News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Intel CPUs impacted by new PortSmash side-channel vulnera... by kbenson on Friday November 02, 2018 @04:47PM (#18366601)
> For the Pentium 4 (quickest I could get), adding SMT is a die overhead of 5%.

Ah, that's what I was looking for. I'm aware that most the resources are shared, but I also assume there have been design choices in other components to make SMT easier or faster, and possibly that increases their die size a small amount, or in general just complicates their design.

The question (which is ultimately unanswerable) is what would we have had Intel not chosen SMT as the path to pursue? If they had instead invested those resource into other areas (e.g. more cores) and never let SMT concerns enter into the discussion, how would those (theoretical) CPUs compare?

That's the CPU comparison I was alluding to in the prior comment, and why I noted AMD vs Intel (even with all it's other differences) may be the closest match up of that idea we'll see.

It wasn't meant as a rebuttal to anything, it was more a "wondering out loud" type of comment spurred by yours, about what could have been had different paths been taken.

There are no comments on this comment yet.