<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1645071/computerbase-intel-serious-vulnerability-speculation-in-all-cpus#post_26528251" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>

<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>KyadCK</strong> <a href="/t/1645071/computerbase-intel-serious-vulnerability-speculation-in-all-cpus#post_26528251"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br><a class="spoiler-link H-spoiler-toggle" href="#"><strong>Warning: Spoiler!</strong> <span class="spoiler-help">(Click to show)</span></a><div class="spoiler-hidden">They wouldn't need it anyway because a major selling point on Epyc is per-VM hardware memory encryption. I can steal a book from someone all I want, but if I can't read the language then it doesn't do me much good, does it?<br><br>

Boy I bet that marketing line is being taken a lot more seriously now. <img alt="tongue.gif" class="bbcode_smiley" src="http://files.overclock.net/images/smilies/tongue.gif"></div>

</div>

</div>

<br>

I know, but my point is that <b>*THEY*</b> also knew it, and yet included something so completely stupid in the article. This is so inflammatory it's at honest-to-god shill level. Intel didn't even need to PAY for this kind of negative association.<br><br><div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/1645071/computerbase-intel-serious-vulnerability-speculation-in-all-cpus#post_26528266" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span>

<div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>tpi2007</strong> <a href="/t/1645071/computerbase-intel-serious-vulnerability-speculation-in-all-cpus#post_26528266"><img alt="View Post" class="inlineimg" src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif"></a><br><br><a class="spoiler-link H-spoiler-toggle" href="#"><strong>Warning: Spoiler!</strong> <span class="spoiler-help">(Click to show)</span></a><div class="spoiler-hidden">Yeah, they should have included results from an Intel CPU so we could see what the performance impact is. Bringing AMD into the discussion when it's not affected seems pointless to say the least.<br><br>

Well, at least they went on to clarify and quote someone from AMD saying that it doesn't apply to AMD CPUs and I'm assuming that the patched OSes will automatically choose the best path for AMD CPUs, or in other words, apply this (or equivalent in Windows) automatically:<br>

<a href="https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/27/2" target="_blank">https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/27/2</a><br><br><br>

Now I really want to see what the performance impact on Intel CPUs is going to be. From 5% to 49% is a big gap and we need to know the usage scenarios to see if this is a big issue or not. If a 49% impact is only on exotic workloads, Intel will get away with it, but a more general scenario could (I never thought I'd say this) actually break them. Even if 5% performance impact is what will happen in most cases, that means that the IPC advantage Intel has over AMD right now is going to be mostly wiped out.</div>

</div>

</div>

<br>

Pointless, ha. This might be a somewhat rare exception to <a class="bbcode_url" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor" target="_blank">Hanlon's razor</a>. They should immediately remove the tweet and any reference to the 49% number as the *HARDWARE* already provides this security. Any retraction of the AMD numbers should be replaced by the worst case scenario of Intel's numbers.