Promo: Windows 10 Pro + Office 2016 for $33
MSI Radeon RX 5500 XT GamingX 8GB review
ASUS Dual Radeon RX 5500 XT EVO 8GB review
PowerColor Radeon RX 5500 XT Red Dragon 8GB review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5500 XT Gaming 8GB review
Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5500 XT 4GB review
Zotac Gaming GTX 1650 Super review
Radeon Adrenalin 2020 Edition Driver Overview
Guru3D Winter 2019 PC Buyer Guide
Corsair QL120 and QL140 RGB fan review
AMD also gets sued for Spectre
Not just Intel, chip manufacturer AMD now also has been sued for the Spectre security leak. It is a so-called 'class action' lawsuit filed on behalf of the company's investors.
In the indictment, both AMD, the financial director and director of the company, are accused of having artificially increased the share price of the company by not previously announcing that AMD processors are vulnerable to the Specter leak. AMD was informed at the beginning of June last year, sources claim.
Spectre came to light earlier this month with the Meltdown vulnerability and, in contrast to this vulnerability, affects virtually all modern computers, smartphones, and tablets. Investors of the company have, according to the charges, "made significant losses" as a result of the price drop after the publication of the leak.
A spokesperson for AMD told The Register that the company found the accusations unfounded, reports nu.nl. Four lawsuits have already been filed against competitor Intel because of Spectre and Meltdown.
NaturalViolence
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 2009-10-01
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 2009-10-01
#5512291 Posted on: 01/19/2018 01:48 PM
Intel is a disgusting company. Of course I'll keep badmouthing them. Intel's CEO selling all of his Intel stock he could before these bugs were made public is all you need to know to understand what kind of a corporation it is and what are their values. Without AMD, you'd still be dancing around your 4-core max mainstream CPU in 2025, with hardly any generational performance increase to speak of. No use trying to deny that because history has already proven it.
AMD isn't a disgusting company, but its unfortunate decisions in the GPU arena have made me badmouth it as well a few times. Nothing I can do about it.
Btw, these recent bugs, neither Meltdown nor Spectre, while annoying, are affecting my image of either company. It's not like they would have designed the CPUs on purpose so that the bug(s) were there. They are just accidents. While it would be amusing to see Intel suffer in the court because of this, it would do nothing good to the technology industry at large. Intel's CEO, however, should be sued as an individual.
This is a good example of what I'm talking about. These are assumptions, not evidence. The amount of stock he sold is consistent with other years and was planned out months in advance (it takes a long time to sell that much stock properly). There is no proof that this had anything to do with these bugs yet everyone online ASSUMES it must because they KNOW that Intel is evil. So anything bad about them must be true. Could this turn out to be true? It's possible but why treat it as a fact before learning the evidence?
The same with the 4 core argument. It's possible but there is no evidence to support it. But people assume it's true because...it's Intel. Even though this architecture was planned out 5 years in advance. Even though people don't have to buy new cpus and would have no reason to if new cpus weren't any faster or more efficient. Even though Intel's "pathetic" 10% per year improvements are consistent with the rest of the Industry (IBM, qualcomm, etc.) and consistent with AMD (10% per year for Intel or 60% after 5 years for AMD work out to be the same if you do the math). So saying "history has already proven it" makes no sense when there are plenty of arguments to make against it that are consistent with history.
This is what I'm talking about. If the subject is Intel positive news is assumed false and negative news is assumed true before evidence comes out. If the subject is AMD positive news is assumed true and negative news is assumed false before evidence comes out.
It's cyclical logic. People assume negative articles posted about Intel are true because they know Intel is evil. And they know Intel is evil because people post negative articles that they assume to be true. And thus the cycle continues unabated by lack of evidence. Surely you understand that this type of logic is grasping at straws at best right? People that use this logic are desperately looking for an excuse to blame Intel for everything. There is simply no other explanation as to why they would resort to these types of assumptions.
Intel is a disgusting company. Of course I'll keep badmouthing them. Intel's CEO selling all of his Intel stock he could before these bugs were made public is all you need to know to understand what kind of a corporation it is and what are their values. Without AMD, you'd still be dancing around your 4-core max mainstream CPU in 2025, with hardly any generational performance increase to speak of. No use trying to deny that because history has already proven it.
