Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

perens.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 499 posts

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#111

Post by Lunatic666 »

eksemplar wrote: post #11

Aside from my vic20 and c64 I’ve only ever owned intel CPUs, and those two may have been intel as well, I wouldn’t know. I’ve never made a decision to chose Intel based on benchmark, I’ve bought them because they’ve always been great for me. So it’ll be ironic when I buy an AMD processor when I upgrade for cyberpunk 2077, because of benchmarks. Not because AMD is faster, they may be but I wouldn’t know, no, it’ll be…

How can INTEL tell people what to do with their CPU, I own it so I think I can do with it what I want or not? Only because the microcode update is considered software? I wouldn't be scared to benchmark it and publish the results in the EU. I wonder if this is binding in the US.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#112

Post by jgtrosh »

mpartel wrote: post #97
beefhash wrote: post #14

As a side note: Some of the license changes also block Debian from updating their intel-microcode package[1]. [1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=906158#14

My guess is Intel will revert the license change soon. It's just too absurd to stay. But if not, I wonder if distros could have two packages, named with appropriate and well-deserved passive-aggressiveness, e.g.: intel-microcode-insecure and intel-microcode-legally-restricted.

And maybe they'll mark benchmarking packages as conflicting with intel-microcode-legally-restricted?

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#114

Post by drewmol »

mnm1 wrote: post #35

Bring on the lawsuits. Ignore the patches and sue Intel for the underlying security flaws. When they point to the patches, clearly state that because of the new license, they do not solve the problem and will not be applied. No one signed up for this when they bought an Intel CPU and that's saying a lot considering all the bullshit we do sign up for when buying one. This is outrageous. Intel should be sued in a class…

I agree but is it possible this is aimed at avoiding class action suits about false advertised performamce, by attempting to make the new benchmarks inadmissible?

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#115

Post by throwaway77384 »

Jach wrote: post #57
ulfw wrote: post #18

Oh intel. What has happened to you? Do they really think this could even remotely be enforceable?

Oracle and MS SQL Server have had no benchmark disclosures in their licenses for a long time, so Intel probably thinks so.

So this is illegal?

http://phpdao.com/mysql_postgres_oracle_mssql/

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#116

Post by throwaway77384 »

TheRealPomax wrote: post #61
amluto wrote: post #13

I can think of two theories: 1. It's a mistake. Someone in legal got carried away. 2. The performance of the L1TF mitigation is so awful that someone at Intel thought it would be a good idea to try to keep the performance secret. (Which leads to option 2b. The performance of the L1TF mitigation is so awful that somemone at Intel is afraid that Intel could be sued as a result, and they want to mitigate that risk.) I w…

It works for Oracle (it is famously illegal to publish benchmarks of DB2 vs other engines), I'm sure intel can make it work for them thanks to Oracle's court case(s).

So is the below technically illegal?

http://phpdao.com/mysql_postgres_oracle_mssql/

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#117

Post by lagadu »

wtallis wrote: post #27
eight_ender wrote: post #12

Has Intel just outlawed any review website (gaming, enthusiast, etc) from ever posting benchmarks of their CPUs again? I feel like they didn't think this through.

If we tech journalists were actually seriously concerned that Intel would be dumb enough to try to enforce those provisions against us, then we'd just ask the motherboard vendors for updated pre-release firmware that incorporates the new microcode but doesn't come with Intel's license agreement attached. We often go that route anyways because it's easier to update the motherboard than to ensure that every OS you're t…

Also if you get the update via windows update you get the patch without having ever agreed to the no-benchmarking clause, so you're free to publish anyway.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#118

Post by AstralStorm »

amluto wrote: post #13

I can think of two theories: 1. It's a mistake. Someone in legal got carried away. 2. The performance of the L1TF mitigation is so awful that someone at Intel thought it would be a good idea to try to keep the performance secret. (Which leads to option 2b. The performance of the L1TF mitigation is so awful that somemone at Intel is afraid that Intel could be sued as a result, and they want to mitigate that risk.) I w…

A hotshot lawyer could sue them for this anticompetitive clause for big $$$.

(it disallows comparing the product against the competitors)

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#119

Post by KozmoNau7 »

eksemplar wrote: post #11

Aside from my vic20 and c64 I’ve only ever owned intel CPUs, and those two may have been intel as well, I wouldn’t know. I’ve never made a decision to chose Intel based on benchmark, I’ve bought them because they’ve always been great for me. So it’ll be ironic when I buy an AMD processor when I upgrade for cyberpunk 2077, because of benchmarks. Not because AMD is faster, they may be but I wouldn’t know, no, it’ll be…

I've been on both Intel and AMD for my self-built desktops, originally a K6-II, then a Pentium III, then a Pentium 4, and since 2011 a Phenom II (first a dual-core 3.2GHz, upgraded to a 6-core 3.3GHz a couple of years ago).

Both have generally been good to me (the P4 was a bit crap), but I'm very likely to choose AMD again next time I do a full upgrade. Now that their GPUs are also working great in Linux on open source drivers, they're a much better choice than Nvidia for me, I just replaced my GTX 460 with an RX 560.

It's a shame Intel has the high-end laptop market locked up so tight. Good luck getting a modern Thinkpad with an AMD processor.

Post reply on HN