Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed • Hacker News Board

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

#181

Post by mpartel » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 9:41 AM UTC

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #136

mpartel wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is nothing passive-aggressive in intel-microcode-legally-restricted, it's just a statement of fact.

It's not quite that clear cut IMO.

E.g. "intel-microcode-legacy" and "intel-microcode" would be more diplomatic (disgustingly so IMO).

And one could argue that every package in non-free would deserve a "-legally-restricted" suffix.

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

#182

Post by peteri » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 9:42 AM UTC

exikyut wrote: post #85

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. At that time, few home computers were based on Intel processors because they were too expensive. Commodore's early computers, like Atari's, were based on the MOS Technology 6502 (made by ex-Motorola engineers as a cheaper and easier-to-integrate alternative to the Motorola 6800; the corresponding…

One click-chain of curiosity later, and I learned that they sell a little educational SBC based on the 6502. http://wdc65xx.com/boards/w65c02sxb-engineering-development-... Pro: it looks like an AT motherboard from 1985 Con: it's $189 :s

They do have some cheaper ones ($29 & $99) problem is I can't quite figure out why I need one.

https://www.tindie.com/stores/dcwdc/

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

#183

Post by snaky » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 9:43 AM UTC

dzdt wrote: post #139

snaky wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clearly, they don't have an answer to AMD at all They still have a huge opportunity for CPU+FPGA, they bought Altera for the purpose.

But CPU+FPGA will forever be a tiny niche, right? I don't see any path where mainstream programs get a boost from FPGA.

Not at all. Specialized coprocessors are mainstream actually - from network cards offloading to small chip in every iPhone, and for a reason.

The obvious way forward is universal specialized coprocessors, reprogrammable for the task(s). Better if tightly integrated with the memory, buses and CPUs.

The weak side of FPGA historically is programmability and especially the tools. But since the interest for FPGA is growing exponentionally in open-source community in recent years, things may change.

And by the way, 10 years ago you would say that exactly 'niche' words about GPU.

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

#184

Post by GrayShade » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 9:45 AM UTC

Phoronix already tested this: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=l1tf-ear... and https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=l1tf-for....

The performance loss isn't that bad in most cases.

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

#185

Post by bluecalm » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 9:47 AM UTC

Jonnax wrote: post #161

eps wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This amounts to little more than making a statement at the expense of your users. It would've carried that much more weight if it were _your_ low-mid 6 figures that were redirected away from Intel.

Intel isn't really that much far ahead to say that users are going to be negatively affected.

Intel is actually behind in performance/price ration by a wide margin at least on workloads which can make use of many cores. The margin is likely getting bigger after the latest patches.

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

#186

Post by physicsguy » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 9:47 AM UTC

Rjevski wrote: post #169

dzdt wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But CPU+FPGA will forever be a tiny niche, right? I don't see any path where mainstream programs get a boost from FPGA.

I can see there being a market for that. The reason nobody uses FPGAs at the moment is because nobody has them outside of specialized applications. If Intel can release a CPU with a built-in FPGA and everyone has one, software developers will take advantage of them. I can see stuff like video editing programs, compression algorithms, etc taking advantage of that.

The other thing is that they're a nightmare to programme and they're expensive!

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

#187

Post by zmix » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 9:53 AM UTC

It is sad to see Intel moving this way, but the Internet will find a way around this. As it did so often.

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

#188

Post by msiyer » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 9:53 AM UTC

Fzzr wrote: post #25

muppetman wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely it's just designed to scare the big media websites from publishing numbers.

The license can't restrict third parties from sharing benchmarks, which is why it puts the onus on the user not to allow third parties to share them. If some news site was to publish benchmarks without disclosing the source, Intel would first have to take them to court to force them to disclose who provided said benchmarks. That's as far as I can see it directly impacting sites that don't run their own benchmarks. Th…

> Sadly, even if this is unenforceable, the potential legal battle to have it declared so would be scary enough to quash some criticism.

I have seen this happen in so many cases all over the world. Supreme Court orders can be ignored by the government agencies and even private parties as long as no one drags them to court. Spending a 100 million dollars is nothing for the government or influential private parties as big as Intel. The small guy, however, will be bankrupted.

Be it the government or the big corporate, it is effectively the public money being used against the public. How absurd.

This shows that money is necessary for justice. This is dangerous.

Why can we not have systems that detect such frauds and automatically discipline such entities? It is not like such violations are happening behind closed doors of a small house in an inaccessible jungle. These violations are public.

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

#189

Post by aruggirello » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 9:54 AM UTC

So what will these guys do?

https://www.cpubenchmark.net

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

#190

Post by spacenick88 » Thu, Aug 23, 2018, 9:55 AM UTC

Fzzr wrote: post #25

muppetman wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely it's just designed to scare the big media websites from publishing numbers.

The license can't restrict third parties from sharing benchmarks, which is why it puts the onus on the user not to allow third parties to share them. If some news site was to publish benchmarks without disclosing the source, Intel would first have to take them to court to force them to disclose who provided said benchmarks. That's as far as I can see it directly impacting sites that don't run their own benchmarks. Th…

This becomes doubly interesting once those users are in a different jurisdiction. I highly doubt a EU court would be willing to uphold such a bullshit term for a US company. Especially since many EU countries have quite strong laws against unexpected/unreasonable licensing terms.