too useful. There go a couple of weekends

there are fairly inexpensive options out there .
I got a xilinx spartan 3E based board for less than 30$ , you just need to be ok with the lower LE and SRAM count

Try just one stick at a time and try different slots too.
It's unlikely that all of your ram is dead so you can find out if the CPU is okay this way
Well, unless that's one 8gb stick.. then you can't really do much but RMA it and try another stick.. Then if it still won't post, try to RMA the CPU.

When you click on the, what I call, "heart menu" and then not click on one of the options and move the cursor away, obviously the menu goes away again - as designed. The problem I have, is that with a higher resolution display and my mouse set to move the cursor relatively fast, when I overshoot the menu area the menu closes instantly, so I have to click the heart again.
I have the same problem on the trackpad of my older laptop that is a bit glitchy. Also I know there are people that have some kind of motor skill impediment (for example because of disability or a medical condition).
To improve accessibility of the like-, funny- and informative- buttons I would propose one of the following solutions:
remove the heart button again and make the like-, funny- and informative- buttons directly accessible in the bottom strip of the comments. This would remove one click and solve the problem. However, I can see that this might not be desireable because of the look, the responsive design or the available space on lower resolution displays. keep the heart menu open when it was clicked until one of the menu items was chosen and then let the menu close implement a delay after the heart button was clicked so the menu only closes after a certain amount of time I have a few other thoughts on functional elements of the forum but these are more a matter of personal taste. Changing the heart button would be a small change that would make it easier to use.

It used to be like this, but the reactions are provided by a different system now, which doesn't make it easy for us to use an interface like that. However, several people have said that they preferred the old system, so it is something that I have been planning to investigate further.
I don't think this is something we can control at all unfortunately.
There was originally a delay (I can't remember how much, probably of the order 500ms to 1s) between your mouse leaving and the menu closing, but several people complained that it made it feel sluggish and unresponsive.
 
Improving the reaction interface is definitely on my radar, but my time is unfortunately quite limited and the system doesn't have much room for flexibility by default, so I don't know whether much will be realistically able to be changed, or whether I'll be able to make any changes soon.