Linus Torvalds Rips Into Intel

Madoc said:
Government Prosecutor: State your name for the record.

Linus Torvalds: I am Linus Torvalds.

Prosecutor: Do you know the defendant?

Torvalds: Yes, I know the Intel Corporation. It is most kind and generous. It is a cup overflowing with the cream of human goodness. I have never known it to do anything immoral.
Unless maybe the Preschooler's Prostitute Ring.
And he has never done anything illegal.​
Unless you count all the times it sold dope disguised as a nun.
It has always been a good, law-abiding corporate citizen ...​
Give me a break!
... of the United States ...​
Shut up! Shut up!
A community-conscious entity.​
Intel?! It's just a low-down, double-dealing, backstabbing, larcenous, perverted worm! Hanging is too good for it! Burning is too good for it! It should be torn into little pieces and buried alive! I will kill it! Kill!!​
Click to expand...

Actually Intel is a major contributor to The Linux Foundation this is not something as simple that Linus Torvalds is just doing an act to get attention ......
 
Oh well, can always pull the plug, who needs the internet? In reality I really wouldn't mind an easy way to turn it on/off. A lot of stuff I do doesn't seem like speed will be an issue, for a few things like large compiles it might be nice to be able to easily turn it off. Or just screw the whole thing and hope my virus scanner keeps up (i.e. continue as normal). Never had a virus yet (knock on wood) got my first modem in 1981.
 
Pieter3dnow said:
What people do not get is what the complaints are about.

1. The work is done by lawyers
2. The patch is garbage.

http://fudzilla.com/news/processors/45428-intel-s-patch-is-garbage



The patch as it is now is a guide for engineers how to circumvent lawsuits by not crippling performance on Intel products.
Torvalds is not happy with this approach be basically says it is not much of a patch for meltdown.

If Intel would apply a proper patch for meltdown it would seriously cripple performance but then it is completely secure

In the end this would seriously cripple performance. By implying this Torvalds more or less means that you want a secure system you would have to change to AMD hardware because if there is a proper patch for Intel system the performance hit will be grounds for lawsuits ....
Click to expand...
It is kind of incredible that we're getting the worst of both worlds. A minor slowdown patch that doesn't actually solve the problem.
 
gigatexal said:
yeah fuck intel -- hopefully this makes server grade parts cheap as people offload them like crazy -- and then i can just run a custom kernel in my home lab without the patches.
Click to expand...

People have been "hoping" for this since the day it dropped. Since then Intel stock hasn't dropped at all. That's through 2 major security issues, a patch that lowers system performance by a ton in IO operations and now a patch that does the above AND causes random reboots and isn't enabled by default.

Keep dreaming. They are too engrained in the server market to be going anywhere any time soon.
 
DukenukemX said:
From what I understand, Intel wants to put a switch in their CPUs that turns on the Meltdown fix but by default it's off. Thus the CPU by default runs fast until the OS flips the switch to make it run slower. Which kinda puts the blame on the OS instead of the CPU. And of course having a security feature off be default isn't exactly a good idea.
Click to expand...

Yet if microsoft put security features on by default in windows 10 it's also no good according to a ton of people so which one is it?
 
Denpepe said:
Yet if microsoft put security features on by default in windows 10 it's also no good according to a ton of people so which one is it?
Click to expand...
As someone pointed out, by having a switch it means even malicious software could find a way to flip it off. A lot of things can happen before the kernel in the OS takes control as well, so having it off by default is stupid. Also I may have mixed up Spectre and Meltdown in my post.
 
I don't have an axe to grind one way or another with Intel and AMD, I've had lots of processors from both over the years, but damn. I'm glad I put a Ryzen in my current build.
 
n31l said:
why doesn't Intel just release and force the patch and then also unlock turbo on 'all' cores as a goodwill measure, a kind of 'robbing Peter to pay Paul' situation, they 'usually' have loads of thermal scope to be able to do it. My E5-2695 V3 has turbo enabled on all 14 cores via UEFI hack, after running Prime95 for an hour it never goes above 62c.. seems like an easy way to save face a little to me
..
Click to expand...

