Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Demonstrates 10nm Ice Lake Processor, Promises PCs Will Ship With it Later this Year (theverge.com)

Posted by msmash on from the up-next dept.

Intel announced a major rethink of its chip design back in December, just before it finally delivers 10nm chips for PCs and laptops. At CES 2019 this week, Intel is demonstrating its first Ice Lake 10nm processor that's based on its new Sunny Cove microarchitecture. From a report: Intel is building in Thunderbolt 3, Wi-Fi 6, and DL Boost (deep learning boost) into these Ice Lake chips for laptops and PCs to take advantage of. Intel is now promising that PC makers will have devices with Ice Lake processors on shelves by the end of 2019. At its CES keynote today, Intel demonstrated ODM systems from Pegatron and Wistron, and Dell even joined Intel on stage to show off an Ice Lake-powered XPS laptop that will be available later this year. Dell didn't show the device powered on, but it appeared to be a 2-in-1 device that looked similar to the XPS 13. Intel is also looking to the future, too. The chip giant is planning to use Foveros 3D chip stacking technology to build future chips, a method that allows Intel's chip designers to stack extra processing power on top of an already-assembled chip die. These "chiplets" can be stacked atop one another to form a processor that includes graphics, AI processing, and more.

80 comments

  1. Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Come back when your crap a actually works.

    1. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      As soon as you a actually proofread.

    2. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by jellomizer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Here is the big question. Your current chips probably are vulnerable to the problem. If you are holding off until they fix the problem, you will still be volnernable, and running a slower, outdated, and perhaps non-upgradable computer.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think this chip is significantly faster than Ivy-bridge and up, you are smoking crack right from Intel's personal marketing stash.

    4. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a low quality shill attempt, even for Intel.

    5. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone demonstrated a proof of concept for this yet?

    6. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why give them money when they won't fix it? Any chip currently vulnerable was purchased before I knew the product was defective. I'm not going to give intel money for defective chips knowingly.

      Think of it this way. If you have a chip slow enough that a new one would be an upgrade, why not go AMD and at least not be vulnerable to meltdown?

    7. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      Why give them money when they won't fix it? Any chip currently vulnerable was purchased before I knew the product was defective. I'm not going to give intel money for defective chips knowingly.

      Think of it this way. If you have a chip slow enough that a new one would be an upgrade, why not go AMD and at least not be vulnerable to meltdown?

      AMD still have a problem with Spectre bud ;)

    8. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Found the shill. Meltdown is trivial.

    9. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ice Lake still isn't generally available, and Intel has been selling a very poorly binned Ice Lake SKU (an i3 with the iGPU disabled) for a little while. The fact that Dell didn't mention any specs isn't very hopeful.

    10. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Search for AMD based Linux laptops and tell me what you think of the selection.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    11. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      stop posting this shit. Come back in 10 years which is the earliest time a new chip with it fixed in hardware will come out.

    12. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      POC or you're a lying retard. (Hint, there isn't one)

    13. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why give them money when they won't fix it? Any chip currently vulnerable was purchased before I knew the product was defective. I'm not going to give intel money for defective chips knowingly.

      Think of it this way. If you have a chip slow enough that a new one would be an upgrade, why not go AMD and at least not be vulnerable to meltdown?

      AMD still have a problem with Spectre bud ;)

      One variant, that requires local access, whereas Intel chips are vulnerable to all variants, even the remotely exploitable ones.

    14. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Search for AMD based Linux laptops and tell me what you think of the selection.

      Acer Nitro 5 AN515-42 and Predator Helios 500 PH517-61-R0GX
      Asus ROG Strix GL702ZC
      Lenovo ThinkPad E585 and E485

      All run Linux just fine. Seems to be a pretty good selection of models ranging from your basic APU powered workhorse, mid tier dGPU gaming laptop on up to desktop replacement behemoths. All look to have IPS panels that support Freesync. Nice try Intel shill.

    15. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does AMD also offer processors designed for operation on an ice lake? Research scientists have constraints that you may not have.

    16. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that they were selling, and continue to sell massively vulnerable chips is astounding.
      They should've been fined out of the business.

