More Intel leaks.. this one is not good though

[AlTech]

5 hours ago, Jon4248 said:

hmm interesting, soo XNU is not effected, correct? 

nope. All OSes supporting Intel x86-64 CPUs are affected.

 

Only things not affected are any AMD CPUs, ARM CPUs, Power CPUs, or any non Intel CPUs.

[yian88]

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux-415-x86pti&num=2

 

R.I.P Intel  2018.1.3

dayum boi the performance hit is real with current patch, until properly fixed (if ever) this will erode intel's rep and market away quickly

[Kamina]

If it takes chunk of my gaming performance, I'm going to be pissed. 

 

It would pretty much force me to build a new PC.

[leadeater]

10 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

nope. All OSes supporting Intel x86-64 CPUs are affected.

 

Only things not affected are any AMD CPUs, ARM CPUs, Power CPUs, or any non Intel CPUs.

And Intel Core 2 Duo/Quad and below are unaffected, if anyone is still running those.

[Zodiark1593]

2 minutes ago, Kamina said:

If it takes chunk of my gaming performance, I'm going to be pissed. 

 

It would pretty much force me to build a new PC.

For the games tested, benches show no difference. For games that utilize a VM for DRM implementation, RIP. (looks at Ubisoft).

[NumLock21]

2 hours ago, PatrikStar24 said:

Can I have a dumbed down TL;DR so I can explain the upcoming situation to my tech illiterate family?

World is about to end. Only way to save is to throw every Intel computer away and buy AMD.

[Zodiark1593]

Just now, leadeater said:

And Intel Core 2 Duo/Quad and below are unaffected, if anyone is still running those.

Anyone know if the Intel Atom is affected?

[AlTech]

3 minutes ago, Zodiark1593 said:

Anyone know if the Intel Atom is affected?

if it's a 64 Bit Atom when probably. the Z2xxx Atoms were 32 Bit and so likely  potentially are unaffected.

[leadeater]

Just now, Zodiark1593 said:

Anyone know if the Intel Atom is affected?

From what I understand anything that supports virtualization extensions is affected i.e. VT-x and VT-d

[AlTech]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

From what I understand anything that supports virtualization extensions is affected i.e. VT-x and VT-d

Ouch. That's not good .

 

And just the other day I was contemplating doing IOMMU style stuff using VT-d.

 

Guess not anymore rip lol.

[Zodiark1593]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

From what I understand anything that supports virtualization extensions is affected i.e. VT-x and VT-d

And sadly, disabling those extensions won't fix the vulnerability. That would be way too easy, after all.

[NumLock21]

Intel cpus from the past decade? Now it's 2018, past decade is 2008. During that that time you have your Intel Core 2 Solo, Duo, and Quad, so those are all affected? Basically any cpu before the Core are not affected like the old school socket Pentium.

Long live Pentium with MMX!

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

From what I understand anything that supports virtualization extensions is affected i.e. VT-x and VT-d

Welp, at least more justification for offloading my VMs to my aging FX desktop. (Was originally just doing it due to RAM limitations)

[79wjd]

4 hours ago, DrMacintosh said:

Yep. I don't store any of those things on my computer anyway. 

 

Not gonna gave to Intels BS if this is true.

I like how this is bullshit but Apple is pro-consumer. 

21 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And Intel Core 2 Duo/Quad and below are unaffected, if anyone is still running those.

That awkward moment when the ten year old Q6600 surpasses my 4670k.

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

2 hours ago, Taf the Ghost said:

Bug in hardware, fixed in software. Lots of things run slower. Some, a lot slower.

And people are over exaggerating this like so many things.

1 hour ago, Carlos Andrade said:

Its Intel's fault for being idiots and not fixing this for TEN YEARS.

They didn't have any competition, so why bother.

[ItsMitch]

12 minutes ago, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

They didn't have any competition, so why bother

amd executives rn must be throwing a huge fuck off party

[PianoPlayer88Key]

58 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And Intel Core 2 Duo/Quad and below are unaffected, if anyone is still running those.

 

33 minutes ago, djdwosk97 said:

I like how this is bullshit but Apple is pro-consumer. 

That awkward moment when the ten year old Q6600 surpasses my 4670k.

 

So maybe the tables might be turned in this scenario?

 

Or, maybe my desktop's 4790K will drop performance to this level?

[MoonSpot]

55 minutes ago, leadeater said:

And Intel Core 2 Duo/Quad and below are unaffected...

/me does a happy, yet very sad, victory dance.

[Rune]

[Adama]

2 hours ago, zeph_solaris said:

No.  You're still getting a processor that runs on x-architecture at y-clockspeeds.  It's not intel's fault that your operating system may get an update that makes it perform slower.

 

I'd really like to see all benchmarks redone after these updates go into place to see just how much of a hit tasks of all sorts take.

Yea lets just ignore the fact that the whole reason is a hardware flaw

[WereCatf]

This is gonna hurt cloud computing/virtualization/hosting-providers like a mothertrucker, including the really big names like e.g. Microsoft and Amazon. They'll basically have to rebalance the workload on every single server built-on on Intel-hardware because of the drop in performance and then buy new hardware to offset the loss -- at least in cases where customers were promised a specific performance-level. I can just imagine the collective groan from all the thousands of sysadmins and the work they're going to have to go through.

 

Though, AMD is gonna laugh all the way to the bank on this.

[Zodiark1593]

1 minute ago, huilun02 said:

Might be time to move on from my 4790K to Ryzen

Ugh, DDR4 is way the heck too expensive for me to ever justify such a move.

[Mira Yurizaki]

11 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

This is gonna hurt cloud computing/virtualization/hosting-providers like a mothertrucker, including the really big names like e.g. Microsoft and Amazon. They'll basically have to rebalance the workload on every single server built-on on Intel-hardware because of the drop in performance and then buy new hardware to offset the loss -- at least in cases where customers were promised a specific performance-level. I can just imagine the collective groan from all the thousands of sysadmins and the work they're going to have to go through.

 

Though, AMD is gonna laugh all the way to the bank on this.

Or the companies that think the performance they have is an acceptable risk to an exploit, among other things that companies like to do to save money.

 

Because if anyone's going to pay for those hardware changes outside of an upgrade cycle, it's you.

[WereCatf]

1 minute ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Or the companies that think the performance they have is an acceptable risk to an exploit, among other things that companies like to do to save money.

I could totally see smaller ones doing that, but e.g. Microsoft and Amazon, no. They just cannot afford such a risk, they have high-end customers from all sorts of fields, including physics, medical and military -- those customers would disappear instantly if it came out that Amazon/Microsoft was risking the security of their stuff like that, let alone if something actually did leak for real.

[mr moose]

Is there any evidence Intel knew about this for the last ten years or do we just have the typical armchair experts again pontificating Intel's ineptitude and evilness?

 

No one can escape the law of averages. And I am damn sure no one posting in this thread could even come close to engineering a cpu let alone perfectly avoiding every single exploit/bug you might encounter in doing so.