AMD Security Announcement on Fallout, RIDL and ZombieLoad Attack
Click here to post a comment for AMD Security Announcement on Fallout, RIDL and ZombieLoad Attack on our message forum
TheDeeGee
I was 99.99% sure to go back to AMD after 14 years, but it's more like 300% now.
alanm
AMD have just capitalized on their greatest marketing opportunity of the year. Well done for them.
DesGaizu
OOF! Just another reason to be happy with my 2700x
fantaskarsef
Just give us Ryzen 3k already 😀
But yes... I'm now 100% certain I'll switch to AMD this year. I've had enough.
Richard Nutman
I was contemplating switching back to AMD on next cpu upgrade. I think this cements it.
SniperX
As I understand it, 8th and 9th gen Intel CPUs are not affected by these MDS vulnerabilities, as they are mitigated on a hardware level.
Krteq
Nope, those are NOT mitigated on HW level, re-read research papers again.
Kaarme
ZombieLoad refers to Intel's board of directors.
lucidus
Hell I'll get a PS5 and whatever good desktop cpu and chipset they have next year. Double AMD for me :P
jose2016
I hope the FXs aren't affected either.
TheDeeGee
Except with all these issues being patched the performance of my CPU decreases every single time.
Add them all up and it's a pretty bad dent for what i paid for.
Kool64
Seems to me like Intel may have been "ignoring" security in the name of speed.
fantaskarsef
The security issue is not overhyped. Why fix anything if it's not that bad? Intel themselves prove you wrong by working on a fix.
Easily patched via a microcode update? I don't get those for my mainboard / CPU anymore, Haswell-E did not get the last fixes like Skylake etc., de facto I have no way to fix this as a user besides hacking a bios. That's not "easily" done, even for people around here on the forums.
Minimal performance impact, yeah sure. The least impact is on Skylake, the rest is actually pretty hefty. Read the benchmarks. And even if it's just a few %, add it up with 3 major issues and you get -15%. That is not minimal.
The reason you don't feel any more or less secure is because it was researches who discovered this vulnerability, not a black hat hacker. If so, we're back to wannacry that crippled virtually every PC or endangered it, as well as infrastructure. In these modern times, sorry to say, we as simple users are not the target. But have fun with your all so secure Intel CPU when the hackers switch off your districts power grid because an Intel CPU is in the server farm managing the grid. And it's not like this never happened before.
Sure, "lower per core performance" is lower in some scenarios, and higher in others with AMD. Especially for productivity you get a better deal with AMD, not sure what you are specifically referring to that makes Intel shine there. Gaming, you might be right, but not above 1080p. Then the CPU becomes less important, and when you're playing 4K AMD is just as good as Intel right now.
But hey, stay with your Intel CPUs it's fine, to each their own. I don't want a product that's faulty for a premium price when I can very well get by with something else without any issues like breaking OS features with mitigations, crippling performance people paid for, and not even having a fix for everything offered to everybody because older CPUs aren't interesting to them anymore.
And yes Intel does deserve bashing here, why should they not? It's pretty clear that their product has issues, yet they always sold it for a premium price. They didn't know? Too bad, just because I don't know there's a law forbidding something doesn't make me innocent when I still break it.
"Sorry I didn't know every CPU we sold is de facto 10% slower an average than we said because we need to fix so many vulnerabilites the average user doesn't even know, but thanks for your money, we used it well to NOT improve our products that much at all, but our company's officers earned a few good bonuses."
You Intel fanboy realise, that the patches and microcode updates probably won't be available for every one of those older CPUs? Like the last vulnerabilities still haven't reached an available patch state for Haswell and before that? So no, I'm actually less safe than yesterday because now the vulnerability I can't patch is publicly known.
But yeah, go ahead on your high horse and enjoy your security issues and the "better performance" in "every" application (which simply is not true, but read it up yourself).
And yes guys, I'll enjoy my new CPU, thanks 🙂 Enjoy your old ones as well, I'm sure you performance will only increase with those fixes!!1! INTEL 4 EVA!!1!
Venix
A) how you know none used em?
B) if they are known since 2008 how this makes intel look not fixing em in 11 years??
C) with this reasoning if there is no burglary on your neighbor last few years stop locking your door and instead just leave em wide open!
Alessio1989
I can image that datacenter clients are sooo happy right now...
They cannot, or they will destroyed in never-ending legal trials loop by datacenter/HTPC OEMs and clients
fry178
@jwb1
lol, when running benchmarks @720p/50y old software thats not up to date and doesnt know how to run on more than 4 cores?
tunejunky
wow are we going to go to the playground next?
i own both AMD and Intel. however, i used to buy Intel HEDT, but not now. i'm gladly and proudly running Threadripper, which Intel cannot touch. i know this because i use it for work and play, replacing my x79/x99
i also have a Ryzen (+) system... for all of the Intel fanboy's whining about performance hits "not seen in everyday use", that's precisely the case in Ryzen vs I-7/9 performance. very few people "need" (as opposed to want) the fps advantage in games, and as the majority do not game at all they have "moar cores" to get work done.
as far as mobile computing, i'm still rocking Intel/Nvidia despite the price premium, although i expect that to change next year.
as an old fart, i hasten to remind the youngsters that the performance delta between Intel and AMD mainstream processors are less than the former difference between an I-5 and I-7.
waltc3
I can assure you that Intel does not view the issue as an "ant hill"...;) Far from it. OTOH, you are certainly making a molehill of the fact that in terms of bang-for-the-buck, AMD is a much better buy. Additionally, the "faster in games" thing has to do with specific game-engine optimizations--that will be ending soon, too. Same exact situation developed when the original Athlon was released, too--soon as game devs used optimized Athlon compilers Intel got left behind with the original Pentium (which Intel wound up cancelling, entirely. I had a few Pentiums and a few Athlons in the day--I know.)
OS microcode patching stinks, imo, for a variety of reasons. Foremost, though, is that every time you reinstall the OS you have to reapply the OS patches. If you want to run another OS you are simply out of luck. With bios/firmware updates you are good to go regardless of OS or Windows reinstalls. Also, Intel is using OS microcode patching only because they cannot do it in their bios/firmware for various reasons on various of their cpus. This issue is a simple one. AMD cpus are simply much more recently designed cpus--much newer architectures--hence the problems in terms of vulnerabilities are quite a bit less in comparison with Intel's much older architectures.
tunejunky
waltc is the man.
dead on about old uArch, how many people b*tch and moan about AMD gpu refreshes when Intel has been doing nothing except cpu refreshes for almost ten years.
Aura89
If only you believed in facts rather then nonsense.