    17. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Who were the vendors? The last time I searched (a couple of months ago) I decided to not buy a laptop. After reading your reply I decided to search again. So ...

      (I don't think I want to buy a Lenovo, as there have been many bad reports on their quality, admittedly the one's I'm thinking of are a few years old.) I just went to the Linux Certified site, and all their laptops were Intel, to ZAReason and all their laptops were Intel, to System76, and the laptops I was interested in were Intel (checking each laptop involved going to a sub-page, so I didn't check all of them).

      FWIW, I don't trust Amazon for anything that's sold by a third party, as I've paid for things that never showed up. (That *was* a few years ago, but I've heard nothing that indicates to me that they've changed their "we don't stand behind 3rd party orders" policy, and if I did I wouldn't start trusting them with something expensive.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    18. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who were the vendors? The last time I searched (a couple of months ago) I decided to not buy a laptop. After reading your reply I decided to search again. So ...

      (I don't think I want to buy a Lenovo, as there have been many bad reports on their quality, admittedly the one's I'm thinking of are a few years old.) I just went to the Linux Certified site, and all their laptops were Intel, to ZAReason and all their laptops were Intel, to System76, and the laptops I was interested in were Intel (checking each laptop involved going to a sub-page, so I didn't check all of them).

      FWIW, I don't trust Amazon for anything that's sold by a third party, as I've paid for things that never showed up. (That *was* a few years ago, but I've heard nothing that indicates to me that they've changed their "we don't stand behind 3rd party orders" policy, and if I did I wouldn't start trusting them with something expensive.)

      Zareason, System76 and Purism don't make their hardware, they rebrand Sager, Clevo and Compal white box laptops like most of the other gaming laptop makers like XoticPC, AvaDirect, Puget Systems and Falcon NW. They get everything but the display, storage and expansion cards and then add those in themselves. I have asked Zareason and System76 every time AMD has launched a new mobile chip for the last decade if they would make an AMD model and the reply has always been "we'll look into it" but 10 years on and they are still only selling Intel and Nvidia hardware.

      There are also several other models from other manufacturers, but they are often kneecapped by locking you into single channel low speed ram by soldering in the shittiest DDR4 money can buy and then giving you a single ram slot, which is a common tactic for companies over the last several years that don't want to piss off Intel and Nvidia.

      Even the Nitro 5 isn't the same as what they sent to reviewers, the full spec version sent to reviewers comes with the 2700U but is only available in Malaysia, the version sold worldwide comes with the 2500U, all other specs seemingly are identical though.

      Newegg Regular https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=Property&Subcategory=32&N=100006740%20601310336%20601301242&IsNodeId=1&IsPowerSearch=1

      Newegg Gaming https://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=Property&Subcategory=3365&N=100167748%20601299180%20601309769%20601321131%20601299181%20601325317%20601310336%20601301242&IsNodeId=1&IsPowerSearch=1

      BestBuy Nitro 5 https://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?st=an515-42&_dyncharset=UTF-8&id=pcat17071&type=page&sc=Global&cp=1&nrp=&sp=&qp=&list=n&af=true&iht=y&usc=All+Categories&ks=960&keys=keys

      Asus https://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?st=GL702ZC&_dyncharset=UTF-8&id=pcat17071&type=page&sc=Global&cp=1&nrp=&sp=&qp=&list=n&af=true&iht=y&usc=All+Categories&ks=960&keys=keys

      Thinkpad E585 https://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?st=E585&_dyncharset=UTF-8&id=pcat17071&type=page&sc=Global&cp=1&nrp=&sp=&qp=&list=n&af=true&iht=y&usc=All+Categories&ks=960&keys=keys

      Personally, I'm probably going to pick up the Nitro 5 in it's cheapest base model and then throw in 32Gb of ram and some good SSD drives, the only limitation there is that the M.2 slot was factory limited so it can't use NVME, only Sata over M.2, which is IIRC still at least a Samsung 860 Evo compatible.

      The only really annoying thing I see is having to keep Windows around to update the UEFI, at least so you can install Linux and not have that boot issue in the current distros caused by them looking for the wrong AGESA or something then hanging, but the updated UEFI fixes it completely.

