Intel CPUs afflicted with simple spec-exec vulnerability

[Mister Woof]

2 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

That runs counter to this post however...

You're the one who stated there is a difference between Intel being subject to "victim shaming" and when it happens to company XYZ. So, again, why are they different things in your opinion?

My comment about "not the same thing" was directed at "pleb code and shit security practices"

 

Intel has full faith what they were doing was secure, 10 years ago.

 

There's a big difference. The banks were proven to just not give a shit.

[imreloadin]

1 minute ago, Plutosaurus said:

My comment about "not the same thing" was directed at "pleb code and shit security practices"

  

Intel has full faith what they were doing was secure, 10 years ago.

 

There's a big difference. The banks were proven to just not give a shit.

So the qualifying factor is that it's a matter of if that company "believed" their practices were secure? Is that what you are saying?

[Stefan Payne]

40 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Now, I don't personally believe that Intel "knew about it" and chose to not fix the issue - that's some next level tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff.

No, I disagree.

I'd say that there would/should have been a couple of people knowledgable about this stuff.

 

The Problem with big companies is often that the thing you find and prove to do so don't get reported to the top if they are too bad.

 

So some engineers found that shit and had something to show.

They gave it to their boss.

 

And somewhere between their boss and the ones responsible for the CPU, these things "got lost" or ignored/discarded.

Quote

But, one might argue they should do more testing for these kinds of bugs - especially after Spectre and Meltdown shamed Intel pretty badly.

...or FDIV...

If you remember that one.

 

Later there was another highlight: the F00F thing...

[Mister Woof]

22 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

So the qualifying factor is that it's a matter of if that company "believed" their practices were secure? Is that what you are saying?

There's a clear difference in doing everything right, and still failing.

And doing something knowingly wrong or inadequate, and doing it anyway. 

 

The amount of "haha intel" is disproportionate to the amount of "this sucks, as a community it affects us all".

 

Fanboyism is really amazingly blinding.

 

[pas008]

28 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

I'm getting at that Intel has had 8 Core CPUs for more than 10 years.

And with the shrink to even 32nm (Westmere) a 6 core Desktop CPU would have been more than viable as we have two Data sets on that: Westmere with 248mm²

 

Instead they chose to not do it and increase their profit.

right now....

Now imagine the price of processors is halved.

Now imagine the sales of processors goes down 25%

 

And now look at the company form.

And now look at what happens if the reenue, even if it is only the CPU area, drops by more than 50%...

 

Show you some anti-comsumer shit that should start a shitstorm but didn't for whatever reason.

 

AMD was what you called SANDBAGGING, they did show a CPU, one thats on the lower end and could even be called Ryzen 5.

 

Now imagine back in 2016 AMD took an i7-6700K  and took this CPU and demonstrated THAT against the 6700K and would have been slightly faster.

You now get why shit is hitting the fan?! 

There are 12 Cores and 16 Core Versions of the Ryzen 3000 CPU above this!

 

And Why you ignore the power consumption??
Depending on the source/calculations, its between 40% or 50% lower!

So around half the Power COnsumption of the CPU!

That's only marginally better? RLY??

 

And still, its the "low end" 8 Core!

There will be a 12 Core and 16 Core CPU...

They took one of the shittiest Ryzen 3000 CPUs and showed it off against the _FASTEST_ Intel LGA1151 CPU and beat it.

How the heck can you downplay that?!

 

Yes, because they messed up?
What is right now is now, BEFORE AMD really released their 7nm Lineup.

How do you think it will go when someone will offer a product with the same performance, around half the power consumption and half the price??

 

Why don't you mention the Rome demonstration where a SINGLE SOCKET AMD Rome beat a 2 Socket Intel! IIRC also the best they had.

 

You clicked on the "Statista" Link I provided??

They show that CPUs might be around 60% of Intel.

 

who cares if they have had 10 cores for 19 yrs

its not anti consumer to hold back a product for another platform

if so we all should have 1000hp cars

or 100 mpg cars

 

i bet even if they were halved they prolly make more per chip than amd still and plus its kept inhouse

 

anticonsumer? releasing products and having them fit only current products wait I should be able to put my alternator and starter from my rx7 into my 4 runner?

plus you move forward you dont design backwards

yes they could do it but you are talking to the less than 1% market why waste time

 

we dont know if amd was sandbagging we all seen enough tech shows to know what they are worth in hype

we know nothing just speculation

but I hope they were sandbagging

plus we have yet to see amd's pricing on these cpus

 

 

 

[imreloadin]

3 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

Fanboyism is really amazingly blinding.

Yeah the way you keep dancing around the question is making that rather apparent

[pas008]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Now, I don't personally believe that Intel "knew about it" and chose to not fix the issue - that's some next level tinfoil hat conspiracy stuff.

 

But, one might argue they should do more testing for these kinds of bugs - especially after Spectre and Meltdown shamed Intel pretty badly.

agreed a fix would have been there eventually on the hardware side

19 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, I disagree.