AMD isn't a disgusting company, but its unfortunate decisions in the GPU arena have made me badmouth it as well a few times. Nothing I can do about it.
Btw, these recent bugs, neither Meltdown nor Spectre, while annoying, are affecting my image of either company. It's not like they would have designed the CPUs on purpose so that the bug(s) were there. They are just accidents. While it would be amusing to see Intel suffer in the court because of this, it would do nothing good to the technology industry at large. Intel's CEO, however, should be sued as an individual.
This is a good example of what I'm talking about. These are assumptions, not evidence. The amount of stock he sold is consistent with other years and was planned out months in advance (it takes a long time to sell that much stock properly). There is no proof that this had anything to do with these bugs yet everyone online ASSUMES it must because they KNOW that Intel is evil. So anything bad about them must be true. Could this turn out to be true? It's possible but why treat it as a fact before learning the evidence?
The same with the 4 core argument. It's possible but there is no evidence to support it. But people assume it's true because...it's Intel. Even though this architecture was planned out 5 years in advance. Even though people don't have to buy new cpus and would have no reason to if new cpus weren't any faster or more efficient. Even though Intel's "pathetic" 10% per year improvements are consistent with the rest of the Industry (IBM, qualcomm, etc.) and consistent with AMD (10% per year for Intel or 60% after 5 years for AMD work out to be the same if you do the math). So saying "history has already proven it" makes no sense when there are plenty of arguments to make against it that are consistent with history.
This is what I'm talking about. If the subject is Intel positive news is assumed false and negative news is assumed true before evidence comes out. If the subject is AMD positive news is assumed true and negative news is assumed false before evidence comes out.
It's cyclical logic. People assume negative articles posted about Intel are true because they know Intel is evil. And they know Intel is evil because people post negative articles that they assume to be true. And thus the cycle continues unabated by lack of evidence. Surely you understand that this type of logic is grasping at straws at best right? People that use this logic are desperately looking for an excuse to blame Intel for everything. There is simply no other explanation as to why they would resort to these types of assumptions.
Fender178
Senior Member
Posts: 3793
Joined: 2004-09-28
Senior Member
Posts: 3793
Joined: 2004-09-28
#5512293 Posted on: 01/19/2018 01:58 PM
Not surprised that AMD is getting sued since Intel is it was only a matter of time before they got it.
Suing solves everything.
Stupid Americans. I take it that Americans are stupid but not all of them are.
Not surprised that AMD is getting sued since Intel is it was only a matter of time before they got it.
Suing solves everything.
Stupid Americans. I take it that Americans are stupid but not all of them are.
xIcarus
Senior Member
Posts: 941
Joined: 2010-08-24
Senior Member
Posts: 941
Joined: 2010-08-24
#5512294 Posted on: 01/19/2018 02:10 PM
This is a good example of what I'm talking about. These are assumptions, not evidence. The amount of stock he sold is consistent with other years and was planned out months in advance (it takes a long time to sell that much stock properly). There is no proof that this had anything to do with these bugs yet everyone online ASSUMES it must because they KNOW that Intel is evil. So anything bad about them must be true. Could this turn out to be true? It's possible but why treat it as a fact before learning the evidence?
The same with the 4 core argument. It's possible but there is no evidence to support it. But people assume it's true because...it's Intel. Even though this architecture was planned out 5 years in advance. Even though people don't have to buy new cpus and would have no reason to if new cpus weren't any faster or more efficient. Even though Intel's "pathetic" 10% per year improvements are consistent with the rest of the Industry (IBM, qualcomm, etc.) and consistent with AMD (10% per year for Intel or 60% after 5 years for AMD work out to be the same if you do the math). So saying "history has already proven it" makes no sense when there are plenty of arguments to make against it that are consistent with history.
This is what I'm talking about. If the subject is Intel positive news is assumed false and negative news is assumed true before evidence comes out. If the subject is AMD positive news is assumed true and negative news is assumed false before evidence comes out.
