[–] lbruiser 0 points 44 points (+44|-0) ago 

AMD looks better by the day

[–] SquarebobSpongebutt 0 points 17 points (+17|-0) ago 

I am about ready to build a new primary system for myself and it will definitely be AMD processor based. No they aren't perfect, but I will take flawed over evil most any day.

[–] kjell 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I switched everything the AMD last year. Six computers in all. Even the low end 1300x runs great on my HTPC server. Unless your getting Threadripper, they will be 85-90% of the intel equivalent but with less BS like this to deal with.

[–] UnknownAlias365 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

AMD isn't really even that flawed. Intel on the other hand is evil AND flawed. Thanks to those clowns, next update, my cpu will be slower. I really fucking regret building an intel pc a year ago. Should have fucking went with AMD.

[–] dayofthehope 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

AMD is undoubtedly better. A little better. Processors are less buggy, run faster. But it still has closed source firmware, it's Platform Security Processor.


[–] Womb_Raider 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Your username is awesome.

[–] weezkitty 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The company is generally more ethical. They tend to make their technologies open (i.e. like freesync) while Intel and NVidia say "fuck you" to their customers on a regular basis

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 


[–] Rellik88 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

have a 2400g, loving it.

[–] BANGAndTheDirtIsGone 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Been using AMD since 2012 and never looked back. I always used them as you got more bang for your buck. But now that's just one of many reasons to avoid Intel.

[–] TheBuddha 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Since the K6-2, myself.

[–] kjell 0 points 21 points (+21|-0) ago  (edited ago)

[–] Troll [S] 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago 


[–] TheTrigger 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Relevant part, for the lazy:

  1. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS. All right, title and interest in and to the Software and associated documentation are and will remain the exclusive property of Intel and its licensors or suppliers. Unless expressly permitted under the Agreement, You will not, and will not allow any third party to . . . (v) publish or provide any Software benchmark or comparison test results. . . . You acknowledge there are significant uses of the Software in its original, unmodified and uncombined form. You may not remove any copyright notices from the Software.

[–] thelma 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Does not sound mandatory or they would have used the word "shall".

[–] VoatieMcVoatFace 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

I'm building a PC at the moment. Ive been a fan of Ubuntu since college and have always had at least one PC running the OS, I'm done with Intel and all their bullshit. It's AMD from here on out for me.

[–] C_Corax 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

The same microcode is already being distributed with Windows updates without the UELA attached and from what I can gather it's a standard UELA that they just seemed to have forgotten to edit. Between that, AMD absolutely slaughtering with Ryzen and that pathetic "we're still in the game" demonstration that required a 1 HP cooler(WTF !?!) it's not looking good for Intel.

But if I have to put my tinfoil hat on, I wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised if Intel had pulled strings in the industry to prevent various software from updating and take advantage of the new 32 core/64 thread monster from AMD.

[–] [deleted] 1 points 8 points (+9|-1) ago 


[–] C_Corax 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Yeah it's not unheard of. Of course not everything can be threaded easily if at all, but rendering for instance can. Here's a screen shot courtesy of Hilbert Hagedoorn of Guru3d from his review of the 2990WX. Notice how only half the CPU is utilized. In benchmarks such as that Intel can still compete.

[–] TheTrigger 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

"we're still in the game" demonstration that required a 1 HP cooler

https://imgoat.com/uploads/00da03b685/138802.jpg You just made my day.

[–] 2327686 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Nice catch.

[–] TrollingForBasss 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It's time to return all those defetive processors.

Who wants the largest class action lawsuit in known history?

[–] LostandFound 0 points 16 points (+16|-0) ago 

I'm in, I am all in.

Can you imagine this in any other space? Sorry theres something wrong with that car we sold you, the wheels might come off and theres a small chance theres a nig on the back seat that will rob you at some stage, were just going to fix it for you BUT you have to agree not to do any kind of speed tests in it once its done or else you cant have the fix.

[–] Caesarkid1 0 points 19 points (+19|-0) ago 

This is worse than that. This is like selling a 4L engine then filling 2L of the cylinders with stop leak because the rings were leaking and making it a void of warranty for the customer to have it tested on a dynometer or diagnostically tested in any way shape or form.

[–] Saufsoldat 4 points -3 points (+1|-4) ago 

A lawsuit requires some kind of damage being done.

[–] Morbo 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

It damages the sale agreement where the end user was sold on particular performance specifications that they are not allowed to verify independently. This action by Intel is rife for abuse especially considering Intel simply brands lower performing chips into other SKUs. Without independent verification of performance, a buyer could be sold an inferior CPU at premium prices. I'd wager this is already happening en masse.

