Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed
1–10 of 499 posts
Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed
#2I'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.
Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed
#3I'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.
Surely it's just designed to scare the big media websites from publishing numbers.
Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed
#4I'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.
Surely it's just designed to scare the big media websites from publishing numbers.
This is censorship, plain and simple. They cannot command everyone to abridge their speech, even if their license terms say so. It is unenforceable and illegal.
Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed
#5It would seem that paired with https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17820248 that Intel is reeling back like a wounded animal. I'm intrigued as to what comes next - real innovation or dirty tactics to stay on top?
Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Surely it's just designed to scare the big media websites from publishing numbers.
This is censorship, plain and simple. They cannot command everyone to abridge their speech, even if their license terms say so. It is unenforceable and illegal.
It's also crazy to my mind. The reality is these various issues are all having potentially significant impacts on performance -- and it's not just the microcode related changes, but also the kernel changes, etc. It is kind of ridiculous to require everyone to do their own testing and not allow basic numbers to be published.
I also find it fascinating in that in theory your BIOS update can include these changes.. does this anti benchmark license apply if you reflash a new BIOS or just buy a new motherboard with the new bios and then use the same type of CPU to compare?
Makes me want to look at some BIOS and motherboard EULAs now...
Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed
#7I'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.
Or you buy a CPU that was previously patched, even by Intel themselves.
Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed
#8I'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.
Well the license specifically says you will not permit a third party to either.
I don't really speak legalese, but does permit include having to then make all of your own users agree not to to avoid a penalty?
As mentioned in the other comment thread though, I imagine the reality of this clause is to prevent media outlets (such as Phoronix who would traditionally do exactly this kind of benchmarking) from downloading the microcode and publishing numbers directly.
Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed
#9They 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.
Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed
#10I'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.
Or you buy a CPU that was previously patched, even by Intel themselves.
Or you outright ignore the stipulation and do whatever the hell you want. Quite frankly I hope to see some benchmark articles that literally start with profanity telling Intel where to stick it.