Dead Parrot
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Messages
- 2,831
As long as the lawyers are paid in the same currency as members of the class. If we get $20 off coupons, so do the lawyers, just a crap load of them. All with 30 day redeem by dates.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Intel Hit With Multiple Class-Action Lawsuits After Meltdown Debacle
SixFootDuo
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2004
- Messages
- 5,825
They aren't looking at me or you or most American's. Now if your selling tons of drugs, plotting some sort of evil act or other terrible things then I would hope you could be stopped somehow before you blew up my friends or sold drugs to my kids.
theBrownLlama
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2017
- Messages
- 794
please hit Intel so hard that they would actually spend some money to ensure such shit does not happen again.
and why would any Intel user facing up to 30% drop in performance just say a-ok, i forgive you Intel.
and why would any Intel user facing up to 30% drop in performance just say a-ok, i forgive you Intel.
Red Falcon
[H]ard DCOTM December 2023
- Joined
- May 7, 2007
- Messages
- 12,449
viper1152012
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2012
- Messages
- 1,025
Wow, I post on here that I like AMD's approach and the first thing someone does is try to take me down a notch.
Wow.
Wow.
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,937
Actually, this is really good for us consumers. For one, most of the server guys are going to start selling their slower more vulnerable systems. Which means very soon on Ebay we're going to see some very cheap multicore Xeons for sale. As gamers these fixes don't negatively effect us much, though I guarantee you it does, just that we're not benchmarking enough. If you wanna build a very cheap gaming PC, that maybe the way to go.
BTW as someone who got $15 from buying a Pentium 4 from 2001, I think you'll get your $20-$30 afterwards. That might bankrupt Intel but it might also force them to sell more x86 licenses so maybe even Nvidia could make x86 chips. Which is really great seeing as even VIA plans to make a 8-core x86 CPU.
https://www.mydatech.net/via-is-back-8-core-x86-cpu-from-via-to-compete-with-amd-ryzen-and-intel/
This could have been much less of a problem if the overwhelming majority of people didn't buy into Intel. Oh well, bring on the cheap Intels on Ebay.
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,937
When it comes to Intel vs AMD, Intel has had a far more sinister past. The worst that AMD has done is make the FX line of CPUs. The worst that Intel has done is everything. EVERYTHING!
Really everything Intel did is the worst?
I'm not defending them, but your a bit over the top.
Actually, this is really good for us consumers. For one, most of the server guys are going to start selling their slower more vulnerable systems. Which means very soon on Ebay we're going to see some very cheap multicore Xeons for sale. As gamers these fixes don't negatively effect us much, though I guarantee you it does, just that we're not benchmarking enough. If you wanna build a very cheap gaming PC, that maybe the way to go.
BTW as someone who got $15 from buying a Pentium 4 from 2001, I think you'll get your $20-$30 afterwards. That might bankrupt Intel but it might also force them to sell more x86 licenses so maybe even Nvidia could make x86 chips. Which is really great seeing as even VIA plans to make a 8-core x86 CPU.
https://www.mydatech.net/via-is-back-8-core-x86-cpu-from-via-to-compete-with-amd-ryzen-and-intel/
This could have been much less of a problem if the overwhelming majority of people didn't buy into Intel. Oh well, bring on the cheap Intels on Ebay.
that photo, if anything was to catch fire it would be an AMD product.
yes Intel is a greedy monopolistic company, AMD is still far from blameless, such is the nature of being a for profit corporation.
As for the actual problems, they really do not seem like intentional exploits to me, but a unfortunate result of the attempt to find alternative methods to speed up processor architecture. That combined with support for legacy systems seems to be the issue. AMD has just as much if not more support for their legacy hardware (no socket change in how long?). Who knows what might be around the corner, but AMD would be just an vulnerable as intel to a bug in the system impacting a large range of chips.
I view all corporations as they should be, sociopaths.
DeathFromBelow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,315
How is that dishonest?
All CPU's have errata. Has AMD ever had a product flaw so bad that their CEO immediately cashed out like Intel's did?
AMD's biggest problem is that their primary competitor is an anti-competitive juggernaut that's too big to fail.
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,937
Well AMD's Ryzen chips run cooler than Intels. But that fire could be literal or symbolic of what meltdown is doing. But the photo was making fun of Intel delidding.
AMD would certainly be doing what Intel does, if they were in their shoes. Doesn't mean we should go easy on Intel.