It's cyclical logic. People assume negative articles posted about Intel are true because they know Intel is evil. And they know Intel is evil because people post negative articles that they assume to be true. And thus the cycle continues unabated by lack of evidence. Surely you understand that this type of logic is grasping at straws at best right? People that use this logic are desperately looking for an excuse to blame Intel for everything. There is simply no other explanation as to why they would resort to these types of assumptions.
I'm sorry, your post made sense right up until you said there's no evidence to support my 4 core argument; you proceeded to spout absolute nonsense afterwards, no offense.
It's absolutely obvious they they weren't interested in giving consumers what they want and tried milking the living shit out of their i7-Extreme line. People have been moaning about wanting 6-core mainstream processors ever since before Skylake and Intel has given us the finger.
Look at what Intel has done in 7 years' time: http://hwbench.com/cpus/intel-core-i7-2600k-vs-intel-core-i7-7700k
Then look again what they did in half a year: http://hwbench.com/cpus/intel-core-i7-7700k-vs-intel-core-i7-8700k
You think Intel randomly started pumping up core numbers just because they love their customers, while coincidentally Ryzen was starting to poop all over their lineup? Good lord man, think.
What was planned 5 years in advance? That argument has no substance, unless Intel came to you in 2012 and told you 'dude, in 2017 we will have Coffee Lake, with mainstream 6-core i7 processors'. Because I for sure don't remember any Intel slides back from 2012 saying anything about 6-core Coffee Lakes. In fact, I think we barely even had Skylake info in 2012. Coffee Lake was also so obviously rushed it's not even funny, the stock was 0 in stores for months. It was another of Intel's classic panicked moves, just like the insulting i9 line of processors. But lemme guess, you're gonna defend the i9 line as well right?
You've made it very obvious that you're defying logic in order to fiercely defend Intel in a very fanboyitic manner. It's time to stop doing it because you're not making any sense.
People are biased against Intel, with good reason. Deal with it.
This is a good example of what I'm talking about. These are assumptions, not evidence. The amount of stock he sold is consistent with other years and was planned out months in advance (it takes a long time to sell that much stock properly). There is no proof that this had anything to do with these bugs yet everyone online ASSUMES it must because they KNOW that Intel is evil. So anything bad about them must be true. Could this turn out to be true? It's possible but why treat it as a fact before learning the evidence?
The same with the 4 core argument. It's possible but there is no evidence to support it. But people assume it's true because...it's Intel. Even though this architecture was planned out 5 years in advance. Even though people don't have to buy new cpus and would have no reason to if new cpus weren't any faster or more efficient. Even though Intel's "pathetic" 10% per year improvements are consistent with the rest of the Industry (IBM, qualcomm, etc.) and consistent with AMD (10% per year for Intel or 60% after 5 years for AMD work out to be the same if you do the math). So saying "history has already proven it" makes no sense when there are plenty of arguments to make against it that are consistent with history.
This is what I'm talking about. If the subject is Intel positive news is assumed false and negative news is assumed true before evidence comes out. If the subject is AMD positive news is assumed true and negative news is assumed false before evidence comes out.
It's cyclical logic. People assume negative articles posted about Intel are true because they know Intel is evil. And they know Intel is evil because people post negative articles that they assume to be true. And thus the cycle continues unabated by lack of evidence. Surely you understand that this type of logic is grasping at straws at best right? People that use this logic are desperately looking for an excuse to blame Intel for everything. There is simply no other explanation as to why they would resort to these types of assumptions.
I'm sorry, your post made sense right up until you said there's no evidence to support my 4 core argument; you proceeded to spout absolute nonsense afterwards, no offense.
It's absolutely obvious they they weren't interested in giving consumers what they want and tried milking the living shit out of their i7-Extreme line. People have been moaning about wanting 6-core mainstream processors ever since before Skylake and Intel has given us the finger.