I'd say that there would/should have been a couple of people knowledgable about this stuff.

 

The Problem with big companies is often that the thing you find and prove to do so don't get reported to the top if they are too bad.

 

So some engineers found that shit and had something to show.

They gave it to their boss.

 

And somewhere between their boss and the ones responsible for the CPU, these things "got lost" or ignored/discarded.

...or FDIV...

If you remember that one.

 

Later there was another highlight: the F00F thing...

read above

but your hatred does run deep though

[Mister Woof]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

agreed a fix would have been there eventually on the hardware side

read above

but your hatred does run deep though

it takes YEARS for new cpu designs to be developed. They are working fast to get fixes out. It does not happen in a day, a month, or a year.

 

Ultimately, exploits are faster than mitigation. This is always the case. And it always will be.

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

it takes YEARS for new cpu designs to be developed. They are working fast to get fixes out. It does not happen in a day, a month, or a year.

 

Ultimately, exploits are faster than mitigation. This is always the case. And it always will be.

Indeed, a low level hardware change to the architecture might take 4-6 years to actually filter down to the consumer. Maybe more, maybe less, depending on the specific complexity of the change.

[TheElectronicGeek1]

What is this, like the 5th security problem with most intel chips going back to 2001? Maybe I'll just switch to my pentium III computer with 256mb of ram and windows xp.

[Mister Woof]

2 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Indeed, a low level hardware change to the architecture might take 4-6 years to actually filter down to the consumer. Maybe more, maybe less, depending on the specific complexity of the change.

You'd think with the comments here that intel is like

 

"mwahaha we have known security problems, and we don't care! mwaahahaha we will wait as long as possible to fix this, even if its hurting our image and influence (ahem, Apple?). We'll just take our time to fix these issues. What could go wrong???"

 

/intel rubbing hands together furiously 

[pas008]

3 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

You'd think with the comments here that intel is like

 

"mwahaha we have known security problems, and we don't care! mwaahahaha we will wait as long as possible to fix this, even if its hurting our image and influence (ahem, Apple?). We'll just take our time to fix these issues. What could go wrong???"

 

/intel rubbing hands together furiously 

dont forget we have bug bounty program so we will pay you to expose our long time secret

 

wait does amd even have a bug bounty program?

[dalekphalm]

3 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

You'd think with the comments here that intel is like

 

"mwahaha we have known security problems, and we don't care! mwaahahaha we will wait as long as possible to fix this, even if its hurting our image and influence (ahem, Apple?). We'll just take our time to fix these issues. What could go wrong???"

 

/intel rubbing hands together furiously 

As much as I believe Intel isn't doing things "for the people" (they're doing things for their shareholders), and definitely don't have the best intentions of me specifically at heart, I also know that they're not some maniacal evil company hell bent on letting a massive exploit go free.

 

I assume that once Spectre/Meltdown were discovered, Intel started to make the necessary changes on the earliest possible architecture they could.

 

That architecture is probably still 2-3 generations away, if I were to guess. Possibly longer, if it's a particularly difficult thing to fix.

[dalekphalm]

Just now, pas008 said:

dont forget we have bug bounty program so we will pay you to expose our long time secret

 

wait does amd even have a bug bounty program?

Probably not - they probably couldn't afford it until only recently.

[Mister Woof]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

As much as I believe Intel isn't doing things "for the people" (they're doing things for their shareholders), and definitely don't have the best intentions of me specifically at heart, I also know that they're not some maniacal evil company hell bent on letting a massive exploit go free.

 

I assume that once Spectre/Meltdown were discovered, Intel started to make the necessary changes on the earliest possible architecture they could.

 

That architecture is probably still 2-3 generations away, if I were to guess. Possibly longer, if it's a particularly difficult thing to fix.

thing is, fixing these issues pleases the shareholders. so its one of those things.

[Blademaster91]

3 minutes ago, pas008 said:

dont forget we have bug bounty program so we will pay you to expose our long time secret

 

wait does amd even have a bug bounty program?

I think if AMD paid people well to find bugs, and if they had the huge market share like Intel does there would maybe be more bugs being found.

[Stefan Payne]

8 minutes ago, pas008 said:

who cares if they have had 10 cores for 19 yrs

its not anti consumer to hold back a product for another platform

Depends on your point of view.

It shows that there is no technical reason for them to hold that back.

8 minutes ago, pas008 said:

i bet even if they were halved they prolly make more per chip than amd still and plus its kept inhouse

What the heck are you talking about?!

 

8 minutes ago, pas008 said:

we dont know if amd was sandbagging

Yeah, right...

• you have a 12 and 16 core CPU
• the Competitor only has 8 Cores
• The Software you are demonstrating scales rather well with Cores
• You show an 8 Core CPU and compare it with the Competing 8 Cores
• You are slightly faster
• You bench with the fastest DRAM Speed the COMPETITOR allows

Sandbagging is defined as:

Quote

Sandbagging, hiding the strength, skill or difficulty of something or someone early in an engagement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbagging

Yeah, totally NOT Sandbagging...

