AMD Confirms that Ryzen CPUs are Immune to SPOILER Exploit

Published by

Click here to post a comment for AMD Confirms that Ryzen CPUs are Immune to SPOILER Exploit on our message forum
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/227/227994.jpg
Nothing but nothing will make me change my mind for this years upgrade!
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/248/248994.jpg
It also didn't make the US Department of Energy change their mind about a new supercomputer based on Intel processors, priced $500 million.
data/avatar/default/avatar06.webp
Like I said again and again , time to sell that INTEL stock. Every freaking tech announcement from Nvidia and Intel keeps making AMD look better and better!
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/198/198862.jpg
AMD wins again.
data/avatar/default/avatar18.webp
Amd is imune to low latency and high memoryspeed too ๐Ÿ˜›
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/247/247876.jpg
Accidentally, I am sure.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/250/250418.jpg
nizzen:

Amd is imune to low latency and high memoryspeed too ๐Ÿ˜›
But if you fix ALL of these exploits, I bet Intel is on par if not worse compared to AMD. Get lost.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/246/246171.jpg
Kaarme:

It also didn't make the US Department of Energy change their mind about a new supercomputer based on Intel processors, priced $500 million.
Isn't that based largely on Intel's new server GPUs? That's kinda comparing apples to oranges.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/248/248994.jpg
schmidtbag:

Isn't that based largely on Intel's new server GPUs? That's kinda comparing apples to oranges.
Isn't it going to be a Xeon platform with a bunch of GPUs tied to each CPU?
slicer:

It was already mentioned in SPOILER original document, that you cannot patch or fix it, because it is wrong on physical design level. Sure you can maybe use BIOS fw patch to not use that address space, but it will basically lop of 20-50% of CPUs performance. So basically Intel got it's superior CPU speed over AMD by cheating with security.
Who cares about security when you get 10% or even more fps in games?
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/246/246171.jpg
Kaarme:

Isn't it going to be a Xeon platform with a bunch of GPUs tied to each CPU?
I don't know what the CPUs will be, but the GPUs are also called Xeons; this isn't the first time Intel has done such a thing (Xeon Phi, for example). In either case, I'm sure the CPUs function more as a medium to moderate the data rather than do any heavy calculations, so, their security isn't as much to concern over. That being said, Epyc would be a smarter choice for that purpose IMO (due to lower costs, better security, and more PCIe lanes), but, I'm not sure what it is they're using. They could be using POWER9 CPUs for all I know.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/248/248994.jpg
schmidtbag:

I don't know what the CPUs will be, but the GPUs are also called Xeons; this isn't the first time Intel has done such a thing (Xeon Phi, for example). In either case, I'm sure the CPUs function more as a medium to moderate the data rather than do any heavy calculations, so, their security isn't as much to concern over. That being said, Epyc would be a smarter choice for that purpose IMO (due to lower costs, better security, and more PCIe lanes), but, I'm not sure what it is they're using. They could be using POWER9 CPUs for all I know.
The governmental announcement says it like this:
These include a future generation of Intelยฎ Xeonยฎ Scalable processor, a future generation of Intelยฎ Optaneโ„ข DC Persistent Memory, Intelโ€™s Xe compute architecture and Intelโ€™s One API software
I interpreted that as Xeon CPUs and the Intel Xe GPUs.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/246/246171.jpg
Kaarme:

The governmental announcement says it like this: I interpreted that as Xeon CPUs and the Intel Xe GPUs.
I didn't see that part (I didn't know Optane was being used either). So yes, it does seem both Xeon CPU and GPU are in use. But like I said, the CPUs probably aren't doing the heavy lifting.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/165/165326.jpg
Oh dear , it makes me feel happy and more secure online using my Ryzen 2700x 24/7 pc ๐Ÿ˜€. My 9980xe , 9900k and other Intel cpus are for benching purposes only ๐Ÿ˜›
data/avatar/default/avatar04.webp
chispy:

Oh dear , it makes me feel happy and more secure online using my Ryzen 2700x 24/7 pc ๐Ÿ˜€. My 9980xe , 9900k and other Intel cpus are for benching purposes only ๐Ÿ˜›
I use Cyrix cpu offline, for maximum security ๐Ÿ˜€ Nobody really care about "the security flaws" in cpu's.. That is an fact ๐Ÿ˜‰ What most people care about is performance...
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/165/165326.jpg
nizzen:

I use Cyrix cpu offline, for maximum security ๐Ÿ˜€ Nobody really care about "the security flaws" in cpu's.. That is an fact ๐Ÿ˜‰ What most people care about is performance...
Not a fact , fiction on your mind , i do care about security as well as many others , now tell me your source as a fact that most people care more about performance than security , prove/link/sources please ๐Ÿ˜‰ or you are talking out of your ass lol
data/avatar/default/avatar11.webp
HardwareCaps:

Huh? Spectre was also a hardware flaw, you can just work around it with software.... not ideal but viable for sure....
Yeah, "not ideal" barely scratches the surface on that. Meltdown was more severe, but the fixes were done in the first 6 months. The aptly-named Spectre still continues to haunt us. If you work in the corporate world, you know that that fix was a long, difficult process that caused a lot of downtime and left everyone vulnerable for months, even AFTER the fix was first made available. There have been multiple variants on Spectre and pretty much every monthly patch cycle still has some notes saying it fixes something related to it across every OS, and this is a full year later.
data/avatar/default/avatar24.webp
nizzen:

I use Cyrix cpu offline, for maximum security ๐Ÿ˜€ Nobody really care about "the security flaws" in cpu's.. That is an fact ๐Ÿ˜‰ What most people care about is performance...
I mitigate "security flaws" and literally spend at least a dozen hours a week making sure flaws are mitigated across our thousands of servers among my other work. They pay me (and another guy) 6 figures to do so, so apparently they think it's pretty important.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/165/165326.jpg
illrigger:

I mitigate "security flaws" and literally spend at least a dozen hours a week making sure flaws are mitigated across our thousands of servers among my other work. They pay me 6 figures to do so, so apparently they think it's pretty important.
Exactly this ^^ +++ , the truth and fact of the matter.
data/avatar/default/avatar37.webp
HardwareCaps:

When did I say it's easy? huh? hardware vulnerabilities will continue to be found, Google's project zero found critical vulnerabilities for several MB BIOS and the companies said they basically don't care. welcome to 2019.
Your post made it sound like you think it's a legit fix, when it's really not. Nothing can fix Spectre, not really, because it's tied into core functionality of every processor core. All you can do is try to block things that exploit it. In other words, the post you were responding to is completely correct - you can't actually fix these things, not even effectively fix them. Since it's a flaw that exists in literally every computer with an Intel CPU, it's the biggest bang for the buck that hackers have ever had. There will be new ways to exploit it found constantly until there are not enough CPUs in use that have the flaw to be worth the effort. Since Intel still hasn't even released a CPU that doesn't have it, that's at least 6 years out. This new flaw probably pushes that out another 5 years. It's great for my job security as a sysadmin who does patching, I know better than to pretend that software can fix these flaws effectively. I'm just putting a fresh bandage on top of the old bloody one I put on last month.
https://forums.guru3d.com/data/avatars/m/258/258688.jpg
It's not rocket science.. Intel's architectures are older, some are much older, than AMD's Ryzen. I would expect this from Intel cpus because of that--well, sort of because of that. The real mystery, however, is why now? What is behind the sudden rash of Intel cpu vulnerabilities that supposedly exist and are actual threats to anyone over the last couple of years? The timing here seems suspicious in many ways. I mean, ten years ago were people simply not looking--was Intel paying to keep the information quiet, or is there some other reason? Perhaps a few companies or their ex-personnel, having suffered at Intel's hands in some fashion over the last twenty years, are having a bit of payback? After all, the only x86-cpu would be competitor company that Intel has *not* succeeded in running out business is AMD--there was Cyrix--and a few others the names of which I forget who were driven out by Intel. I suspect Intel has acquired a rather large "enemies list" over the span of the company's existence!