Look at what Intel has done in 7 years' time: http://hwbench.com/cpus/intel-core-i7-2600k-vs-intel-core-i7-7700k
Then look again what they did in half a year: http://hwbench.com/cpus/intel-core-i7-7700k-vs-intel-core-i7-8700k
You think Intel randomly started pumping up core numbers just because they love their customers, while coincidentally Ryzen was starting to poop all over their lineup? Good lord man, think.
What was planned 5 years in advance? That argument has no substance, unless Intel came to you in 2012 and told you 'dude, in 2017 we will have Coffee Lake, with mainstream 6-core i7 processors'. Because I for sure don't remember any Intel slides back from 2012 saying anything about 6-core Coffee Lakes. In fact, I think we barely even had Skylake info in 2012. Coffee Lake was also so obviously rushed it's not even funny, the stock was 0 in stores for months. It was another of Intel's classic panicked moves, just like the insulting i9 line of processors. But lemme guess, you're gonna defend the i9 line as well right?
You've made it very obvious that you're defying logic in order to fiercely defend Intel in a very fanboyitic manner. It's time to stop doing it because you're not making any sense.
People are biased against Intel, with good reason. Deal with it.
gx-x
Senior Member
Posts: 1284
Joined: 2007-03-18
Senior Member
Posts: 1284
Joined: 2007-03-18
#5512297 Posted on: 01/19/2018 02:19 PM
we should sue amd for not making a good competitive cpu for 10 years thus giving intel the monopoly that made us biased against them.
we should sue amd for not making a good competitive cpu for 10 years thus giving intel the monopoly that made us biased against them.
Redemption80
Senior Member
Posts: 18348
Joined: 2009-01-06
Senior Member
Posts: 18348
Joined: 2009-01-06
#5512314 Posted on: 01/19/2018 03:10 PM
Very few people are actually biased against Intel, it's just the usual case of the vocal minority.
The majority is made up of people who either like them, or don't care enough about what they do for it to stop them buying Intel products.
So....are AMD being sued or what??
Very few people are actually biased against Intel, it's just the usual case of the vocal minority.
The majority is made up of people who either like them, or don't care enough about what they do for it to stop them buying Intel products.
So....are AMD being sued or what??
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1699
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1699
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5512389 Posted on: 01/19/2018 08:00 PM
He made the schedule well after learning about the bugs. The bugs were reported to the affected parties a long time ago, after all, not mere months but half a year. According to the man it's "unrelated". Sure.
This is a good example of what I'm talking about. These are assumptions, not evidence. The amount of stock he sold is consistent with other years and was planned out months in advance (it takes a long time to sell that much stock properly). There is no proof that this had anything to do with these bugs yet everyone online ASSUMES it must because they KNOW that Intel is evil. So anything bad about them must be true. Could this turn out to be true? It's possible but why treat it as a fact before learning the evidence?
He made the schedule well after learning about the bugs. The bugs were reported to the affected parties a long time ago, after all, not mere months but half a year. According to the man it's "unrelated". Sure.
David3k
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2003-07-29
Member
Posts: 83
Joined: 2003-07-29
#5512400 Posted on: 01/19/2018 08:24 PM
Now APPLE is getting sued over the same thing
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/18/apple-spectre-class-action-lawsuit/
Best practice would have been to offer a solution for people, us consumers, that offers a set of patches that closes all security holes and fixes the issues. "Best practice" in this case means, best case for the company, not the consumer. They did what they had to do (and were ready with their aimed at time to release the microcode fixes), but they had half a year and the mainboard vendors did not do or get anything. All they have to do is compile BIOS files and offer them on their homepages. As Intel knew about that half a year already, as well as some others say that AMD did as well, it's actually quite a shame that a bug that could be potentially destructive and performance degrading to virtually every known and used (Intel) machine does not get treated with zero day patches. Yes, the two of us seem to see different things as "best practice".
What's the reason they did not talk to any of the mainboard manufacturers or Microsoft for half a year to let them know that they have issues and they need to fix and test things, as well as implement them? Is there no way they could have put in some extra hours and delivered the microcode updates to the vendors a week before disclosure so that we could have a chance to not even be in the situation to be vulvernable after disclosure? Oddly convenient that their CEO could sell some of their shares at their higher price before it drops in conjunction with Meltdown / Spectre vulnerabilities. Oh yes, "best practice".
