They should rather fix their CPUs and send everbody a new one that is not bugged. Or at least fix the microcode issues they have with current hardware. Honestly, I'm actually getting sick of how Intel treats it's customers here. On one side they can't fix the issues that exist, on the other they brag about their earnings...

Intel should not get away with the insider trading that was going on.

Same old problems, If punter's keep buying a manufactures products they will keep producing crap. I think AMD will be the best option going forward for multi core Cpu`s with the refresh coming up.

fantaskarsef:

They should rather fix their CPUs and send everbody a new one that is not bugged. Or at least fix the microcode issues they have with current hardware. Honestly, I'm actually getting sick of how Intel treats it's customers here. On one side they can't fix the issues that exist, on the other they brag about their earnings...

Gotta benchmark before and after the microcode update and, if necessary, ask for a partial refund from Intel. Actually returning the CPU to the store ought to be possible as well. It would require buying a new mobo and a Ryzen CPU, but if I got a full refund, I could take a 1600X and still have money left to put towards the mobo.

Kaarme:

Gotta benchmark before and after the microcode update and, if necessary, ask for a partial refund from Intel. Actually returning the CPU to the store ought to be possible as well. It would require buying a new mobo and a Ryzen CPU, but if I got a full refund, I could take a 1600X and still have money left to put towards the mobo.

Of course we all could buy ourselves a new system if we get 100% refunds from Intel 😀 But they wouldn't give you 100% under any circumstances, lowered because you used the chip already, etc. Just to have it said, if everybody running an Intel system would do that, we would have the same situation with Ryzen CPUs that we have with AMD graphics cards: We couldn't get them. And that I tell you would only add insult to the injury...

The news reaches us today through Intel director Brian Krzanich, who "maid" the claim Guess it is supposed to be "made".

Yeah, it was all jokes. In reality I'd never realistically expect to have any such options at all. Maybe in the USA the class action suit participants might get 10 dollars out of it (except the lawyers getting 100k), but not over here. If I lose performance, my only option is to up the clocks, although that wouldn't help with the SSD performance.

All the matter is: what Investors do,what Investors think,how much money Investors will put on Intel.The rest of the market is zero for Intel co. From what I know the Ice Lake cpu(an refresh of already known Sky-Kaby-Coffee-bloody lake arch) is already lithography and ready to launch.But when they release a new cpu with "changes" so soon? The performance will "be loosed" when ssd-hdd are on heavy duty processes. Meanwhile on US Congress: "The United States House Energy and Commerce Committee has sent a letter to a number of tech companies, including Intel, Microsoft ,Google and Apple, to ask for more information on why they decided to keep secret the details of the Meltdown and Spectre security flaws." https://energycommerce.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Meltdown-Spectre-Letters.pdf

fantaskarsef:

They should rather fix their CPUs and send everbody a new one that is not bugged. Or at least fix the microcode issues they have with current hardware. Honestly, I'm actually getting sick of how Intel treats it's customers here. On one side they can't fix the issues that exist, on the other they brag about their earnings...

I'm sure they still intend to fix the microcode issue, otherwise Intel is just begging to get sued into oblivion if they do absolutely nothing about it. It seems a little too unrealistic to have such a major security risk go completely un-fixed for what is likely a minimum of 80% of CPUs on the market, including servers. That being said, it would also be unrealistic for Intel to replace every one of those CPUs, especially if they can be made safe via just some updates [that aren't broken].

Turanis:

The performance will "be loosed" when ssd-hdd are on heavy duty processes.

Why? Unless Intel's definition of fixing this at the silicon level means to just remove the transistors that the microcode and kernel patches would otherwise remove, I'm sure they're trying to figure out a way to keep things like execution prediction without it being a security risk. So far, disk-intensive processes seemed to have the biggest performance hit due to the patches.

Meanwhile on US Congress: "The United States House Energy and Commerce Committee has sent a letter to a number of tech companies, including Intel, Microsoft ,Google and Apple, to ask for more information on why they decided to keep secret the details of the Meltdown and Spectre security flaws."

What a stupid question for them to ask. Really, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why they kept quiet for so long, and even if all of the suspected reasons are wrong, what difference does it make? What action could possibly be taken in response to it that could actually be enforced? Who exactly had this secret hurt?

I bet they will add an extra pin, so people have to buy new motherboards as well.

shamus21:

Same old problems, If punter's keep buying a manufactures products they will keep producing crap. I think AMD will be the best option going forward for multi core Cpu`s with the refresh coming up.

I will keep a close eye on Ryzen 2 reviews. My last AMD CPU was an Athlon 64 FX-60 i believe. After that i owned a E6850, i7 950 and my current 4770K. Would be nice to go back to an AMD CPU.