    19. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      It works just fine. Having an irrelevant bug doesn't make it not work, in fact it works quite a bit faster for having it.

    20. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That "only annoying thing" is a deal-breaker for me, as I will not agree to the MS EULA....and also don't want to give them any money.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    21. Re:Still vulnerable to Spectre and Meltdown? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well good luck finding a laptop of any quality then, since like was said, the "linux laptop makers" are nothing but rebranders selling meh quality at jacked up prices that are vulnerable to Meltdown and Specter and will have closed source drivers if you want an actual GPU but will be fucked over on battery life if you actually want to use it because of Optimus.

  2. Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Unless IntelME has some low-level Ring-0 phoning home to do.

    1. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Overall reduce size of your technology, and power consumption. I don't like the idea of integrated everything chips myself. But they are advantages in integrated.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lighter tablets. Common sense, really.

    3. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Common sense" for the Intel Management Engine to have access to your surrounding networks with no way to turn that off. For a trivially-lighter (like 1/4 oz) package. Your version of common sense is not Thomas Paine's.

    4. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by crow · · Score: 1

      It used to be that a bunch of standard ports were part of the chipset, USB, parallel, serial, SATA, ethernet, etc. I assume that secondary chip is now part of the CPU, so they're now saying that WiFi is on par with ethernet, which probably makes sense. For laptops, it's a no-brainer. For desktops, the added silicon is negligible, and if you don't want it, don't connect the antenna.

      I could see some security concerns with high-security applications, but they're already worried about transmissions from various wires in the system, so they're probably already running those systems in faraday cages.

    5. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by ArchieBunker · · Score: 0

      You know AMD has the exact same thing but called the PSP? No they won't disclose the details of it either.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    6. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually the details are that it's much less integrated into the subsystem, it sits on the CPU level as opposed to -1 -2 -3 like IME, and it shows zero function when the machine is off, unlike IME. You know nothing about it.

    7. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, yes. Pointing at AMD will instantly exonerate Intel. I see you have a firm grasp on logic. Particularly when it pays the bills.

    8. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      You know AMD has the exact same thing but called the PSP?

      Actually. we know AMD does NOT have the exact same thing.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    9. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      One less chip for the brand making and paying for the motherboard to worry about.
      Wake on LAN is now Wake on wifi?

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    10. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by AHuxley · · Score: 2

      Think of the fun spies and police will have with wake on wifi.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    11. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tbf, there's no way of knowing whether or not its the same thing. With the cross-licensing scheme that Intel has with AMD there's been cases where a feature gets rebranded for the other company but the name changes. Neither intel's ME or AMD's PSP does anything in its unconfigured state (at least if it does there's no details of it), but they are both customizable. How would you know if they're the same or not?

    12. Re: Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It works the other way around for Spectre.

    13. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know they are not the same based on several obvious factors, none of which are apparently obvious to you. Read more or stfu. IntelME came with no password and sub-root access. Saying its "the same" is retarded.

    14. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      How would you know if they're the same or not?

      Intels has proven to be a security risk, while AMD's isnt even in a position to have the same security risks because AMD's is a hypervisor while Intels is several containment levels more privileged than a hypervisor. If your system had both, Intels would be in full control of AMD's. Its really that god damned simply.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    15. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by infolation · · Score: 1

      So the answer is a PC case that's also a faraday cage.

      You know you have security problems when even your computer needs a tinfoil hat.

    16. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know AMD has the exact same thing but called the PSP? No they won't disclose the details of it either.

      AMD's can be disabled in the UEFI.

    17. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huawei was the first to invent and deploy on chip techonology in their 5G lineup.
      Intel is going to violate Chinese IP.

    18. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless IntelME has some low-level Ring-0 phoning home to do.

      The problem with phoning home using the on-board LAN port, is that we can just avoid using that port... with integrated WIFI, we are basically fucked...

      And why are they not making 7nm chips?

      Until Intel can be trusted again if ever and until they can match AMD again, then I am going to use AMD from now on

    19. Re:Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      "AMD's can be disabled in the UEFI."

      Surrrrrrre it can.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re: Why would you put wifi on the CPU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only Spectre doesn't even have a POC. Meltdown is the killer. And it's ALL Intel's and their little shill's headache.