8 minutes ago, pas008 said:

we all seen enough tech shows to know what they are worth in hype

You know there are laws for them to be truthful in some ways and are not allowed to play us for a fool and totally overstate their hand??

And we ain't talking about "that asian with the Leatherjacket", that lied with some products.

8 minutes ago, pas008 said:

we know nothing just speculation

That is not true and only your deflection of reality.

We have a couple of things we know right now about the product to know that  there is a big improvement coming. 
 

But that's just Captain Obvious calling..

8 minutes ago, pas008 said:

but I hope they were sandbagging

No, that they would never do.

They would NEVER show an 8 Core Chip when they have 16 Cores lying around.

That would never happen, they would never do that!!111

8 minutes ago, pas008 said:

plus we have yet to see amd's pricing on these cpus

Oh I forgot the Singaporean List is total fake and not real.

All Infos we have about Ryzen 3000 are fake and not real.

Intel will prevail.

Intel Performance is unarchievable for AMD

AMD will never outperform Intel ever...

[pas008]

2 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Depends on your point of view.

It shows that there is no technical reason for them to hold that back.

What the heck are you talking about?!

 

Yeah, right...

• you have a 12 and 16 core CPU
• the Competitor only has 8 Cores
• The Software you are demonstrating scales rather well with Cores
• You show an 8 Core CPU and compare it with the Competing 8 Cores
• You are slightly faster
• You bench with the fastest DRAM Speed the COMPETITOR allows

Sandbagging is defined as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandbagging

Yeah, totally NOT Sandbagging...

You know there are laws for them to be truthful in some ways and are not allowed to play us for a fool and totally overstate their hand??

And we ain't talking about "that asian with the Leatherjacket", that lied with some products.

That is not true and only your deflection of reality.

We have a couple of things we know right now about the product to know that  there is a big improvement coming. 
 

But that's just Captain Obvious calling..

No, that they would never do.

They would NEVER show an 8 Core Chip when they have 16 Cores lying around.

That would never happen, they would never do that!!111

Oh I forgot the Singaporean List is total fake and not real.

All Infos we have about Ryzen 3000 are fake and not real.

Intel will prevail.

Intel Performance is unarchievable for AMD

AMD will never outperform Intel ever...

oh wow

like I have said been messing with tech and watched many tech demos to not take the hype

I know they possibly could have 12 or 16 core considering the die shots but we will not know if it will affect the single core performance

intel has 16 core they could have demo'd against too fyi

laws on a tech  demo what are you talking about?

how was their tech demo on bd? etc etc? lol

 

and back to the top where you didnt understand me

even if intels profit was cut in half they would most likely still be making more per chip then amd because they dont have a middle man that needs to profit too

[dalekphalm]

13 minutes ago, Plutosaurus said:

thing is, fixing these issues pleases the shareholders. so its one of those things.

Shareholders are notoriously short sighted. They typically are looking at the next year's financial results. Maybe a few years in advance. Very few would be looking at the potentially 6+ years it would take to fix these situations.

[Jtalk4456]

5 hours ago, dalekphalm said:

Intel could literally stop all sales of every single product, and continue to employ their entire workforce as normal for 5+ years before running out of money.

 

There's no doubt they are successful, but they are making some huge mistakes lately.

Agreed. This one thing will not take intel down.

BUT this one thing plus the ten other things they're dealing with plus the massive success that has been ryzen, everything combined could tumble the tower

[pas008]

5 minutes ago, dalekphalm said:

Shareholders are notoriously short sighted. They typically are looking at the next year's financial results. Maybe a few years in advance. Very few would be looking at the potentially 6+ years it would take to fix these situations.

didnt 9900k bring in 2 hardware fixes already?

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

didnt 9900k bring in 2 hardware fixes already?

Fixes for what?

 

The 9900K is Coffee Lake-S, which would make it a 9th gen processor. It's possible they've fixed some hardware fixes, but it would depend on what fixes we're talking about. I highly doubt Coffee Lake-S has Meltdown/Spectre fixes (at least, not permanent proper ones).

[pas008]

Just now, dalekphalm said:

Fixes for what?

 

The 9900K is Coffee Lake-S, which would make it a 9th gen processor. It's possible they've fixed some hardware fixes, but it would depend on what fixes we're talking about. I highly doubt Coffee Lake-S has Meltdown/Spectre fixes (at least, not permanent proper ones).

meltdown variant 3 and 5?

according to anandtech

[dalekphalm]

1 minute ago, pas008 said:

meltdown variant 3 and 5?

according to anandtech

Could be - those might have been ones that were incredibly easy to do a hardware fix for, and might have been just squeezed into the Coffee Lake-S revision of Coffee Lake.

[Arika]

For the people who complain about Intel's monopoly on this forum, they sure are happy for Intel to fail and go under giving the monopoly to AMD.