i learned to never trust Intel after the "floating point bug incident".
for those too young,
Intel found / was told of a bug in the floating point unit.
the company response to the customers was:
"scientists" ??, yea and anybody else doing long floating point math, like AutoCad users and 3D gamers.
in other words - everybody!
Intel has historically been reluctant to "admit" problems. And, liked to spin problems as "features". Or, as "obvious consequences of the implementation" (yeah, but the implementation details of the chip are ONLY KNOWN TO INTEL INSIDERS!)
By contrast, on my first NS16032 design, the folks from National showed up with a STACK of "errata" (bug list). Instead of being intimidated ("OhMiGosh! What sort of crappy processor IS this??"), it was refreshingly honest: they knew of the problems, didn't choose to hide them and, presumably, were addressing workarounds.
Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly
yea, i allways liked nat semi'
they sent me entire databooks with a single phonecall, all TI sent for years was an order-form with prices.
i dont pay for design-data, so i didnt use TI chips!
yea, i allways liked nat semi'
they sent me entire databooks with a single phonecall, all TI sent for years was an order-form with prices.
i dont pay for design-data, so i didnt use TI chips!
When I lived in the midwest, I was reasonably friendly with the regional TI rep. So, "getting things" (databooks, samples -- even access to inside technical people) was relatively easy.
OTOH, once I moved away and had to deal with the "locals", things went downhill. I finally gave up on TI when they couldn't figure out how to get me off their "junk email" list (I simply closed the email account and cut them off, entirely!)
Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly
Looks like Wolfdale will never get any updates. Intel updated their guidance April 2. Sounds like a bunch of BS to me for the reasons.
--- begin sig file ---
If you are new to this forum, we can help a lot more if you please post clear focused pictures (max resolution 2000x2000 and 2MB) of your boards using the manage attachments button so they are hosted here. Information and picture clarity compositions should look like this post.
We respectfully ask that you make some time and effort to read some of the guides available for basic troubleshooting. After you have read through them, then ask clarification questions or report your findings.
Please do not post inline and offsite as they slow down the loading of pages.
While it's disappointing that Intel is leaving some legacy users out in the cold, it's not entirely surprising. As Tom's Hardware highlights, “the real reason Intel gave up on patching these systems seems to be that neither motherboard makers nor Microsoft may be willing to update systems sold a decade ago.”
"The one who says it cannot be done should never interrupt the one who is doing it."
Looks like Wolfdale will never get any updates. Intel updated their guidance April 2. Sounds like a bunch of BS to me for the reasons.
Just saw on Gamer Nexus, AMD is only releasing microcode updates from Bulldozer and up.
"We have offered them (the Arabs) a sensible way for so many years. But no, they wanted to fight. Fine! We gave them technology, the latest, the kind even Vietnam didn't have. They had double superiority in tanks and aircraft, triple in artillery, and in air defense and anti-tank weapons they had absolute supremacy. And what? Once again they were beaten. Once again they scrammed [sic]. Once again they screamed for us to come save them. Sadat woke me up in the middle of the night twice over the phone, 'Save me!' He demanded to send Soviet troops, and immediately! No! We are not going to fight for them."
yes, but amd is not so badly effected.
nice try though!
If they're not affected, then why are they bothering to release a microcode update?
"We have offered them (the Arabs) a sensible way for so many years. But no, they wanted to fight. Fine! We gave them technology, the latest, the kind even Vietnam didn't have. They had double superiority in tanks and aircraft, triple in artillery, and in air defense and anti-tank weapons they had absolute supremacy. And what? Once again they were beaten. Once again they scrammed [sic]. Once again they screamed for us to come save them. Sadat woke me up in the middle of the night twice over the phone, 'Save me!' He demanded to send Soviet troops, and immediately! No! We are not going to fight for them."
Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly
They're not as badly affected as Intel, but they're affected.
The CPUs are not vulnerable to all the issues Intel cpus are vulnerable to due to different design choices, and on those that affect them, the results are less severe.
GPZ Variant 1 (Spectre) mitigation is provided through operating system updates that were made available previously by AMD ecosystem partners. GPZ Variant 3 (Meltdown) does not apply to AMD because of our processor design.
While we believe it is difficult to exploit Variant 2 on AMD processors, we actively worked with our customers and partners to deploy the above described combination of operating system patches and microcode updates for AMD processors to further mitigate the risk. A whitepaper detailing the AMD recommended mitigation for Windows is available, as well as links to ecosystem resources for the latest updates.
And for those other exploits reported by CTS Labs Research... I think there's already fixes for those even though all require administrative access (basically your system's fuxed already) : https://community.amd.com/community/...-labs-research
They're not as badly affected as Intel, but they're affected.