The problem is the exploit goes as far back as 1995. That's a really long time. It suggests that Intel doesn't redesign their chips but just tweaks them constantly. Why? Because in 1995 the Pentium Pro was created with the first Out-of-Order execution and even including speculative execution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speculative_execution
That's really lazy of Intel.
auntjemima
[H]ard DCOTM x2
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2014
- Messages
- 12,149
Well AMD's Ryzen chips run cooler than Intels. But that fire could be literal or symbolic of what meltdown is doing. But the photo was making fun of Intel delidding.
AMD would certainly be doing what Intel does, if they were in their shoes. Doesn't mean we should go easy on Intel.
The problem is the exploit goes as far back as 1995. That's a really long time. It suggests that Intel doesn't redesign their chips but just tweaks them constantly. Why? Because in 1995 the Pentium Pro was created with the first Out-of-Order execution and even including speculative execution.
That's really lazy of Intel.
How is that lazy? Do you really think that all manufacturers never pull from previous generations and always build all new? Thats an asinine thing to think OR believe. If it works, and it did for decades, why change it? Intel has been pushing the boundries of silicon for as long as they have been a country, so they certainly haven't been just sitting back and doing nothing. If they did we would call them Cyrix or VIA.
edit: I bet you can find code in the Linux kernel from decades ago. Those lazy bastards!
DukenukemX
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 7,937
One would hope. We know that everyone doesn't build a chip entirely new, but since 1995? At what point was Intel planning to revisit out-of-order to rebuild it or check for security concerns?
Cause it didn't work? That's what Meltdown and Spectre are about. It worked, so long as nobody knew about the bug. What you don't know can't hurt you?
I think you mean company. Though sometimes I think they believe to be royalty.
No, instead we have Larrabee that never happened and now Intel buys AMD's Vega chips. Lately Intel's chips haven't been getting any faster in terms of IPC. Consumer products have been dual core or quad core until Ryzen came in. A Intel 2500k is only 30% slower in IPC to todays Intel chips and can overclock to 4.5Ghz easily. The Broadwell chips had some potential with Iris Pro graphics, until Intel quickly removed this chip from the market for some reason.
Intel has done nothing noteworthy for the past 5-6 years.
Code isn't the same thing as hardware. You can use old code because you can always change it. If you use old hardware design, and there's a flaw, you can't just go buy new hardware. Well you could, but it would be super expensive. BTW, most exploits found in code today is because it's from 10-20 years ago. This is why we had the Y2k bug, because nobody went back to redesign how we tell time.
Intel was being cheap and lazy.
thesmokingman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 6,617
They should be able to pay out more than Nvidia which paid $30 per 970. And the 970 had much less impact than this shit.
So, for the ways I use my PC, my cpu post patch will still be faster than a threadripper.
I don't really care what happens to intel or Brian Krzanich, I care more about what do people that bought intel in the past 90 days get.
People do however seem to enjoy getting nothing for themselves because schadenfreude is more fun to them.
I don't really care what happens to intel or Brian Krzanich, I care more about what do people that bought intel in the past 90 days get.
People do however seem to enjoy getting nothing for themselves because schadenfreude is more fun to them.
You do realize that whatever you use your PC for it will be impacted on the higher level ? You really think that a company that host server will absorb the financial impact of deploying more servers without passing the note to customers (ie: you?). I mean, PSN / XBox live / MMO servers to list gaming services as it seems that what's matter.... (it's ok.. my fps is the same in X benchmark... yeah wait when you're online). I hope we don't see too much price increase ... (Netflix, Spotify, PSN+, slower connections, etc...)
Speaking of business practices, there is no doubt that AMD is the better coporate citizen. However, your statement "the worst thing AMD ever did was make the FX line of CPUs" is completely untrue. That may be the worst product they have made in recent history, but it's not the worst thing they've ever done or the only thing they've ever done wrong.
