3 ms·
There's some sort of irony in calling out the x86_64 vendor who's been the least-touched by all of the recent vulnerabilities
by kick 7y ago
There's some sort of irony in calling out the x86_64 vendor who's been the least-touched by all of the recent vulnerabilities
- saagarjha 7y agoTo be fair, I am not sure people have been looking particularly deeply at Centaur processors.
- loeg 7y agoI guess technically the Via Nano (2008) was an x86_64 ISA chip, but their previous cores were all 32-bit and they haven't actually productized the chip in the article yet. The Nano was functionally obsolete long before Spectre and Meltdown cropped up. So I don't believe GP was considering Centaur in the category "x86_64 vendor," which is maybe pedantically incorrect but probably broadly reasonable given the context.
- myself248 7y agoTo be clear, I was calling back to PP's example of AMD's errata. I just built a Ryzen machine myself and like their chips just fine. That was my point. Even if they have bugs, they sell and they work. Centaur's chips will have bugs. Intel's chips will have bugs. They all work, and they all sell. Being bug-free is not necessary, and an unfair bar for PP to set for Centaur when nobody else in the market meets it either.