Intel Says Chip-Security Fixes Leave PCs No More Than 10% Slower (axios.com)

Intel trying to defuse concern that fixes to widespread chip security vulnerabilities will slow computers, released test results late Wednesday showing that personal computers won't be affected much and promised more information on servers. From a report: The chipmaker published a table of data showing that older processors handled typical tasks 10 percent slower at most, after being updated with security patches. The information covered three generations of processors, going back to 2015, running Microsoft's Windows 10 and Windows 7 computer operating systems. Further reporting: Intel, Microsoft offer differing views on impact of chip flaw

Comments

So AMD processors were faster all along?

[Anonymous Coward]

Intel was knowingly breaking security to make their crap seem faster.

Re:So AMD processors were faster all along?

[Anonymous Coward]

They were told about it over 20 years ago, by the very people who were most likely to exploit it before it became public knowledge...

On 8 May 1995, a paper called "The Intel 80x86 Processor Architecture: Pitfalls for Secure Systems" published at the 1995 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy warned against covert timing channel in CPU cache and translation lookaside buffer (TLB).[23] This analysis was performed under the auspices of the National Security Agency's Trusted Evaluation Program (TPEP).

Re:So AMD processors were faster all along?

[HiThere]

Both chips did branch prediction, AMD just checked address validity before the speculative execution rather than afterwards. This allowed Intel chips to be faster at executing the code by ignoring certain (apparently known) security problems.

But whether it was actually faster or not can be disputed, because Intel is also known to have gamed compilers to disadvantage AMD. In that case they made the AMD chips seem slower by cheating. The question is how many of the benchmarks were done with the altered compilers. And this is where the accusation that Intel made their chips *seem* faster gains validity.

Re:Oh, just 10%

[SlaveToTheGrind]

my US state's sales tax was 5% and it went up to 6% a few years ago. Everyone was pissed by a 1% change

That's a 20% change.

But the IME flaw remains, what else is in there?

[Anonymous Coward]

These people lied about every aspect of each of these major vulnerabilities. 10% is whatever, that's bad but worse is that NOBODY CAN TRUST INTEL WHATSOEVER, and they are the market leader.

Their obfuscation of the meltdown issue is unreasonably bad management, and their CEO sold a ton of shares right as the company secretly found out a year ago? The combination is absolutely toxic.

Clean house or watch it burn.

Re:But what of the blowhards

[MachineShedFred]

I don't claim to be any kind of semiconductor engineer, but I am a customer that paid for something, and post-facto have a choice between insecure, or less performance than I paid for.

If you think this is fine, then you are either a paid shill or a deluded fanboy.

Re:But what of the blowhards

[networkBoy]

Well, I'm no shill (and am no longer on Intel's payroll) but am a fanboi.

That said, the position you and Intel are in is commonly referred to by its acronym:
F.U.B.A.R.

There is no realistic recourse for Intel to offer that would satisfy the majority of the install base.

Full replacement at cost is likely to leave a lot of people very angry, and devastate Intel's Fiscal Year, but it is likely the best possible outcome.

Trying to make Intel replace everything affected for free (like with the FDIV bug) is a non starter. Intel can't likely even fab the old chips any more, and even if they could it would still require a redesign, so it's a non-starter. Giving everyone new chips would not be like for like, so you have issues where old software won't run, but is still required, also a non-starter. Additionally, both those options would likely bankrupt the company entirely, meaning people *still* wouldn't get replacements, and you'd have 100K freshly unemployed.

The most likely outcome I see is a rebate/coupon towards the purchase of any system containing a new Intel CPU from any vendor where the dollar value of the rebate is tied to the age/sku of the old CPU, with no or soft requirements to return the old CPU.

What would you (as a consumer) expect?

I likely won't get squat, since all my CPUs are samples that employees were given at various times, or bought via employee purchase channels.

Re:But what of the blowhards

[Anonymous Coward]

Exaggeration isn't necessary. Even taking Intel at their word, that 10% differential has been their selling point for years. That means the very reason people bought Intel over the competitor is now bunk. At the very least, consumers are due a rebate, and that only (barely) addresses the lost value to those consumers, to say nothing about the damage Intel caused to its competitors in peddling this lie.

The 10% figure sure sounds negligible... until you give it more than five seconds of critical thought. Any way you slice it, Intel reaped illegitimate profits. And instead of making it right, they're busy trying to discredit the very people who have supported them over the years: their customers. This is the gold standard of how not to handle a situation like this.