Thanks for stating what is obvious to everyone... I'm still uisng my 45nm Intel system with XP, and I'll let you know if I get a rootkit while browsing the internet.
"We have offered them (the Arabs) a sensible way for so many years. But no, they wanted to fight. Fine! We gave them technology, the latest, the kind even Vietnam didn't have. They had double superiority in tanks and aircraft, triple in artillery, and in air defense and anti-tank weapons they had absolute supremacy. And what? Once again they were beaten. Once again they scrammed [sic]. Once again they screamed for us to come save them. Sadat woke me up in the middle of the night twice over the phone, 'Save me!' He demanded to send Soviet troops, and immediately! No! We are not going to fight for them."
Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly
I wonder what the real-world risc is with XP or Vista? Both are unsupported now and won't be getting any update. They should run much faster than 7 with SW patches though. I've just recently run tests on a rig donated to ball tombola (to show how capable of such system still is) and the Q8400 had no troubles playing 4k teaser on a display with presentation on a projector. The whole thing (without the projector though) drew up to 150 W while doing that.
BTW - the screwed-up windblows update for Vista is something, I'll tell ya. Close to 3 days was still not enough for the thing to find updates. Think a customised image with at least 100 of the updates already in it will be necessary for further installations, that should take the time down to about 1-2 days.
Less jewellery, more gold into electrotech industry! Half of the computer problems is caused by bad contacts
I wonder what the real-world risc is with XP or Vista? Both are unsupported now and won't be getting any update.
XP is still supported via PSOReady 2009 updates until April 2019.
Also:
1) You can still run pretty much run any new Intel CPU on XP. AHCI drivers are available even up to the latest generation (Don't quote me on that). So if you have a BIOS with the updated microcode, the risk is zero.
2) I'm pretty certain MS has already released the OS-level microcode update for XP.
I'm on XP64 though (not supported) with an undervolted, underclocked Wolfdale-DP, so I am wide open.
"We have offered them (the Arabs) a sensible way for so many years. But no, they wanted to fight. Fine! We gave them technology, the latest, the kind even Vietnam didn't have. They had double superiority in tanks and aircraft, triple in artillery, and in air defense and anti-tank weapons they had absolute supremacy. And what? Once again they were beaten. Once again they scrammed [sic]. Once again they screamed for us to come save them. Sadat woke me up in the middle of the night twice over the phone, 'Save me!' He demanded to send Soviet troops, and immediately! No! We are not going to fight for them."
XP is still supported via PSOReady 2009 updates until April 2019.
Also:
1) You can still run pretty much run any new Intel CPU on XP. AHCI drivers are available even up to the latest generation (Don't quote me on that). So if you have a BIOS with the updated microcode, the risk is zero.
2) I'm pretty certain MS has already released the OS-level microcode update for XP.
I'm on XP64 though (not supported) with an undervolted, underclocked Wolfdale-DP, so I am wide open.
M$ stated XP and Vista won't be getting the updates, nor will any of the systems based on that (PoS for example) because of kernel architecture and BS. Running XP or Vista on newer HW gives me NO benefit whatsoever, the focus is on old HW (Pentium D-C2Q) which 1st comes with XP/Vista CoAs, and 2nd may actually run (much) better with these systems.
But what I mean is, most of the most-used apps like web browsers got updates to mitigate it in the application itself. Besides that, it has been stated that the older the CPU architecture, the more complicated it actually is to gain anything with speculative execution as, well, they do not speculate so much, don't have all the instructions (we are already talking hundrends of new instructions between Wolfdale and say Ivy Bridge) and are generally slower in these things so it is quite challenging to bypass the system. Am I right here?
Cause what I also mean, I got tens of rigs with Vista (Business mostly) CoAs. If we ignore the broken update application crap, the systems will run happily most of current SW still, and actually faster than with 7. Yep. it is ironic, but because of 7 getting the patches, Vista will likely be faster from now on. So I can install original Vista (and activate via phone at the worst) with some (how great?) a risc, or pirated 7 without the risc. I do have chinese CoAs for 7 Pro too, but most of the folk wont be willing to pay extra 25 bucks for it.
Re: Some serious security bug in INTEL CPUs?? Since Westmere possibly
Close to 3 days was still not enough for the thing to find updates.
Last autumn I had the same problem with Win7. There are a few key patches that may bring your looooooong wait down to mere minutes. I googled it, downloaded a couple of updates, then started the Windows Update applet, and minutes later I had all the updates in a nice list, ready for my review.
Are there key patches that reduce the wait with Vista like they do with Seven?
Comment