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

31–40 of 499 posts

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

#31

Post by EGreg »

johnklos wrote: post #2

I'm really curious how Intel could even imagine this is enforceable. For instance, if I have a server with shell access for many users, am I supposed to forbid my users from publishing benchmarks? If they do, am I liable since I "agreed" to the license? Or are they, even though they never "agreed" to the license? It just doesn't make sense.

NDAs are stupid for the sams reason. Your rich uncle who never signed it can go use the idea, while you remain poor let’s say. Who are they gonna go after?

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

#32

Post by tzmudzin »

paulie_a wrote: post #20
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.

And even if they did think it through. It should be aggressively ignored.

... or just the reverse: clearly omitted in all benchmarks, stating you buy at your own risk because of Intel's unwillingness to subject its products to examination.

[Sure it's not going to fly given Intel's market position, but it's a tempting thought anyway...]

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

#34

Post by cm2187 »

duxup wrote: post #22
Nition wrote: post #9

They better be wary of the Streisand Effect here. Banning benchmarking just makes it seem like the performance hit is going to be serious, which makes everyone even more curious.

I didn't know anything about this... now I'm really curious what the benchmarks are. Now that it is news they're pretty much begging for someone to do the benchmarks. This reminds me of the oracle license that was so broad it prevented users from talking to other users about their experience with the product... any experience.

And I don't think Intel has any way to prevent some blog in China or Russia to run some standardised benchmark tools on their box. Intel will not even achieve preventing these benchmarks popping up, it will just draw attention to them.

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

#35

Post by mnm1 »

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 action. Whether they could have known about the exploits or not is irrelevant at this point. They refuse to provide proper patches without this license which is equivalent to providing no patches at all while knowing about the exploit. They have provided faulty hardware without a way to fix it. A lawsuit or a few thousand is the only way to get resolution on this.

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

#37

Post by 0xcde4c3db »

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…

> 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 Intel-killer was the Zilog Z80 notably used in various CP/M and MSX computers). Commodore eventually acquired the company, rebranding it Commodore Semiconductor Group. A CMOS version of the 6502 is still sold by the Western Design Center [1].

[1] http://www.westerndesigncenter.com/wdc/w65c02s-chip.cfm

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

#38

Post by Valmar »

tzmudzin wrote: post #33
gesman wrote: post #30

This TOS is driven by lawyers, not by business decision makers

Are lawyers running their business, or are business decision makers making business decisions?

Lawyers, I might guess, if this TOS is anything to go by.

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

#39

Post by phyller »

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…

Normally I'd give people the benefit of the doubt, but in this case I think Intel has already shown that they have no credibility in anything anymore. They only ever spin everything, the last time anyone said something truthful (former CEO mentioned they needed to try to limit AMD to 20% server share, up from less than 1%), he was not only fired but publicly humiliated.
Post reply on HN