1 |
On Sunday, 7 January 2018 20:46:52 GMT Taiidan@×××.com wrote: |
2 |
> I have several sandy/ivybridge CPU's and I was wondering if anyone knows |
3 |
> as to if intel is releasing microcode updates for them. |
4 |
> |
5 |
> It sure would be funny if intel wanted you to buy a new CPU to fix a |
6 |
> problem that was their fault to begin with. |
7 |
|
8 |
As I found explained elsewhere, what can be done with microcode |
9 |
updates is actually very limited. It was claimed that most often Intel |
10 |
would use updates to disable features, permanently, and could not do |
11 |
much more with microcode. This agrees with my understanding of |
12 |
electronics, though I originally did think that slightly more was |
13 |
possible. Perhaps they could disable some cache functionality or |
14 |
speculative execution, but you would still be left with the |
15 |
performance penalties of most of the code-based fixes. |
16 |
|
17 |
In any case, using my original expectations, I would not expect them |
18 |
to be able to modify the behavior of the execution units in such a |
19 |
fundamental way. If great changes are possible with microcode then |
20 |
Intel's processors are actually closer to FPGAs, which I do not think |
21 |
is likely, as FPGAs are very power and space inefficient. |
22 |
|
23 |
|
24 |
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Peter Humphrey <peter@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
25 |
> Welcome to unbridled capitalism, USA-style. |
26 |
> |
27 |
|
28 |
I have a mobile device that I noticed had a severe reduction in |
29 |
battery life mid-November, about the time the patches were rolled out |
30 |
by Microsoft. I may have to look at legal action in this regard, as |
31 |
now the device is unusable. I assumed it was compromised anyway and |
32 |
would prefer the performance back. |
33 |
|
34 |
Cheers, |
35 |
R0b0t1 |