AMD has a history of making stupid decisions and bad products. Let's not forget that when AMD was dropped as a second source supplier for Intel CPUs, it decided to start reverse engineering it's competitors products because it was unable to produce a competing product on it's own. It's line of 386 and 486 knock off CPUs and indeed CPUs up through the K6-III were subject to software compatibility problems in which they flat wouldn't run some software at all. The AMD K5 was late to market and by the time it got there no one gave a shit. It's 5x86 series CPU's were terrible. AMD has a history of hyping up products only for them to fall flat. Bulldozer and Phenom are both examples of this. Don't forget the Phenom TLB bug which had a fix that degraded performance significantly. Bulldozer ran hot as fuck, but at least it worked properly. Although, it didn't overclock very well as it was pushed to it's clock speed limits at stock speeds. AMD has had awful chipsets virtually from day one. Newer efforts are far better, but there were times when they had south bridges that were so bad motherboard manufacturers didn't even use them. The Athlon 64 and X2's were more expensive than their Intel counterparts because AMD could get away with pricing those CPUs that high. The socket AM4 platform launch was a disaster as well.
Intel's had some bad products too. The Pentium FDIV bug, i820 MTH chip issue, saddling it's chips with Rambus memory, and the Z68 chipset recall are all examples of products that weren't up to scratch. However, from a product standpoint AMD has had what I would consider to be far more failures than Intel has had. And again, while Intel is in the news concerning Meltdown and Spectre, AMD has had some scary processor errata that reads like a Stephen King novel, filled with horrors. Primarily, Intel is guilty of strong arm business tactics and there are plenty of other companies that are guilty of this as well. AMD on the other hand has always been it's worst enemy. It likes to canibalize itself by selling off profitable business units that its good at just so that it could raise capital to stay in the CPU business and at times, this is a business it failed miserably at.
The reason I point out that AMD charged as much or more than Intel for it's Athlon 64 and Athlon FX CPUs is to illustrate that AMD is no saint in the hardware industry. It will charge as much as it can for it's products when it thinks it can get away with it. Usually, it's products have been behind Intel's, and that's not been possible for most of the last 25-30 years. Let's also not forget that reports from people that have worked at Intel normally praise the company and AMD has a hard time holding on to decent talent. It doesn't like to pay people what they are worth. There are a lot of stories that back up both accounts. In short, Intel tends to treat it's employees better than AMD does. I will certainly agree that some of, if not many of Intel's strong arm tactics are or should be illegal. However, I think AMD would do many of those same things if it had the leverage in the market to do so. Companies are ultimately controlled by a board of directors who are beholden to share holders. They need to ensure corporate growth and lining their own pockets is job #1. Anyone anthropomorphizing these companies and assigning personalities to them, or pledging loyalty to them aren't seeing the big picture.
I don't give two squirts of piss what the brand name is on my CPUs. I expect any and all publicly traded coprorations to screw me if given half the chance.
Well AMD's Ryzen chips run cooler than Intels. But that fire could be literal or symbolic of what meltdown is doing. But the photo was making fun of Intel delidding.
AMD would certainly be doing what Intel does, if they were in their shoes. Doesn't mean we should go easy on Intel.
The problem is the exploit goes as far back as 1995. That's a really long time. It suggests that Intel doesn't redesign their chips but just tweaks them constantly. Why? Because in 1995 the Pentium Pro was created with the first Out-of-Order execution and even including speculative execution.
That's really lazy of Intel.
I don't think it's been confirmed that the Pentium Pro is vulnerable to these exploits. In any case, the architecture was revolutionary in its day and it paved the way forward for a lot of companies, not just Intel. Design elements of the Pentium Pro were implmented industry wide at the time. Intel went forward with this architecture for years and even revisited it as the basis for more modern CPUs. Intel hasn't done more to redesign or update it's architectures in the last few years because it's had jack shit for competition. Bulldozer was a joke and Intel knew it. With AMD slipping further and further away from profitability, it was increasingly unlikely that AMD was going to be able to threaten Intel with future CPUs, even as stagnant as Intel's designs have become. From a pure IPC standpoint, or clock speed standpoint, AMD still doesn't threaten them.
Now, AMD needs to take advantage of this situation and move some product. However, I'm skeptical about AMD's ability to do that.
thesmokingman
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2008
- Messages
- 6,617
Linus is going off on Intel.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/3/797
It's hitting the wire...
http://www.businessinsider.com/linus-torvalds-linux-inventor-is-furious-at-intel-2018-1
https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/3/797
It's hitting the wire...
http://www.businessinsider.com/linus-torvalds-linux-inventor-is-furious-at-intel-2018-1
Mister E
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 2,661
I want free money!!!
DrLobotomy
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 19, 2016
- Messages
- 6,736
I want expensive money.