  3. Really by 110010001000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Dell didn't show the device powered on"

    Wow. Real impressive.

  4. 10nm? by pak9rabid · · Score: 1

    10nm eh? I'll believe it when I see it. This announcement just reeks of a desperate attempt to try and take the steam out of AMD's 12nm chips that just launched.

    1. Re:10nm? by iggymanz · · Score: 2

      don't worry, node size has just been a marketing term now for years.

      It does NOT mean half-pitch or gate length is 10nm.

      It's a term for another generation of smaller chip size than the last one. And yeah, the 10nm components on one manufactures chip could be bigger or smaller than competitors 10 nm....or 12 nm.....

      great times we live in, marketing things by buzzwords and hype instead of hard data and specs. (marketing wanks and sales choads should be lined up and summarily shot, to usher in a new age of less B.S.)

    2. Re:10nm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the 7nm chips that will be announced tomorrow to be launched in May.

    3. Re:10nm? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      It is not that Intel cant do 10nm, its that Intel cant do it economically. So far every 10nm part they have sold has come at a large loss, and this will probably be no different.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    4. Re:10nm? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      It's a low power chip and relatively small to work around yield issues that Intel apparently still has with 10nm. It would seem that high power chips for desktops and servers just don't work at the 100 megatransistor per square mm density that Intel originally targeted and they will need to dial that back 20-40% to make serious chips.

      IOW, the shitshow continues.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re:10nm? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      It's also that they just can't do high power chips with the original 100 mtr/mm2 10nm. Not even uneconomically. They have to rework all their cells to lower the density.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    6. Re:10nm? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Thats an issue for another day for them. With yields so terrible it doesnt matter how great the working chips are.

      Normally things like power/heat issues are dealt with first by binning the parts. Refinement comes after large numbers of parts are made and the binning statistics that go along with it are considered.

      In the case of 10nm, Intel cant even do binning because the yields are so bad.

      What Intel needs to and will do is chiplets. Its the only way forward (only way to deal with the bad yields) and they have had 5+ years already to figure that out but didnt. They are now literally 5+ years behind AMD in future relevant cpu designs.

      Add to being behind in CPU design with also no longer having a semiconductor advantage, and that that advantage will NEVER come back because the rent-a-fabs are now bigger than Intel and will now always be so....

      I've been saying this on slashdot for 2+ years now: Sell your Intel stock and double check your 401K's and Roth's to make sure Intel isnt included in any of their index funds. Intel is fucked. Its been clear ever since they announced massive layoffs and a new "cloud strategy." Intels known that they are fucked for at least that long.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  5. "Intel is building in Thunderbolt into these chips by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Editors. EDIT FFS !!!

  6. Archie-Blather is wrong again, news at 11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For starters, AMD does not have wifi on the die and PSP does not have access to it by default without the ability to remove it. So it's not the "exact" same you goofy butterfingers non-fact repeater.

  7. Agreed but they're starting to... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject & this quote "Intel on Monday added a bunch of 14nm Coffee-Lake-R-based processors to its 9th-generation desktop Core lineup. These chips have the Meltdown and Foreshadow vulnerabilities fixed in hardware" FROM https://www.theregister.co.uk/...

    Spectre is all that remains (portsmash SHOULD be covered by the others & correct me IF I am off/wrong) & that's covered by OS side patchwork so far in Linux (retpoline etc.).

    APK

    P.S.=> I do agree this stuff SHOULD be covered in hardware/cpu-side though but I turn off HyperThreading (per Linus Torvald's suggesting it IF you're serious about security) & protect vs. sources of attack using it via:

    APK Hosts File Engine 2.0++ 64-bit for Linux h t t p : / / a p k . i t - m a t e . c o . u k / A P K H o s t s F i l e E n g i n e F o r L i n u x . z i p (remove spaces between chars & download)

    APK Hosts File Engine 10++ SR-1 32/64-bit for Windows https://hosts-file.net/?s=Down... (DL link @ bottom)

    Soon for MacOS too

  8. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  9. I'm more interested in iGPUs by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    The new process involves "sandwiching" an iGPU core into the CPU core. In the past iGPUs were severely constrained because you wanted to keep them relatively simple to keep yields up (since if the iGPU is bad you just bricked the CPU in most cases). It should mean much, much faster integrated graphics. e.g. entry level gaming laptops in the $400-$500 range.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I'm more interested in iGPUs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All they did was give interoperable cache access. There's no great breakthrough whatsoever.

