Intel Is Unable Deliver a Microcode Patch Some Older CPU Models

FrgMstr

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,601
Intel has released a document that explains which CPUs will not receive a Spectre / Meltdown patch. Chipzilla believes that these CPUs are typically implemented in closed systems and are expected to have a lower likelihood of exposure to vulnerabilities. Also it was deemed not practical to patch some CPUs.

Stopped – After a comprehensive investigation of the microarchitectures and microcode capabilities for these products, Intel has determined to not release
microcode updates for these products for one or more reasons including, but not limited to the following:
• Micro-architectural characteristics that preclude a practical implementation of features mitigating Variant 2 (CVE-2017-5715)
• Limited Commercially Available System Software support
• Based on customer inputs, most of these products are implemented as “closed systems” and therefore are expected to have a lower likelihood of
exposure to these vulnerabilities

A lot of our readership purchases old servers through the resale market for projects. So on one hand I would like to see everything properly patched, but if something is truly ancient then what's the point?
 
Ehh, wasn't really expecting them to release an update to 10 year old CPU's anyways. I doubt board makers or Microsoft would of even published the update.
 
The fix hurts performance of Server 2008 and Win 7 a good bit, so I'm suspecting that may have had something to do with it as well.
 
Intel said:
• Micro-architectural characteristics that preclude a practical implementation of features mitigating Variant 2 (CVE-2017-5715)
Click to expand...

That's all you really need to know. Everything else sounds like PR BS.
 
More notable archs that will affect users here are Bloomfield, Gulftown, Wolfdale and Yorkfield.
 
This is basically everything, relatively speaking, right up until (but not including) Sandy Bridge.

Well, at least we now have the proverbial line-in-the-sand from Intel.
 
Last edited:
Iwas hoping they woud own up and fix everything.

For me they have persuaded me to stay away from the used market.

So going forward I'll just get new cheap amd procs for my budget builds.

Sigh.
 
I have a lot of older equipment at home & the office, yet it appears every CPU I have in use will have the fix available except for my 2 oldest servers.
Considering the servers are already 10 years old and should have been retired by now, it's not a big deal.
I working on getting rid of one of them, guess I just add the other to the list.
 
Rauelius said:
Phew...my Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz is safe.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't get my hopes up on that. Just because you're not (explicitly) on the list, doesn't mean you're getting a microcode update.

My powers of deduction tell me that if neither an E8500 nor a Q9500 are getting an MCU, your Q6600 ain't getting one either. Someone at Intel just probably forgot to add that family to the list.
 
Absalom said:
This is basically everything, relatively speaking, right up until (but not including) Sandy Bridge.

Well, at least we now have the proverbial line-in-the-sand from Intel.
Click to expand...

Actually, it looks like nehalem-ep and westmere-ep are covered...

Those are pre-sandy.
 
Bloomfield was dangled for Desktop gaming use. I'm still rocking one. Guess I'm screwed.
 
have nothing on the list that cannot be patched outside of hardware that is literally in pieces...all currently running machines are good to go microcode update wise...
 
jpm100 said:
Bloomfield was dangled for Desktop gaming use. I'm still rocking one. Guess I'm screwed.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't sweat it. The vulnerability has always been there and your still marching on without issue. Especially if it's just a dedicated gaming system.
 
FlawleZ said:
I wouldn't sweat it. The vulnerability has always been there and your still marching on without issue. Especially if it's just a dedicated gaming system.
Click to expand...
May be some truth to that, but the vulnerability was only widely known recently.
 
/dev/null said:
Actually, it looks like nehalem-ep and westmere-ep are covered...

Those are pre-sandy.
Click to expand...

Nice catch. Upon second glance of the updated list, it seems that Intel started work on the i7-9xx series but decided it wasn't worth hence the "Stopped" state. Interestingly enough it seems they completed the MCU work for the Xeon & Mobile family equivalents of Nehalem and Westmere archs.

So to more accurately reflect my previous statement, pre-Sandy Bridge mainstream cpus are getting the MCU shaft or lack thereof.
 
Absalom said:
So to more accurately reflect my previous statement, pre-Sandy Bridge mainstream cpus are getting the MCU shaft or lack thereof.
Click to expand...
Nope, because the Lynnfield (i7 8xx, i5 7xx) and Clarkdale (i5 6xx, i3 5xx, Pentium G69xx) are still slated for the update.
 
bigdogchris said:
Ehh, wasn't really expecting them to release an update to 10 year old CPU's anyways. I doubt board makers or Microsoft would of even published the update.
Click to expand...

One of my PC's has one of these CPU's and it is working just fine with Windows 10. Why should I be forced to buy a new system just because Intel has a flaw that I did not create? Now this machine cannot be trusted on my network, which it is on and has rights on the network. In which universe is this OK?

Intel is rubbish and I will never ever support such a useless company again, never ever - did I say never? At least AMD supported their old CPU's and yet Intel's CEO stated that Intel is the most secure CPU company - bull twang!!!!
 
With regards to these recent issues your subject headline could be abbreviated: "Intel is Unable"
 
Johan Steyn said:
Intel is rubbish and I will never ever support such a useless company again, never ever - did I say never? At least AMD supported their old CPU's and yet Intel's CEO stated that Intel is the most secure CPU company - bull twang!!!!
Click to expand...

I love this asshattery.

You realize that the equivalent AMD products went backward in performance?
 
IdiotInCharge said:
I love this asshattery.

You realize that the equivalent AMD products went backward in performance?
Click to expand...

How is your comment even relevant? The question is not about performance, but security. Maybe you did not get it?

The fact that AMD made lower performing CPU's is in no way relevant to the topic. But it is OK, support Intel so that we can have another decade of no innovation, just go ahead...
 
Not sure if the machine being on for so long without a reboot made the scores lower, or if the Meltdown patch is the cause, but went from 1942 to 1817.

Intel probably won't do a microcode update for this old machine.

cinebench15-dual-xeon.jpg


hal-9000-cinebench-1817.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top