Best practice in my opinion would be, if my product is faulty (which the CPUs are), it should be the companies responsibility to do what they can to offer a sollution as fast as they can. And I personally did not see that happening here with 6 months of virtually doing nothing besides trying to get around lawsuits (I guess they were trying to work around Meltdown performance decreases to not have so many people sue them in the company's best interest. Interestingly google accomplished to work around the performance decrease two weeks after disclosure for their workstation and servers, and we guys neither get updated BIOSs or flawless OS patches.)
Oh and by the way, I do understand what you are trying to say, but thanks for your patronizing matter to talk to people. I guess you are generally successful with such a way of talking to others. Welcome to the fabulous ignore list of fantaskarsef, where people like you seem to be well taken care of. Free lodging, reduced rates on drinks and food. Because that's "best practice" to handle downtalking people like you who think a different opinion means that people are stupid and don't understand.
You are quite naive if you think disclosing exploit information to shareholders, let alone the public at large, before security countermeasures are in place is a good idea. You've clearly not paid attention the last time someone tried that and a bona fide "arms-race" of malware spread like wildfire. Everything else you've said is clearly untrue and misinformed, that or very filtered your selective retention, as has already explained repeatedly how this situation was handled, with the time-line of events is quite easily followed.
Software development is not simple, security software even less so, and firmware development takes a special breed and firmware security is even tougher. You seem to be under the impression that security fixes for these kinds of things is something anyone can whip-up at the snap of their fingers, ignoring the hard working people behind the efforts to discover these issues, let alone the hundreds more involved in fixing them. These things take some time to develop, and in this situation AMD and Intel have handled the security aspects of these exploits very well, with no widespread damage to the industry at large and getting the fixes out in a timely fashion, all the while keeping key information about these issues from being abused by malware authors.
Why you seem to insist on turning this discussion into a personal attack is beyond me, but I suspect heraldry fealty may be in play. Don't get personal and use cynical detachment, for perspective.
Now APPLE is getting sued over the same thing
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/18/apple-spectre-class-action-lawsuit/
Best practice would have been to offer a solution for people, us consumers, that offers a set of patches that closes all security holes and fixes the issues. "Best practice" in this case means, best case for the company, not the consumer. They did what they had to do (and were ready with their aimed at time to release the microcode fixes), but they had half a year and the mainboard vendors did not do or get anything. All they have to do is compile BIOS files and offer them on their homepages. As Intel knew about that half a year already, as well as some others say that AMD did as well, it's actually quite a shame that a bug that could be potentially destructive and performance degrading to virtually every known and used (Intel) machine does not get treated with zero day patches. Yes, the two of us seem to see different things as "best practice".
What's the reason they did not talk to any of the mainboard manufacturers or Microsoft for half a year to let them know that they have issues and they need to fix and test things, as well as implement them? Is there no way they could have put in some extra hours and delivered the microcode updates to the vendors a week before disclosure so that we could have a chance to not even be in the situation to be vulvernable after disclosure? Oddly convenient that their CEO could sell some of their shares at their higher price before it drops in conjunction with Meltdown / Spectre vulnerabilities. Oh yes, "best practice".
Best practice in my opinion would be, if my product is faulty (which the CPUs are), it should be the companies responsibility to do what they can to offer a sollution as fast as they can. And I personally did not see that happening here with 6 months of virtually doing nothing besides trying to get around lawsuits (I guess they were trying to work around Meltdown performance decreases to not have so many people sue them in the company's best interest. Interestingly google accomplished to work around the performance decrease two weeks after disclosure for their workstation and servers, and we guys neither get updated BIOSs or flawless OS patches.)
Oh and by the way, I do understand what you are trying to say, but thanks for your patronizing matter to talk to people. I guess you are generally successful with such a way of talking to others. Welcome to the fabulous ignore list of fantaskarsef, where people like you seem to be well taken care of. Free lodging, reduced rates on drinks and food. Because that's "best practice" to handle downtalking people like you who think a different opinion means that people are stupid and don't understand.