    2. Re:I'm more interested in iGPUs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      noone solved the heat thing yet, why hbm adoption is slow and chip stacking is a whiles away

    3. Re:I'm more interested in iGPUs by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      entry level gaming laptops in the $400-$500 range.

      The AMD APUs already found that sweet spot while Intel struggled to have even a sufficient frame buffer

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    4. Re:I'm more interested in iGPUs by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      HBM adoption is slow in consumer GPUs because they are more expensive to fabricate than expected.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  10. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  11. Intel ME by jmccue · · Score: 2

    Does it still have "ME" ? If so can it be fully disabled ? If disabled can it be validated ?

    If not, "Thanks but no thanks"

    1. Re:Intel ME by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Does it still have "ME" ? If so can it be fully disabled ? If disabled can it be validated ?

      If not, "Thanks but no thanks"

      Every one has ME. Even the disabled ones still require ME.

      ME is required to boot the processor (it's not easy to boot modern complex processors with variables clocks and power sources.

      The "ME disabled" firmware simply does enough to boot the processor up and halts, so you lose functionality like dynamic voltage and frequency selection (DVFS), important for mobile processors, as well as the ability to sleep and standby the CPU. (Technically you also lose the ability to turn off the CPU, but that's easily worked around since turning off the PC works)

    2. Re:Intel ME by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can bootstrap with 4 bit processors, and you dont need to make it a mini os.
      you certainly do no need networking and wireless access. At the end of booting you quiese the system - just as IBM and DEC processors did. You do not need an electricity remora hanging off a modern cpu - unless you want APT's.

    3. Re:Intel ME by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      If not, "Thanks but no thanks"

      Have you not bought a CPU since 2007 or are you not aware that every vendor has an ME equivalent running beside their main processor?

  12. "The beast at Tanagra" by Babel-17 · · Score: 0

    "Sokath, his eyes uncovered!"

  13. You will not reward crime though! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you give them money, even though they commit crimes against you, ...
    I'll let you finish the sentence.

  14. Delivers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "just before it finally delivers 10nm chips for PCs and laptops."

    That remains to be seen. So far they are only claiming that they will deliver them later.
    Just like they've claimed repeatedly.

  15. Deep Learning Boost by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    Dear Intel,

    can you "deep learn" from your Meltdown and Spectre mistakes? Seriously, I have a Celeron from about 2005 with these vulnerabilities.

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  16. Come back in a few months for power on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Until then, look at our pretty marketing slides! Trust us! You did get our marketing honorarium didn't you? All the media are signing up.

  17. Yes it still has Intel ME... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And AMD has Secure Processor, which is ARM Trustzone on a PC, controlling power management, raw access to memory, secure enclave/tpm, and other facets of your systems security you might not like. And best of all, it is currently even less documented than Intel's offerings, because you can't even access the bios image via flashrom, nevermind have any capability to write to it (intel has the same problem, but it is getting worse on both with each new generation.)

    At this point in time if you want even a remotely secure system you need to look into the Talos II/Blackbird, or ARM offerings. Hopefully in the next year or two RISC-V will be an alternative as well.

  18. Intel Demonstrates 10nm Ice Lake Processor by Tyger-ZA · · Score: 1

    But when will they demonstrate a hot shit processor? What are these stupid fucking names for anyway? It tells me nothing about what this processor is and I have to go look for that info elsewhere

    1. Re:Intel Demonstrates 10nm Ice Lake Processor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Answer to your question is the same as the answer to most other questions about why something is no longer fun or intersting or funny. "Lawyers" Really.

