3 ms·
Can you elaborate? From what I understand (I'm not well-informed though), those security flaws stem mainly from carelessness by Intel. So this would assume AMD
by blauditore 9y ago
Can you elaborate?
From what I understand (I'm not well-informed though), those security flaws stem mainly from carelessness by Intel. So this would assume AMD acts equally careless, which may or may not be true.
- gh02t 9y agoI think the argument is that AMD's implementation is similar in complexity and any sufficiently complex implementation will likely have vulnerabilities, sloppy or not.
- brudgers 9y agoThe assumption that the flaws arise from the complexity of contemporary CPU's rather than incompetence within the engineering teams at the world's leading CPU company is probably more useful. When problems come to light, those problems are latent bugs. The engineering was equally competent before and after the latent bugs became known bugs. Bugs with decades long latency are most likely to be non-obvious. In engineering terms, the bugs are "errors and omissions" not carelessness or negligence. Errors and omissions arise because humans are fallible and engineering is a human process. One of the features of Intel (and AMD) products is that their primary customers are data centers and that's where the core CPU design parameters come from (not consumers or developers). The consumer/developer SKU's are little more than repackaging and feature tweaking of the chips that Intel/AMD sells datacenters in high volume on 1-3 year cycles. That's what drives the roadmap five+ years out.