You are quite naive if you think disclosing exploit information to shareholders, let alone the public at large, before security countermeasures are in place is a good idea. You've clearly not paid attention the last time someone tried that and a bona fide "arms-race" of malware spread like wildfire. Everything else you've said is clearly untrue and misinformed, that or very filtered your selective retention, as has already explained repeatedly how this situation was handled, with the time-line of events is quite easily followed.
Software development is not simple, security software even less so, and firmware development takes a special breed and firmware security is even tougher. You seem to be under the impression that security fixes for these kinds of things is something anyone can whip-up at the snap of their fingers, ignoring the hard working people behind the efforts to discover these issues, let alone the hundreds more involved in fixing them. These things take some time to develop, and in this situation AMD and Intel have handled the security aspects of these exploits very well, with no widespread damage to the industry at large and getting the fixes out in a timely fashion, all the while keeping key information about these issues from being abused by malware authors.
Why you seem to insist on turning this discussion into a personal attack is beyond me, but I suspect heraldry fealty may be in play. Don't get personal and use cynical detachment, for perspective.
vestibule
Senior Member
Posts: 221
Joined: 2014-04-21
Senior Member
Posts: 221
Joined: 2014-04-21
#5512405 Posted on: 01/19/2018 08:35 PM
I don't see how anyone can get sued unless something bad actually happens.
Remember the millennium bug. well nothing happened then. I do not recall any litigation.
I don't see how anyone can get sued unless something bad actually happens.
Remember the millennium bug. well nothing happened then. I do not recall any litigation.
Agent-A01
Senior Member
Posts: 11360
Joined: 2010-12-27
Senior Member
Posts: 11360
Joined: 2010-12-27
#5512412 Posted on: 01/19/2018 09:11 PM
I don't see how anyone can get sued unless something bad actually happens.
Remember the millennium bug. well nothing happened then. I do not recall any litigation.
Nothing will happen as none of these 'vulnerabilities' were taken advantage of in the past.
Just like those two dumbasses suing apple and everyone else; apple and others patched the issues already.
There has not been a single exploit of those vulnerabilities hence those two will get nowhere.
Just fools trying to get free money at this point.
I don't see how anyone can get sued unless something bad actually happens.
Remember the millennium bug. well nothing happened then. I do not recall any litigation.
Nothing will happen as none of these 'vulnerabilities' were taken advantage of in the past.
Just like those two dumbasses suing apple and everyone else; apple and others patched the issues already.
There has not been a single exploit of those vulnerabilities hence those two will get nowhere.
Just fools trying to get free money at this point.
tsunami231
Senior Member
Posts: 9765
Joined: 2003-05-24
Senior Member
Posts: 9765
Joined: 2003-05-24
#5512429 Posted on: 01/19/2018 10:11 PM
just cause it patched dont mean everyone actual patched it though, I know alot people that DONT do updates on there iPhone and Andriod phones. at this point this whole mess has becoming joke cause of how its been handled
just cause it patched dont mean everyone actual patched it though, I know alot people that DONT do updates on there iPhone and Andriod phones. at this point this whole mess has becoming joke cause of how its been handled
NaturalViolence
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 2009-10-01
Member
Posts: 77
Joined: 2009-10-01
#5512453 Posted on: 01/19/2018 11:40 PM
I'm sorry, your post made sense right up until you said there's no evidence to support my 4 core argument; you proceeded to spout absolute nonsense afterwards, no offense.
It's absolutely obvious they they weren't interested in giving consumers what they want and tried milking the living crap out of their i7-Extreme line. People have been moaning about wanting 6-core mainstream processors ever since before Skylake and Intel has given us the finger.
Look at what Intel has done in 7 years' time: http://hwbench.com/cpus/intel-core-i7-2600k-vs-intel-core-i7-7700k
Then look again what they did in half a year: http://hwbench.com/cpus/intel-core-i7-7700k-vs-intel-core-i7-8700k
You think Intel randomly started pumping up core numbers just because they love their customers, while coincidentally Ryzen was starting to poop all over their lineup? Good lord man, think.