This is good news, I'm pleased to hear that they're gonna be releasing CPUs this year with the fix built into the hardware - I said in an Intel forum here on Guru3d recently that they really should concentrate all efforts on accelerating a hardware fix in new CPUs, as I believed it to be poor to release new CPUs with the vulnerability already baked into the hardware, the monkeys have only gone and listened to me! ;-) Ha, no, but good to hear this news.

schmidtbag:

What a stupid question for them to ask. Really, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why they kept quiet for so long, and even if all of the suspected reasons are wrong, what difference does it make? What action could possibly be taken in response to it that could actually be enforced? Who exactly had this secret hurt?

Some systems allow to turn off speculative execution altogether and patching a linux kernel to isolate memory pages seems to be relatively simple for a really big player, so I could see how a lot of them would have rather lose 50% performance (just as an example) and be safe. As to who's been hurt, afaik the problem here is the memory "leaks" are itself untraceable, so if a malicious program reads sensitive info from memory and encrypts it before writing it to disk or trying to send it over the network, there's no way to know. Even if u later use some av to find exploiting code patterns, u will never know what was actually stolen.

This is good news for Intel. It will spur a wave of upgrades from affected users (basically, everyone who owns a modern Intel CPU) who want to restore full performance. Should be another record year for Intel and their shareholders 😉

fantaskarsef:

They should rather fix their CPUs and send everbody a new one that is not bugged. Or at least fix the microcode issues they have with current hardware. Honestly, I'm actually getting sick of how Intel treats it's customers here. On one side they can't fix the issues that exist, on the other they brag about their earnings...

they would go out buisness if they had to "replace" everyone CPU that is effected. And they are still working on pusing microcodes out, I still have no intrested in Buying a CPU any time soon though

D3M1G0D:

This is good news for Intel. It will spur a wave of upgrades from affected users (basically, everyone who owns a modern Intel CPU) who want to restore full performance. Should be another record year for Intel and their shareholders 😉

I disagree. Most people don't know what Spectre or Meltdown are, and as long as it remains that way, people aren't going to upgrade if they don't have to. Also, people aren't going to exactly be favoring Intel if they're forced to buy a new product because of their mistake. But, luckily for Intel, most people don't know AMD exists.

Oh i am sure if they hit to performance is big enough in there eyes they will buy new cpu, I would and will, but for me to be willing to do that hit to my performance has clearly visible in what i do normal daily, AMD and the Other CPU makers are just as susceptible to this, it just people are focusing on Intel AMD Ryzen like very nice is first AMD chip in over decade I even thought about make system off of, I didnt bother going threw with cause i had aready made my new system

Surely these should be classed as defective CPU's and if you have bought a cpu in the last 3 years would be entitled to a replacement that works with the new hardware changes once they come out

Tone:

Surely these should be classed as defective CPU's and if you have bought a cpu in the last 3 years would be entitled to a replacement that works with the new hardware changes once they come out

that would be nice, but i highly doubt that will happen,

Bet they come out with a revision 2 for chips like X299, cant see them still producing these without the new hardware changes, especially as they have messed up the 1st microcode revision, and we have no date as to when this could be fixed

schmidtbag:

I'm sure they still intend to fix the microcode issue, otherwise Intel is just begging to get sued into oblivion if they do absolutely nothing about it. It seems a little too unrealistic to have such a major security risk go completely un-fixed for what is likely a minimum of 80% of CPUs on the market, including servers. That being said, it would also be unrealistic for Intel to replace every one of those CPUs, especially if they can be made safe via just some updates [that aren't broken].

Sure it's unrealistic. Because they made an error and can't make up for it. That's how it goes when you are in Intel's market position. Apparently Intel hired a firm that's specialized in taking care of such a "crisis". On reddit one user said that Intel hired Sard Verbinnen (google it, but you'll have a hard time finding anything about their contract), which is specialized in taking care of large PR desasters. Seems they are afraid about what people think about them...

tsunami231:

they would go out buisness if they had to "replace" everyone CPU that is effected. And they are still working on pusing microcodes out, I still have no intrested in Buying a CPU any time soon though

I mean, it's nice that they are working on microcode updates. They have been doing so for the better of 2017, or not? I guess Intel has not gotten any microcode engineers free to take care of something like this seven months after. Also, they would have given out information about the mid of January, but they still do not have working microcode updates that don't produce issues for the platforms... that's another stupid move, even though things turned out different anyway. I would have gotten the upgrade itch to be honest, but right now I don't trust any CPU until things are really taken care of. It's upsetting that this looks like a middle schooler's take on fixing this, it feels like Intel is acting like a chicken with it's head chopped off, running around flapping their wings with no direction at all...