Intel CPUs since 2011 are affected. Reported 3% to 9% performance loss with the new patch

the roman empire from the year 500 maybe

Oh yeah.

Attached: 1557860267440.jpg (281x221, 21K)

Zombieland is just one of the three new security flaws discovered: (You) (Cross-thread)

kek

holy shit
nero burning rom(e)
holy fuck
even the logo is rome burning
is this serious right now

Attached: 1544867669034.jpg (255x227, 10K)

Why can't Intel stop being pozzed

>Reported 3% to 9% performance loss with the new patch
fucking intel

>AMD and ARM are not affected.
this is not fair!!!

Attached: shutitdown.png (752x529, 218K)

So, is this new exploit that bad or is it just another case of lack of common sense?

I really don't ever plan on updating anything for my i5 9400.

Maybe they shouldn't have allocated €500 mil to diversity efforts

how else would they be able to amass such a diverse range of security flaws?

Intel, more holes than swiss cheese.

Attached: 1528926250098.jpg (600x600, 24K)

Intel, more holes than FPS in games

Fuck Incel I'm getting a T495

>Doesn't specify how the attack occurs
This, like every single other spooky scary SECURITY HACKERS CAN STEAL YOUR PASSWORD BY LISTENING TO YOUR KEYBOARD, is literal proof-of-concept nothingness.

>Doesn't specify how the attack occurs
someone didn't read the article

reading is hard huh champ?

Attached: 1535835053166.png (500x533, 66K)

try to read next time

Imagine buying Intel pozzed trash and then get your SSD speed cut in half because of security patches.

Attached: 1555938197197.jpg (700x421, 33K)

Fuckkkk...

Attached: 1557876720095.jpg (605x328, 66K)

>AMD and ARM are not affected
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Attached: 049.jpg (220x407, 39K)

b-but it's only 6% lose of performance, nothing scary... r-right intelbros?

yes goy

>b-but my 3fps benchmark wins!

feels good man, I was regretting not selling at the last major peak but Intel just keeps making my $30 become more and more. I should invest more money in sure bets

Attached: 2019-05-14-212838_1266x1380_scrot.png (1266x1380, 109K)

And probably not RISC-V. Again.

>b-but it's only 6% lose of performance,
In the other thread, Apple claims up to 40% slower for certain tasks

What do you need 100% performance for? 50% performance is more than enough.

YEAR OF THE RYZEN DESKTOP

Hyperthreading improves performance by around 40% for certain types of tasks and Intel suggests that some people may want to disable it. Whether or not it's necessary for everyone to disable hyperthreading on every Intel chip is not clear to me. Intel is saying that it's not.

>Intel is saying that it's not.

Of course they'd say that.

silly judan

As usual Intel is a security nightmare.

More fake news.

>There's a theory that speculative execution is fundamentally an issue
None of the new vulnerabilities impact AMD. It's not speculative execution in general, it's Intel taking insecure shortcuts to give them a performance edge. Now Intel is recommending disabling Hyperthreading, which will result in massive performance penalties for systems reliant upon it. Meanwhile AMD's variant, Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT) is not impacted. This is an Intel problem.

how fucked are server providers like vultr/digital ocean?

I would assume they were stupid enough to buy Xeons...

I have achieved enlightenment

From Nehalem to Cascade failure

This isn't a fair comparison. The roman empire used to be good.

Attached: 1557698219142.jpg (686x751, 54K)

God fucking damnit the performance drop is too much

shut up goy

>mfw intel is unironically dying

Attached: 1557864261593.gif (337x263, 268K)

Inteltoddlers on jewicide watch

feels good to be rocking x5470 from 2008

Attached: 1557794120582.jpg (251x242, 15K)

What are the units?

>Reported 3% to 9% performance loss with the new patch
Source

Nothing happened last time. And its super hard to exploit anyway. Im not losing performance over this.

Attached: 1497367136688.jpg (400x600, 47K)

There is nothing in speculative execution that requires it to have an effect outside of the relevant execution itself. There are obviously a lot of speed gains if you don't clean up every internal state.
It is questionable if there are even any speed gains in a perfectly secure SE implementation, but AMD seems to have one that has fewer bugs. Or at the very least ones that are harder to detect.

>Trusting Intel
>After they tried to hide this vulnerability

Why is this such a big deal? If you are able to run code on a machine, wouldn't it be easier using/writing tools to steal whatever information you want rather than trying to exploit a damn processor?

Don't be so smug, my dumb frogposting friend. Your CPU is affected too!

intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/corporate-information/SA00233-microcode-update-guidance_05132019.pdf

The confusion about 2011 came because that's as far back as Intel are bothering to produce patches for. The vulnerabilities actually affect everything back to 2008, including Harpertown, which includes your X5470.

