Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck”

Re:Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck” by sverige on Saturday January 06, 2018 @11:07AM (#16085819)

So the decision was, go ahead and release it even though we know it's vulnerable because we'll make more money that way than we would if we took the time to fix it and make it secure?

If so, I hope the market punishes that decision mercilessly.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck” by cookiecaper on Saturday January 06, 2018 @09:09PM (#16088678)

To be fair, Coffee Lake is presumably faster/better and not more vulnerable than other chips [0]. If you have to mitigate anyway, and you're desperate to get back to pre-mitigation performance parity, releasing a faster chip that still requires mitigation could be a reasonable option.

[0] Caveat: Skylake and later are extra-vulnerable to Spectre because they have even more aggressive speculative execution, but fortunately, the IBRS microcode update is roughly equally performant as retpoline on Skylake+ only.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck” by plorkyeran on Saturday January 06, 2018 @02:46PM (#16087053)

What? No, that's not even remotely how it works. Not releasing Coffee Lake when it was ready would not have sped up the design of a new CPU which fixes Meltdown in any way. The only way that not shipping Coffee Lake would have helped anyone is by indirectly increasing sales of AMD processors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Meltdown, aka “Dear Intel, you suck” by jccooper on Saturday January 06, 2018 @11:37AM (#16085957)

Well, Intel sales are going to drop off a cliff, and might not entirely be made up once a "fixed" version comes out.

[ Parent | on HN ]