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

231–240 of 499 posts

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

#231

Post by bocklund »

lawlessone wrote: post #219
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel are still ahead in low power mobile (laptop) CPU race, and the clear leader in the laptop market. Who knows for how long, though?

>Intel are still ahead in low power mobile CPU race, I never met a person with a smart phone that uses an intel chip. They probably exist but i know none. Apple aren't using them. Samsung aren't.. HTC nope.. Google pixel nope... Intel basically sold off/scuttled their mobile division right before the iphone took off.

I think “mobile” was supposed to refer to laptops, not phones or tablets.

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

#232

Post by kashyapc »

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…

Yeah, my guess would be it's #1 too; I can't believe that Intel can be so naive that no one on the internet will benchmark the performance—given how all these nasty CVEs are raising such a stink. Serious customers will demand performance numbers; you can't simply answer them with "blocked due to legal".

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

#233

Post by debiandev »

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

Debian has a dedicated archive, named "non-free", for everything that does not comply with the DFSG.

The DFSG is a set of guidelines that define what can be considered true FLOSS.

The reason is to protect users from legal risks.

https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html

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

#234

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#235

Post by yohann305 »

carlmr wrote: post #80
headmelted wrote: post #50

Before Zen, we all kind of assumed they were so far ahead that AMD were more likely to be out of business before they would ever be a credible threat again. I actually thought Intel must have had some tricks up their sleeves in terms of performance gains that we hadn't seen yet, simply because there was no market need to roll them out and they had so many years of coasting on marginal gains. Seeing them taking this s…

>they've nothing significant to show for all that time and money spent when they were raking it in without a serious competitor. Big companies rarely innovate without competition around.

This is certainly a myth. Everyone knows, including big companies, that as you grow in size you have a harder time innovating. The classic "lean startup" book mentions this issue and gives the example of Intuit's in-house accelerator/incubator. No way Intel doesn't know about it too.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/04/19/in...

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

#236

Post by giancarlostoro »

wolfgke wrote: post #147

My thougt based on the HN headline "Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed" (after having read the article, of course): Doesn't this show that it is time for someone to set up some kind of "ScienceLeaks" website, where scientists can upload research (results, papers, ...) anonymously which they are are not allowed to do legally because of various such "research-restricting" laws. ---…

> Doesn't this show that it is time for someone to set up some kind of "ScienceLeaks" website, where scientists can upload research (results, papers, ...) anonymously which they are are not allowed to do legally because of various such "research-restricting" laws.

I don't go there since 2008 but why not just wikileaks?

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

#237

Post by exikyut »

peteri wrote: post #182
exikyut wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

TIL.

I understand what you mean though. Architecture itself isn't _that_ critical; peripherals and batteries-included capabilities are.

In this case, when I read "for developing educational and industrial strength microcontrollers." in the product description I immediately concluded that the "educational" is quite possibly part of a product pitch to companies making 6502-based control equipment, along of course with educational institutions still using the 6502 as a teaching aid.

As for devkits I do want, the Forth GA144 is definitely up there near the top, and the KISS-68030 (https://www.retrobrewcomputers.org/doku.php?id=boards:ecb:ki...) is floating around in there as a very unsure "maybe".

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

#238

Post by bearjaws »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #236
wolfgke wrote: post #147

My thougt based on the HN headline "Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed" (after having read the article, of course): Doesn't this show that it is time for someone to set up some kind of "ScienceLeaks" website, where scientists can upload research (results, papers, ...) anonymously which they are are not allowed to do legally because of various such "research-restricting" laws. ---…

> Doesn't this show that it is time for someone to set up some kind of "ScienceLeaks" website, where scientists can upload research (results, papers, ...) anonymously which they are are not allowed to do legally because of various such "research-restricting" laws. I don't go there since 2008 but why not just wikileaks?

Wikileaks is a Russian propaganda machine.

They are only interested in Anti-America leaks, not all leaks.

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

#239

Post by KozmoNau7 »

lawlessone wrote: post #219
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel are still ahead in low power mobile (laptop) CPU race, and the clear leader in the laptop market. Who knows for how long, though?

>Intel are still ahead in low power mobile CPU race, I never met a person with a smart phone that uses an intel chip. They probably exist but i know none. Apple aren't using them. Samsung aren't.. HTC nope.. Google pixel nope... Intel basically sold off/scuttled their mobile division right before the iphone took off.

I meant "mobile" as in laptop CPUs, I've edited my post to clarify.

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

#240

Post by emilfihlman »

No benchmarking?

Just benchmark and publish results anonymously. Intel can't take them down since the results are not illegal, only the "act" is prohibited by the EULA, which is not enforceable anyways.

Intel should be seriously punished for trying to play like this.

Post reply on HN