3 ms·
>It is known since... forever?, that one should not speculate across security boundaries. ... if you value security over raw performance. Clearly Intel has dec
by simias 7y ago
>It is known since... forever?, that one should not speculate across security boundaries.
... if you value security over raw performance. Clearly Intel has decided at some point that it was worth playing with fire in order to get ahead in benchmarks. In their defence it seems to have worked reasonably well for them for quite a while.
>The people most annoyed are the users.
I wish, but I wonder how much of that is true. Are most users even aware of these problems? They get patched automatically by OS vendors and then most of the time they won't hear about them anymore. I think the "nobody gets fired for choosing Intel" will probably still prevail for quite some time.
- ptx 7y ago"In their defence"? The fact that things worked well for the perpetrator (until they were caught) at the expense of the victim isn't an argument usually brought up by the defence.
- jrochkind1 7y agoIt is when the only "court" is how much money you can make.
- gdy 7y agoAnd you are accused of being stupid.
- qeternity 7y agoFor most of Intel’s existence people ran fairly trusted workloads side-by-side. It wasn’t until “the cloud” that things really changed.
- rcthompson 7y agoI wonder how much of Intel's long-term perceived lead over AMD in performance is explained by compromising on these security issues that are only in the past few years being (known to be) exploited.
- blackflame 7y agoThis might be true in recent history, but Intel's Core architecture had AMD on its heels for several years.
- mantap 7y agoYou have to distinguish between mitigating an issue in software/firmware, and fixing it in hardware. You can't unfab a chip, so the software/firmware mitigation is necessarily crude. The actual performance advantage Intel was getting from "cheating" was most likely small.