What was planned 5 years in advance? That argument has no substance, unless Intel came to you in 2012 and told you 'dude, in 2017 we will have Coffee Lake, with mainstream 6-core i7 processors'. Because I for sure don't remember any Intel slides back from 2012 saying anything about 6-core Coffee Lakes. In fact, I think we barely even had Skylake info in 2012. Coffee Lake was also so obviously rushed it's not even funny, the stock was 0 in stores for months. It was another of Intel's classic panicked moves, just like the insulting i9 line of processors. But lemme guess, you're gonna defend the i9 line as well right?
You've made it very obvious that you're defying logic in order to fiercely defend Intel in a very fanboyitic manner. It's time to stop doing it because you're not making any sense.
People are biased against Intel, with good reason. Deal with it.
Feelings are not evidence. It could just as easily be a coincidence and you know it.
Of course they don't release every detail of every architecture change 5 years in advance. But then again that's not what I said now is it. I said that they begin planning them 5 years in advance, which is true for almost all microprocessor chip makers. In fact they couldn't give you the details that far in advance even if they wanted to because the design is in a constant state of flux through the first few years of the dev cycle. They definitely rushed the release but I have my doubts that they suddenly changed the design to boost core count at the last second because quite frankly they can't. It takes years to do a redesign like that and go through the verification process all over again. They might have made that change a few years back but even if that is your claim (and it doesn't appear to be) you have no way to know. And pretending you do know is a falsehood at best.
He made the schedule well after learning about the bugs. The bugs were reported to the affected parties a long time ago, after all, not mere months but half a year. According to the man it's "unrelated". Sure.
He sold more stock the year before, were those also based on these findings? Again feelings are not evidence. It could just as easily have been a coincidence, neither of us knows. Stop pretending you know for sure.
My core point that I'm trying to make is that assumptions are bad, period. I don't care what side of what anyone is on. But I do care about people making claims without evidence, regardless of what they're discussing.
I'm sorry, your post made sense right up until you said there's no evidence to support my 4 core argument; you proceeded to spout absolute nonsense afterwards, no offense.
It's absolutely obvious they they weren't interested in giving consumers what they want and tried milking the living crap out of their i7-Extreme line. People have been moaning about wanting 6-core mainstream processors ever since before Skylake and Intel has given us the finger.
Look at what Intel has done in 7 years' time: http://hwbench.com/cpus/intel-core-i7-2600k-vs-intel-core-i7-7700k
Then look again what they did in half a year: http://hwbench.com/cpus/intel-core-i7-7700k-vs-intel-core-i7-8700k
You think Intel randomly started pumping up core numbers just because they love their customers, while coincidentally Ryzen was starting to poop all over their lineup? Good lord man, think.
What was planned 5 years in advance? That argument has no substance, unless Intel came to you in 2012 and told you 'dude, in 2017 we will have Coffee Lake, with mainstream 6-core i7 processors'. Because I for sure don't remember any Intel slides back from 2012 saying anything about 6-core Coffee Lakes. In fact, I think we barely even had Skylake info in 2012. Coffee Lake was also so obviously rushed it's not even funny, the stock was 0 in stores for months. It was another of Intel's classic panicked moves, just like the insulting i9 line of processors. But lemme guess, you're gonna defend the i9 line as well right?
You've made it very obvious that you're defying logic in order to fiercely defend Intel in a very fanboyitic manner. It's time to stop doing it because you're not making any sense.
People are biased against Intel, with good reason. Deal with it.
Feelings are not evidence. It could just as easily be a coincidence and you know it.
Of course they don't release every detail of every architecture change 5 years in advance. But then again that's not what I said now is it. I said that they begin planning them 5 years in advance, which is true for almost all microprocessor chip makers. In fact they couldn't give you the details that far in advance even if they wanted to because the design is in a constant state of flux through the first few years of the dev cycle. They definitely rushed the release but I have my doubts that they suddenly changed the design to boost core count at the last second because quite frankly they can't. It takes years to do a redesign like that and go through the verification process all over again. They might have made that change a few years back but even if that is your claim (and it doesn't appear to be) you have no way to know. And pretending you do know is a falsehood at best.