Because ale of those OEM machines that runs with just barely enough cooling will suddenly run with not enough cooling cripling performance even more as they every so often gets downscaled to 1600mhz.
Also see: Dell and the first computer with the pentium4 800mhz busspeed hyperthreaded cpu running almost constantly at throttled speed.

You personal CPU example is a small drop in the oceans of computers out there.
 
SvenBent said:
Because ale of those OEM machines that runs with just barely enough cooling will suddenly run with not enough cooling cripling performance even more as they every so often gets downscaled to 1600mhz.
Also see: Dell and the first computer with the pentium4 800mhz busspeed hyperthreaded cpu running almost constantly at throttled speed.

You personal CPU example is a small drop in the oceans of computers out there.
Click to expand...


What this whole fiasco shows is how Intel managed to outdo AMD was by using highly risky design decisions that put user data in jeopardy. Such a methodoology of developing cpu's is absolutely dangerous and unacceptable. Intel has to pay the price for this: A massive loss of market share.
 
"...namely that the whole hardware interface is literally mis-designed by morons."

ROFL

Has this guy used his own OS recently?!
The only appropriate time to use the word "literally" is when people are accustom to exaggerating or lying.
 
os2wiz said:
What this whole fiasco shows is how Intel managed to outdo AMD was by using highly risky design decisions that put user data in jeopardy. Such a methodoology of developing cpu's is absolutely dangerous and unacceptable. Intel has to pay the price for this: A massive loss of market share.
Click to expand...

The idea is when you run a business then you know what you are doing. So it comes back to how much of those development costs and profits is worth sacrificing for security concerns. Intel prolly has outstanding engineers but when it comes to checking for flaws Intel forgot to spend money.

Cutting corners in this business is kind of troublesome it can lead to things as IME. If that was not a wake up call for Intel management then they have to get rid of all of them if they want to survive. Because the term "negligence" doesn't cover it ...
 
ecktt said:
"...namely that the whole hardware interface is literally mis-designed by morons."

ROFL

Has this guy used his own OS recently?!
The only appropriate time to use the word "literally" is when people are accustom to exaggerating or lying.
Click to expand...

Probably misdirected. Linus holds claims to the origins of the Linux kernel. The "OS" that you speak of is likely more attributable to the userland tools, many of which are part of the GNU software packages (but not all of course).

With that said, usually when criticizing an "OS" you're trying to suggest something better. Please give us that "better" alternative.
 
When reading about Meltdown and Spectre, from a common sense point of view, the phrase that stuck out to me was Intel claiming "99% accurate branch prediction." In what world is 99% prediction possible? Sure, historical data can give you good idea, but to get it correct 99% of the time means something is cheating. Now we know the cheating is that it doesn't properly take countermeasures against nefarious intent. As I understand it, it's like using the same password across multiple websites, or taking the same route home every day. If you map virtual address to physical address in the same way every time, uh duh, someone can figure out what happened. If you execute instructions before they're called for just to have them ready as the next step, and then it ends up not needing it, well woops, it's like making a widget that wasn't needed. Does it get thrown in the scrap pile and get shredded and destroyed? Or does it get dumped in the bin for some nosy someone to walk by and pick it out and examine it? Intel clearly did some shoddy design to get performance. Now they got caught. Just like VW and fudging their engine performance to get better numbers on the benchmark. Get caught, fix it, and make reparations. Don't dick around trying to put it on the OS vendors. Why should someone else be responsible for fixing your screw up? Sounds like Linus is saying the same thing here. Suck it up and actually fix it.
 
alamox said:
from what iv read it's clear than intel is trying to spread the damage to AMD by trying to keep the fix even for the next gen software ( os based) and intel don't get shafted in benchmarks, to the point of making a critical flaw protection optional, all for the sake of benchmarks results.
i think intel is already ran by marketing team, too much monopoly moved engineering talent aside, in alot of things that they do, you feel like a clueless person is in charge or at least have too many seats on the decision making board.
Click to expand...

I get this feeling, too. I still stand by my thought that they *knew* about this before hand, possibly even engineered this shortcut in to stay ahead of AMD. And now it's coming home to roost. I hope this spells serious trouble for Intel, and AMD takes the initiative to pull market share and create a more even playing ground.
 
