Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'AMD Processors' started by gigaxtreme1, Jan 8, 2018.
So my understanding is that the patch bricks systems up to Phenom II? AM3 and before?
I think by bricked they really meant borked Windows Update that Windows rolls back after failing to boot into Windows multiple times.
Well from what I read, after installing the patch, it will not boot to windows after a restart. Best not to install the update until Microsoft fixes the patch.
I started this thread because I am not sure what CPUs are affected. I've read that up to AM3 may be affected but not sure. Be nice to have a definitive answer. Still have a 555BE floating around without a home so can't test.
Edit So far it seems to have affected up to Athlon 64 X2 6400. Will update as more info is available.
Edit2. Had to laugh. Someone with a Threadripper 1950x reported the same issue on the MS Support thread.
Seems to be only Athlons are affected so far, no words on AM3.
Nice Job MS/Intel.
I wonder how much Intel paid Microsoft for that "blunder".
And why exactly would you not check processor type and only patch the bad Intel boxes and bypass the AMD ones? Such idiots. Linux didn't have a problem with that.
Looks like MS has a comprehensive list. Credit- [H]ard frontpage discussions.
I like how they try to blame this on 10 year old documentation. Hey idiots, how about DON'T APPLY A PATCH TO HARDWARE THAT DOESN'T NEED IT.
Intel: "Oops, we goofed, try this. Its no big deal, not our fault blahblahblah here have a cookie."
AMD: "We don't need this, lol."
Microsoft: "Hold my beer."
AMD please sue both these retards and win. Knowingly using defective or untested work from one vendor and allowing it to damage that vendor's competitor is pretty blatant.
10 year old spec is the problem? Funny, the processors worked fine 10 years ago. Somebody misread the spec or didn't bother to test. MS is liable.
The issue goes all the way back to PPro and K6.
At this point in time if you are crazy enough to buy Windows and not expect this something is wrong with you
This patch applies to spectre, a variant which some AMD chips are susceptible to. The issue is that they changed something that (according to them) the documentation said wouldn't cause any problems (or at least, didn't explicitly say it would cause problems). Turns out it did. It could be that they overlooked something, or it may have actually been omitted from the documentation. Either way, Microsoft managed to botch an update again. Nothing out of the ordinary here.
Wow this is really crazy. I am glad bought a 1700X
All AMD chips back to K6 are exploitable by Spectre. Every single OOO design from any vendor.
Dayum, why is anyone even trying to run an Athlon with Win10. Time for an upgrade.
Thanks for the clarification, although what I said wasn't exactly wrong...doesn't hurt to be specific.
Have they released patches for Intel yet?
So it was AMD fault after all...
Both AMD and Microsoft are at fault. AMD should have provided accurate documentation, Microsoft should have tested the patches before releasing them (either themselves, through partners like AMD, or via beta channels).
On hardware that old? Yikes.
If Microsoft and AMD care about it, then yes. Otherwise, is it that big a deal? I don't think so, but then I don't run mission critical software on my PC.
So compatibility goes out the window because of spectre but we are still on x86 / x64 why? Give me a break.
Because big business depends on x86/x86-64 or the unix variants.
Honestly I feel they are all at fault.
This is not an x86/x64 problem. ARM, IBM, SPARC,... are affected as well.
Ok, AMD fault is providing incorrect documentation to Microsoft; whereas Microsoft fault was to trust AMD in this.
They just both need to get act together and fix the issue before becomes more of a major headache.
The Verge sees this as typical buck passing, however, there is in the quote below from poster "Reflex" there about noted poor documentation of chipset work in previous generations. Go to excuse and buck passing? You be the judge.
"Having worked on the MS side of platform engineering in the past I am in no way surprised. I like AMD, I've usually run AMD unless untenable. But their chipset work was very poorly documented and the bugs we ran into were usually due to poor assumptions we had to make in the lack of better information. The speed of these patches unfortunately would have the risk of exposing this issue (vs a longer cycle which would give time for back and forth with AMD/additional testing), and that seems to have been the case here..." -Reflex
That is good to hear. I really always liked AMD as a company.