| 1 |
On Monday, 8 January 2018 17:47:03 GMT Corbin Bird wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 01/07/2018 02:46 PM, Taiidan@×××.com wrote: |
| 3 |
> > I have several sandy/ivybridge CPU's and I was wondering if anyone |
| 4 |
> > knows as to if intel is releasing microcode updates for them. |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > It sure would be funny if intel wanted you to buy a new CPU to fix a |
| 7 |
> > problem that was their fault to begin with. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Do you remember the x87 bugs discovered in the original i586 Pentiums? |
| 10 |
> Never fixed. |
| 11 |
> Still built into every Intel CPU. |
| 12 |
> Intel does NOT replace "defective-by-design" hardware. |
| 13 |
> Instead, every OS is required to "software emulate" the FPU. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> Search for "errata-not-bug". |
| 16 |
> Intel's term for their screw-ups in their CPUs. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Intel is only releasing patch code for the last five years of products. |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> And ... if you read up on the "e-mails" being posted ... |
| 21 |
> ... It looks as if Intel is NOT going to fix this in future CPUs either. |
| 22 |
> Instead, every OS will be required to "work-around-this". |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> Perhaps the reason "someone" tried to implicate this effects ALL CPU |
| 25 |
> architectures? |
| 26 |
> ( IBM RISC 6000, PowerPC, DEC Alpha, IBM System/390, Sun SPARC64, for |
| 27 |
> example ) |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> Intel did try to make their "patch" mandatory for AMD CPUs ( with NO |
| 30 |
> disable switch ). |
| 31 |
> Why? |
| 32 |
> Think about it. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Corbin |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
So what affordable and available CPUs should one be looking into for a new |
| 37 |
desktop build? |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Also, laptops? |
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
Regards, |
| 43 |
Mick |
Archives