He made the schedule well after learning about the bugs. The bugs were reported to the affected parties a long time ago, after all, not mere months but half a year. According to the man it's "unrelated". Sure.
He sold more stock the year before, were those also based on these findings? Again feelings are not evidence. It could just as easily have been a coincidence, neither of us knows. Stop pretending you know for sure.
My core point that I'm trying to make is that assumptions are bad, period. I don't care what side of what anyone is on. But I do care about people making claims without evidence, regardless of what they're discussing.
Redemption80
Senior Member
Posts: 18348
Joined: 2009-01-06
Senior Member
Posts: 18348
Joined: 2009-01-06
#5512458 Posted on: 01/19/2018 11:59 PM
It doesn't matter if anything bad happens, the fact the vulnerability even exists will lose people money. This thread seems overly focused on the vulnerabilities and not the point of the actual lawsuit.
The one against Apple seems different though, at a glance that looks like a consumer lawsuit.
It doesn't matter if anything bad happens, the fact the vulnerability even exists will lose people money. This thread seems overly focused on the vulnerabilities and not the point of the actual lawsuit.
The one against Apple seems different though, at a glance that looks like a consumer lawsuit.
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1699
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1699
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5512470 Posted on: 01/20/2018 12:27 AM
He sold more stock the year before, were those also based on these findings? Again feelings are not evidence. It could just as easily have been a coincidence, neither of us knows. Stop pretending you know for sure.
That doesn't mean anything. How about not selling the stocks until the bugs were made public? You'd think a man making dozens of millions of dollars a year could, perhaps, realise such a simple thing. I mean, he's supposed to be a pro businessman. He sold every single stock he could without breaking his agreement (since as a CEO he needs to possess a certain amount of them). He followed his yearly practice to the max because he didn't care. Intel doesn't care. Intel CEO doesn't care. Intel's slogan is: "We want your money, we don't care about anything else."
Intel's core architecture hasn't really changed for years. They have also been making the expensive extreme versions with higher core counts, so such aren't foreign to them. I've said it before, but they likely had some preliminary plans ready for a mainstream 6-core a long, long time ago, possibly making ready to update them to the new usb, sata, lolptane, whatever. All this for the off chance AMD could surprise them. When AMD was about to release Ryzen, the Intel spokesman told the press that Intel is not worried, they have perfect trust in their existing line (Kaby) being able to compete with Ryzen. In the same year they had another generation, Coffee, out with an incompatible chipset. Perfect trust in Kaby, indeed.
He sold more stock the year before, were those also based on these findings? Again feelings are not evidence. It could just as easily have been a coincidence, neither of us knows. Stop pretending you know for sure.
That doesn't mean anything. How about not selling the stocks until the bugs were made public? You'd think a man making dozens of millions of dollars a year could, perhaps, realise such a simple thing. I mean, he's supposed to be a pro businessman. He sold every single stock he could without breaking his agreement (since as a CEO he needs to possess a certain amount of them). He followed his yearly practice to the max because he didn't care. Intel doesn't care. Intel CEO doesn't care. Intel's slogan is: "We want your money, we don't care about anything else."
Intel's core architecture hasn't really changed for years. They have also been making the expensive extreme versions with higher core counts, so such aren't foreign to them. I've said it before, but they likely had some preliminary plans ready for a mainstream 6-core a long, long time ago, possibly making ready to update them to the new usb, sata, lolptane, whatever. All this for the off chance AMD could surprise them. When AMD was about to release Ryzen, the Intel spokesman told the press that Intel is not worried, they have perfect trust in their existing line (Kaby) being able to compete with Ryzen. In the same year they had another generation, Coffee, out with an incompatible chipset. Perfect trust in Kaby, indeed.
HK-1
Senior Member
Posts: 613
Joined: 2017-09-11
Senior Member
Posts: 613
Joined: 2017-09-11
#5512474 Posted on: 01/20/2018 12:41 AM
already expected
already expected
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 881
Joined: 2012-05-14
Suing solves everything.
Stupid Americans.