Intel released critical microcode patch for all i7 980x,Xeon 36../56.. systems

[JF-AMD]

I have to agree 100% that errata happens and we shouldn't be calling it out.

However, I do also agree that if someone is going to market their product as being "more secure" and denigrate their competitor as being "less secure", they open themselves up on things like this.

[kl0012]

I have to agree 100% that errata happens and we shouldn't be calling it out.

However, I do also agree that if someone is going to market their product as being "more secure" and denigrate their competitor as being "less secure", they open themselves up on things like this.

Sh... errata hapens... but what this "more secure" thing has to do with an errata? As I know "more secure" was related to a new "AES" instruction set and as I know Intel didn't labeled competitors as "less secure".

[JF-AMD]

Sh... errata hapens... but what this "more secure" thing has to do with an errata? As I know "more secure" was related to a new "AES" instruction set and as I know Intel didn't labeled competitors as "less secure".

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archi...316comp_sm.htm

"Intel Launches its Most Secure Data Center Processor"

So, if you are claiming that you are most secure, by implication the others are less secure, right?

Most of the threads where the Intel guys were pushing this have been locked/deleted because they became regular troll fests.

One intel person in particular said you should never run virtualization without AES. The funny thing is, any x86 processor can execute AES, and the majority of his company's processors don't have AES instructions built in, only westmere.

There is just a point where taking a position becomes more of liability than a benefit. Security is not the thing I would want to hang my hat on because everyone knows that there will be errata and issues that you need to resolve. A critical microcode patch makes the "most secure data center processor" tag a little harder to believe.

There are a lot of things in their processors that you can talk about that are good, I have never been a big fan of hanging my hat on security because a.) there are always errata (processors are complex) and b.) so much of security is outside of the processor's control.

[kl0012]

There is just a point where taking a position becomes more of liability than a benefit. Security is not the thing I would want to hang my hat on because everyone knows that there will be errata and issues that you need to resolve. A critical microcode patch makes the "most secure data center processor" tag a little harder to believe.

There are a lot of things in their processors that you can talk about that are good, I have never been a big fan of hanging my hat on security because a.) there are always errata (processors are complex) and b.) so much of security is outside of the processor's control.

You probably don't like it but a fact is a fact - CPU which has AES instruction and can handle security algorithms 6-8 times faster is better suited for some type of workloads. Now it seems that you're mixing up a different things. Not every errata causes for security breach. And while I have no hard statistic, I still have a filling that things like microcode update happens not so rarely by both firms. Just this time someone choose to disclose internal information intended to OEMs.

[Hornet331]

I have to agree 100% that errata happens and we shouldn't be calling it out.

However, I do also agree that if someone is going to market their product as being "more secure" and denigrate their competitor as being "less secure", they open themselves up on things like this.

*insert ohyou.jpg in here*

marketing people on both sides brag with stupid things, that are laughable in the eyes of every enthusiast...