ItsTotallyOn

This group is known for clickbait, slanted 'exposes' that intentionally misframe content, and selective omissions if they don't support their narrative.

I thought the US was a constitutional republic, not a democracy.

This comment's absolutely and completely misguided and nakedly partisan/tribal viewpoint almost perfectly describes the issue with the media: A complete and utter lack of understanding that perhaps some opposing viewpoints are also valid and worthy of discussion, which then leads to completely biased and untrustworthy activist reporting.

You aren't arguing with Tom's use of the term here - you are arguing with a semiconductor teardown specialist who pointed this out. They are extra chunks of silicon with no logic or transistors that are glued on. Hence, by every single definition of the term, they are dummy silicon.

Yes, they are bonded (glued-on) chunks of silicon with no logic. That is the definition of Dummy Silicon. The person who wrote the report is a professional chip analyst who does die deconstruction.

Your statement is incorrect. The analysis was made by a professional firm - dummy silicon shims are used because the dies are thinned, as per AMD's own disclosures. Those silicon shims are bonded to the compute and SRAM dies.

This is why they provided a normalized comparison versus market cap. They should have probably done it with revenue, but this does provide a means of analysis of the relative efficacy of value creation via R&D dollars.

This is actually not an accurate report. https://twitter.com/glennklockwood/status/178624248776766284...

actually the timestamps show that the wccftech reporting was published after the Tom's Hardware article.

This story has comments from AMD, too.

does it require physical access to the machine?

What does this allow the attacker to do? Steal data? The post isnt very clear.

This is a known issue with a fix that was reported a while back:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-issues-fix-and-workaro...

The author suggests that comparing Arm vs. x86 is easy due to a Geekbench test comparison. That's one of very few cross-platform benchmarks and highlights the fact that the author isn't very well-versed (if versed at all) in competitive performance analysis or PC benchmarks.

Geekbench is a terrible proxy for ANY workload, those subtests all run within the space of a few seconds -- they aren't meant to actually represent performance in sustained workloads.

Additionally, the smashing together of results from a wide range of incomparable applications, including unfair weighting that skews for memory, makes the cumulative scores largely worthless.

Finding other relevant benchmarks for comparison is difficult, especially given the locked down nature of MacOS.