      At one point you could come up with cool internal project names. Then someone named a project "Jedi". Internal project name, not external marketing name. Lucasfilm sued them anyways. So now the only names allowed for any project have to come from a map. So it's rivers, lakes, towns, mountains only, etc.......... :(
        So unfortunately your "hot shit" name will never happen unless someone names a town "hot shit". Oh and you can't use numbers anymore either since you cannot trademark "586" etc. So you have to use names.

  19. DL Boost? by ShoulderOfOrion · · Score: 1

    This appears to be an enhancement to the AVX instructions, and a 16-bit "brain floating point". Are there any real applications for this on a PC, or is this just a marketing buzzword for toy applications? Personally, if Intel has transistors to burn, I'd rather they burn them finding ways to speed up context switching. That would make for noticeable improvements in PC responsiveness even with clock speeds remaining the same, particularly as the number of cores increase.

  20. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  21. Time to school the retarded bitch APK again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry retarded bitch Alexander Peter Kowalski, you are just a loser who is too dumb to realize you got stomped long ago.
    Here is a chronicle of your bitch ass getting beaten on your port filtering statements.
    Here is another one where your got beaten hard because you can't back up anything you say. This was about how you claim your shitware can block all hosts in a domain, which it can't.
    Then there is your claim that the Chinese copied you but you admit that at best all you have is wild ass speculation and can't offer any real proof or even actual evidence to support yourself.
    How about the list of experts you claim support your statements, none of which actually support your work and have been shown to actually be saying things different from what you stated they were.
    Maybe instead you can tell us about your "success" where a project rejected your stupid simplistic idea or maybe threaten to sue someone again because you are a insecure little man who is washed up and never amounted to anything.

    1. Re:Time to school the retarded bitch APK again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have mental issues "Schizophrenia is a mental disorder where patients have distorted thinking, perception" https://medicalxpress.com/news...

  22. As usual your lies LOSE... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1.) My program stops portfilters entries in hosts https://news.slashdot.org/comm... 2.) China did hardcodes in hosts after me imitating me https://tech.slashdot.org/comm... "Time is on my side" (Rolling Stones) 3.) /. users & security pros state the value of hosts for getting users more speed/security/reliability/anonymity 4.) I never threatened to sue Thor SCHMUCK - I only said I'd speak to an attorney & I did who advised I go thru their removal process & I did, then CA falling apart proved my point selling off the antivirus they had that did a FALSE POSITIVE they rescinded to NO THREAT on an old program of mine, period.

    * All you've managed is looking stupid & STALKING me by UNIDENTIFIABLE anonymous posts - "big accomplishment" for you (lol, not).

    APK

    P.S.=> See subject... apk

  23. So you are a retarded bitch then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got is shit for brains. All you can do is repeat your previously torn apart statements, disproved theories, outright lies, and total crap. No one questioned if you or the Chinese did it first only the part where you say they copied you and you can't provide any real evidence to support that. Only you brought your shit program into the port filtering discussion and it was chronicled as such. There was one of your e-mail posted where you clearly stated you were going to sue. You really need to learn how to read and write too. Maybe your father can beat some sense into you as he obviously didn't do it enough when you were a child. If you post your same bullshit again it will be understood that you have nothing and concede everything. This also happens to include trying to deflect, change the subject or demand that others prove they can do bullshit work like yours.

  24. You lose vs. these verifiable FACTS... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1.) I never had to sue Thor SCHMUCK - CA rescinded their FALSE POSITIVE error, sold off their shitty antivirus & I said I'd speak to an attorney & I did who advised I go thru their removal process & I won.

    2.) China did hosts hardcodes after me http://theregister.co.uk/2017/... IMITATING ME & "Time is on my side" (Rolling Stones)

    3.) /. users state the value of hosts for getting users more speed/security/reliability/anonymity listed here (enumerated as "Registered /.ers reviews") https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

    4.) Security pros galore + /.ers praise the layered security efficacy of hosts quoted here https://it.slashdot.org/commen...

    5.) My program stops portfilter in hosts https://news.slashdot.org/comm...

    APK

    P.S.=> You've PROVEN you PROJECT you're a RETARD that can't DENY FACTS I just blew you AWAY w/ easily, lol... apk