Other How long has it been since your last build?

Can I ask exactly what effect you think these bugs will have on you? What do you think is going to happen? Am I the only one who thinks this will have no impact on my life whatsoever?

 

Can I ask exactly why you would choose to buy a known-broken design when you could wait a year and get something faster and not-broken (or, at least, not-known-to-be-broken) for the same money?

Seriously, though: Spectre is a massive security vulnerability. Sure, I have software workarounds for it on my current processor (which have a measurable impact on the performance of certain workloads, by the way, which won't go away with Zen+), but there's no guarantee a new variant won't be discovered tomorrow attacking the same hardware flaw.

 

They should, yes, as they're attacks against the same vulnerabilities as Meltdown and Spectre. I'd take nothing for granted, though!

 

It's been 'broken' for a very very long time, but we've all been perfectly happy with all those cpu's we've bought until now. And who's to say they will implement a true hardware fix? This flaw is present due to processes which increase speeds of workloads, so will they be willing to let those go? Will you have to buy a chip that's significantly slower to have the fix hardwired in? There are hundreds if not thousands of fixes for security vulnerabilities that get patched each year. This is barely any different.

It all seens like another 970 memory situation to me. The real life impact these flaws will have on the vast majority of individuals is negligible, we just like to have something to complain about.

 

Because nobody knew how to exploit it. Now everyone knows how to exploit it.

To put it another way: everyone was perfectly happy with their Ford Pintos until they started exploding.

Both Intel and AMD have said exactly this. If they don't, then they're both going to have serious questions to answer in front of investors and judges...

They've already let those go, in that the performance boosts offered are disabled when you're running the patches that protect against exploitation (so much so for Meltdown, in fact, that Intel literally tells its server customers to decide whether performance or security is their priority when figuring out whether to install the patches or not.)

For certain workloads, possibly - but, again, the workloads would be slowed down just as much using the software patches. It's hoped that fixing the problem properly in hardware may result in less of a performance impact - another win for not-buying-a-known-broken-design.

It is massively different. Believe me, I've done my research.

 

No doubt it's a huge cock up and a severe flaw in data security, but no one has shown me anything that would make me not buy current gen cpu's as our data is never truly 100% secure. Fraudsters can take money from your account by essentially guessing your card details, companies who hold masses of very sensitive data about you will always cock up, like experian, someone could break into your work and empty the personell files and get similar details. Think all those data centres are going to upgrade all the cpu's once secure ones are released? Are they balls.

You can do everything you possibly can do to keep your data secure, but someone else will always make a mistake, or miss something and some little scrote will always be there to find it.

 

Somebody can open your front door with a bump key, so I guess there's no point in you locking it any more.