20 years and Intel didn't do anything still sounds like a back door to me. Now that they got found out it's a FLAW . I call BS......
 
cjcox said:
Probably misdirected. Linus holds claims to the origins of the Linux kernel. The "OS" that you speak of is likely more attributable to the userland tools, many of which are part of the GNU software packages (but not all of course).

With that said, usually, when criticizing an "OS" you're trying to suggest something better. Please give us that "better" alternative.
Click to expand...

Windows! Linux is not all bad but you'd swear they were trying to be.

and your partly right, I don't like user experience software for Linux. I pretty much hate Linux monolithic kernel and having to program for back in school. Man, even updating drivers is a pain. Linus attitude over the years has not helped. The man all but picked a fight with Tanenbaum, the dude who wrote the book on Operating Systems. You just can't study Computers at a reputable university and avoid reading his book.

Intel screwed the pooch with meltdown but all CPUs with branch prediction are exposed to spectre. Him being a Jackhole about isn't helping anyone. And well I just have a pet peeve about the excessive use of the "literally"

:)
 
Madoc said:
Intel?! It's just a low-down, double-dealing, backstabbing, larcenous, perverted worm! Hanging is too good for it! Burning is too good for it! It should be torn into little pieces and buried alive! I will kill it! Kill!!
Click to expand...

...just so I know how you stand ;)

...what was your impression about Intel B4 the 15 year old engineering - that should have been done better - mistake ?
 
Khahhblaab said:
...just so I know how you stand ;)

...what was your impression about Intel B4 the 15 year old engineering - that should have been done better - mistake ?
Click to expand...

a bump in clock speed from 6700k to 7700k was the performance boost needed to make it look like they gave a rats ass about consumers?

a knee jerk reaction to threadripper severing things from their hedt to make you buy in to them while the competition gave it away for free?

a six core cpu on a different chipset on the mainstream to drive people to buy new boards all the while knowing that the old ones could support it no problem?

miniscule performance upgrades from sandy until now?

just to name a few.
 
Johan Steyn said:
I have thought this exactly. The fix is software, software can be hacked, hardware not so much. Maybe somebody will provide a "patch" you download to increase your performance or something. people are very gulable.


I will not buy Intel if I can. AMD will be my choice, since they are not taking performance shortcuts.
Click to expand...

Eeh. The fix kinda makes a new CPU build perform like a newer CPU.

Now how are they gonna talk about the betterness of new CPU's.
 
I am a little confused, a design flaw has been discovered and the product is essentially faulty. Shouldn’t Intel be requiredby law to halt all sales and rectify the issue before resuming production?
 
Between intel and cryptomining, all we need next is a tsunami to hit Taiwan and wipe out half a dozen TMSC fabs to put a bullet in PC gaming's head.
 
Azphira said:
Between intel and cryptomining, all we need next is a tsunami to hit Taiwan and wipe out half a dozen TMSC fabs to put a bullet in PC gaming's head.
Click to expand...

Naw... Most people game at 1080p, and your current i5, i7, or Ryzen rig and a Radeon R9 290 or newer will still let you play at pretty much max settings in most games for a while :) (and don't forget RAM pricing in your Doom List)


(Sweating bullets that some Crypto-Burglars are gonna bust into my house and nab the GeForce 1070, the pair of RX 480's and the R9 290 while I sleep...)
 
Khahhblaab said:
...just so I know how you stand ;)

...what was your impression about Intel B4 the 15 year old engineering - that should have been done better - mistake ?
Click to expand...
You know, if I have to explain my posts, I feel like I've failed somehow. :/

That post was a paraphrase from a scene in the movie Heavy Metal. It sprang into my head when I thought about how POed Torvalds seemed with Intel. Hopefully *some* people got the joke. Now I'll just go sit in the corner for a while and think about what I've done.
 
Madoc said:
You know, if I have to explain my posts, I feel like I've failed somehow. :/

That post was a paraphrase from a scene in the movie Heavy Metal. It sprang into my head when I thought about how POed Torvalds seemed with Intel. Hopefully *some* people got the joke. Now I'll just go sit in the corner for a while and think about what I've done.
Click to expand...

STERN!!!!

(I got it)
 
Sorry if this is the wrong thread.. but my PC with latest Win10 updates (Intel q6600) is now noticeably, painfully slower (estimate 30%) for Shogun2. My first guess would be spectre/meltdown patches..