Enjoy your incurable digital AIDS. :)

Attached: sorry.gif (978x478, 427K)

DELID DIS

Is my thickpad safe?

Bahahahhaha

AahahhahahahhajahahAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

>If you are able to run code on a machine, wouldn't it be easier using/writing tools to steal whatever information you want rather than trying to exploit a damn processor?
Wondering this as well.
If you have physical access, wouldn't you just btfo them with some simple program loaded on a USB? How often do infiltration attempts occur specifically at a processor level?
Seems like a very niche / edge-case situation, not quite sure what to make of it yet.

Companies will still have to turn off hyperthreading regardless of how unlikely it is they get damaged (as a precaution), and those are tangible costs -- regardless of how specific the vulnerability is

Attached: 1557265244174.jpg (249x243, 8K)

Normally, processes are only allowed to read from their own memory. These side channels allow processes to read from other processes' memories without having root access.

>Nothing happened last time
Because you don't know when something actually happens

>JAVASCRIPT

BAHAHAHHAHAHAH

You don't need physical access to run code on a machine. You can distribute malware, or rent space on a cloud server.

Exactly. And the chance of beeing targeted as just random noob 4324324324 is small.

Pretty sure some lab rats were able to record audio through a mechanical harddrive in order to get passwords on a laptop remotely.

>what is javascript

MB/s I’d imagine.

At this point you might be better off getting the new amd models.
Or getting some sbc and shoving it into the case.

Why would you need to be targeted? You could simply be caught in a wide net.

telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/04/26/intel-shares-fall-10pc-worst-day-chipmaker-since-financial-crisis/

>Intel shares plummeted on Friday after a disappointing set of results from the iconic chipmaker in which it cut financial forecasts.

>Shares in the company fell by more than 10pc, putting it on track for its worst day since the 2008 financial crisis.

>On Thursday night Intel had reported an 11pc decline in profits and said that its previously fast-growing data centre business had fallen into decline.

INTEL POZZED HOUSEFIRES BTFO

Attached: 1557868943700.jpg (709x394, 63K)

>Intel will die within your lifetime

Attached: just like that.gif (500x211, 497K)

A site need to be "infected" to spread it no? Companies may be at risk. But for them to target average users seems like a waste of time.

Are we safe if its off?

Attached: 1408615704830.jpg (640x360, 72K)

What if it's Intel themselves engineering these vulnerabilities to force people into upgrading, that they've known about this for years but keep it a secret until sales go down. Even if you just got a new Intel processor, I bet that 5 years from now they will cough up another "vulnerability".

Attached: 1549573801810.jpg (194x186, 9K)

Most people are switching to Ryzen, trust is gone

No, the site itself could simply be malicious.

Intoddlers

>Reported 3% to 9% performance loss with the new patch

Citation

Attached: 1546248784900.jpg (1000x991, 416K)

It's over.

Attached: 1543585518490.jpg (960x720, 116K)

>Apparently Intel attempted to play down the issue by trying to award the researchers with the 40,000 dollar tier reward and a separate 80,000 dollar reward as a "gift" (which the researchers kindly denied) instead of the maximum 100,000 reward for finding a critical vulnerability.
>Intel was also planning to wait for at least another 6 months before bringing this to light if it wasn't for the researchers threatening to release the details in May.
nrc.nl/nieuws/2019/05/14/hackers-mikken-op-het-intel-hart-a3960208

this is absolute jewery, regardless of the exploits, they still wanted to sell one or two more generations and bleed the goyim some more.

Fine wine.

Attached: fx.jpg (600x500, 39K)

oy vey

ARM killing them on mobile, AMD killing them on desktop/consoles + servers, this is truly how Intel die.

VPS providers are BTFO.

Reminder it doesn't matter how bad Zen2 will be, AMD will still outsell Intel pozzed shit.

Wall Street BTFO. Will Wall Street stop their speculation ways?

A correct spec-exec implementation that doesn't clean up after itself is secure as long as there are no micro-architectural side channels that can reveal its traces.

*sip*

They laughed at the 125w TDP of the 8350 but their 8 core 9900K is 200w when it turbos to 5GHz because that 3.6GHz base clock isn't gonna beat ryzen.

Attached: Fine Wine.png (1600x1036, 726K)

Reminder Jow Forums has been shitting on intel kikes even before Jow Forums was even a board.

Well a 9900K with the turbo disabled so it puts out 95w is a joke compared to a 2700X for the money.

Just buy a chiller

Oof!

Attached: 1556496933679.png (1316x1634, 85K)