Intel Is Unable Deliver a Microcode Patch Some Older CPU Models

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
49,879
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?
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,099
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.
 

PantherBlitz

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 14, 2011
Messages
421
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.
 

DeathFromBelow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
7,316
• Micro-architectural characteristics that preclude a practical implementation of features mitigating Variant 2 (CVE-2017-5715)
That's all you really need to know. Everything else sounds like PR BS.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
21,903
More notable archs that will affect users here are Bloomfield, Gulftown, Wolfdale and Yorkfield.
 

Absalom

Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
750
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:

viper1152012

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
1,025
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.
 

nutzo

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 15, 2004
Messages
7,380
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.
 

Absalom

Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
750
Phew...my Q6600 @ 3.6Ghz is safe.
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.
 

/dev/null

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Mar 31, 2001
Messages
14,525
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.
Actually, it looks like nehalem-ep and westmere-ep are covered...

Those are pre-sandy.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,592
Bloomfield was dangled for Desktop gaming use. I'm still rocking one. Guess I'm screwed.
 

YeuEmMaiMai

Death Incarnate
Joined
Jun 11, 2004
Messages
17,530
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...
 

FlawleZ

Gawd
Joined
Oct 20, 2010
Messages
994
Bloomfield was dangled for Desktop gaming use. I'm still rocking one. Guess I'm screwed.
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.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,592
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.
May be some truth to that, but the vulnerability was only widely known recently.
 

Absalom

Gawd
Joined
Oct 3, 2007
Messages
750
Actually, it looks like nehalem-ep and westmere-ep are covered...

Those are pre-sandy.
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.
 

Nuxius

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 16, 2006
Messages
251
So to more accurately reflect my previous statement, pre-Sandy Bridge mainstream cpus are getting the MCU shaft or lack thereof.
Nope, because the Lynnfield (i7 8xx, i5 7xx) and Clarkdale (i5 6xx, i3 5xx, Pentium G69xx) are still slated for the update.
 

Johan Steyn

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
85
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.
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!!!!
 

cjcox

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
1,641
With regards to these recent issues your subject headline could be abbreviated: "Intel is Unable"
 

IdiotInCharge

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 13, 2003
Messages
13,856
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!!!!
I love this asshattery.

You realize that the equivalent AMD products went backward in performance?
 

Johan Steyn

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 1, 2016
Messages
85
I love this asshattery.

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

Zepher

[H]ipster Replacement
Joined
Sep 29, 2001
Messages
17,409
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
 
Top