Back on-topic.. thankful that we have a benevolent dictator for Linux. Though it is a pity that a huge amount of code (required for correct operation or better performance) lives in forks, never to be merged.
 
Buckiller said:
Sorry if this is the wrong thread.. but my PC with latest Win10 updates (Intel q6600) is now noticeably, painfully slower (estimate 30%) for Shogun2. My first guess would be spectre/meltdown patches..

Back on-topic.. thankful that we have a benevolent dictator for Linux. Though it is a pity that a huge amount of code (required for correct operation or better performance) lives in forks, never to be merged.
Click to expand...
Have you tried running this and disabling the meltdown patch? https://www.grc.com/inspectre.htm
 
Buckiller said:
Sorry if this is the wrong thread.. but my PC with latest Win10 updates (Intel q6600) is now noticeably, painfully slower (estimate 30%) for Shogun2. My first guess would be spectre/meltdown patches..

Back on-topic.. thankful that we have a benevolent dictator for Linux. Though it is a pity that a huge amount of code (required for correct operation or better performance) lives in forks, never to be merged.
Click to expand...
Sounds plenty on-topic to me. Is that update for W10 optional or are you stuck with crippled performance in some games from here on out?
 
455olds said:
Have you tried running this and disabling the meltdown patch? https://www.grc.com/inspectre.htm
Click to expand...

Thank you!! inspectre confirmed Meltdown was patched and reporting as "SLOW". I ran some benchmarks for Shogun2 and then disabled Meltdown patch and rebooted and re-ran the benchmarks. Massive improvement!

  • DX11, ultra settings: 22.85 fps -> 38.5 fps
  • DX9 benchmark: 17.05 fps -> 54 fps
No idea why DX9 was so gimped.. but ignoring that, looks like disabling Meltdown patch showed a 68% improvement (or rather, the patch introduced a 40% performance degradation for DX11 ultra settings).

The cynic in me thinks Intel is trying to get folks to buy new processors.
 
Buckiller said:
Thank you!! inspectre confirmed Meltdown was patched and reporting as "SLOW". I ran some benchmarks for Shogun2 and then disabled Meltdown patch and rebooted and re-ran the benchmarks. Massive improvement!

  • DX11, ultra settings: 22.85 fps -> 38.5 fps
  • DX9 benchmark: 17.05 fps -> 54 fps
No idea why DX9 was so gimped.. but ignoring that, looks like disabling Meltdown patch showed a 68% improvement (or rather, the patch introduced a 40% performance degradation for DX11 ultra settings).

The cynic in me thinks Intel is trying to get folks to buy new processors.
Click to expand...

What? you mean to tell me a company with the good ethics of Intel is trying to use this as a means to get people to upgrade.......how dare you.

But yeah it seems like Intel is in IDGAF mode about older PC's. Haswell should still be fine but i can see Intel borking it. but I will not be buying intel this round
 
OrangeKhrush said:
What? you mean to tell me a company with the good ethics of Intel is trying to use this as a means to get people to upgrade.......how dare you.

But yeah it seems like Intel is in IDGAF mode about older PC's. Haswell should still be fine but i can see Intel borking it. but I will not be buying intel this round
Click to expand...
I'm guessing this sort of thing is wildly application dependent too. I'm sure some games will have no measurable performance hit, so the internet will be happy to champion those as no big deal, meanwhile somebody running Shogun 2 or another game that hammers the CPU will get shot in the knees.
 
To me if it affects something it affects everything and given that gaming is not the be all and end all its not about which it does, it is a general performance loss and in some cases it is very severe. I paid a premium for a 4790K which is old today but a high end CPU and remains that today, if I wanted to pay the high end premium for loss then I would have rather got a mid level part and been contrite. As it stands the R5 1600 is looking like absolute bang for buck and the R7 1700 for rendering loads that actually max threads as a efficiency grunt.
 
tetris42 said:
I'm guessing this sort of thing is wildly application dependent too. I'm sure some games will have no measurable performance hit, so the internet will be happy to champion those as no big deal, meanwhile somebody running Shogun 2 or another game that hammers the CPU will get shot in the knees.
Click to expand...

Was it an arrow? in the knee?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top