[–] thelma 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

A civil and criminal cases require this...injury.

So why do we still get speeding tickets ?

[–] TrollingForBasss 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Intel sold defective processors, and could fix them but refuses to. Instead they want to SELL the patch in exchange for your agreement on a license CONTRACT.

[–] DeliciousOnions 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

You purchase a product for being able to perform X task. Product, post-fix, can no longer perform that task.

They're trying to prevent anyone from proving this in a quantifiable way with benchmarks, but the funny thing about them is that they're just a standard for a type of use.

[–] L3D 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Proud to be a Debian user, other OSes were just fine with that bullshit license agreement.

[–] juicedidwtc 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Considering how outdated everything in the debian repos is, it might just be no one has bothered to upload this patch yet.

[–] Caesarkid1 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

It's almost like they want to avoid a lawsuit for selling the product as being faster than it is by making the testing of the product a breech of license agreement making it "unusual use" and therefore not "typical" for the average user.

[–] derram 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

https://archive.fo/0ISP6 :

Use Debian? Want Intel's latest CPU patch? Small print sparks big problem • The Register

'It is with the latest set of CPU microcode updates that things have come unstuck somewhat, for Debian at least. ', "Ideally, Intel's CPU microcode is updated by the motherboard firmware during boot."

'Also, the patches are picked up during the usual monthly routine of fetching and stalling operating system software updates. '

'Gentoo, for example, will likely restrict mirroring of the software and get users to accept Intel’s license before proceeding. '

'Updated At least one Linux distribution is withholding security patches that mitigate the latest round of Intel CPU design flaws – due to a problematic license clash. '

This has been an automated message.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 


[–] NoisyCricket 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Modern CPUs execute what is called microcode. When you compile an application (.exe on windows) it is compiled into machine language (Intel 386 w/AMD64 + the various zillion extensions and features like SSE). The machine language instructions on Intel and AMD CPUs are then internally re-interpreted on the CPU and executed by the microcode running on the CPU. A single machine code instruction may represent dozens of microcode instructions. The why of this is a deep answer and I'll completely ignore it. If you care you can explore the history of CISC and RISC instruction sets and how they became something else internally to CPUs.

When your computer first boots it loads the current microcode into the CPU. This allows many classes of hardware bugs to be worked around by changing how instructions are internally executed. Recently a long list of hardware bugs have been exposed which allow intelligence agencies and other nefarious applications (spyware, trojans, viruses) to directly read protected information from memory which would otherwise be prohibited by the operating system (windows/linux/ios). Since these are hardware bugs there is usually little the OS can do to maintain protection. Which means everyone running these buggy CPUs are vulnerable. When the CPU/microcode can do something it usually carries significant performance impact. In this case, it absolutely does. The impact ranges from 2% - 60+%, depending on the nature of the workload.

The current microcode fixes some of the remaining security issues. These security issues are very serious. The fixed also impose significant performance loss for many workloads. Which is why they want to prevent people from reporting on it. They are trying to hide a huge black eye. To some degree, was likely caused by illegal collusion with three letter agencies.

Full disclaimer. Not everything I stated is completely accurate. I've simplified some of the explanation so as to more easily follow. Also, many CPUs suffered from the same class of bug. This includes Intel, AMD, and some ARM CPUs. To learn more, do searches on spectre and meltdown CPU security bugs.

[–] fluhthreeex 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Upvoted, but shouldn't


really be



A tongue in cheek but not really tongue in cheek response and a thanks for explaining this in layman's terms.

The humor here though, which also deserves a layman's explanation is that if the authors interpretation of the legalese is correct, there's really no way to NOT benchmark a CPU. We all have "task managers" or some sort of CPU monitoring utility. We all have applications and tasks we perform on a daily basis. We all have an idea of how our system runs performing those tasks. We're all going to be able to see, take screen shots, videos, or whatever it may be, of these day-to-day tasks (image, sound, or video editing, gaming, browsing, you name it) with our system performance monitors running/fps rate showing, and have fairly detailed metrics displayed of how our system performs while these tasks are underway. Both pre and post micro-code update. Their addition of that to the 100,000 page TOS is worthy of mockery and Twitter trolling until they change or revert it.

[–] FreeBreivik 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Intel has been cheating by disabling security checks in their processors to make them go faster. They've been doing it for a long time. Now they got caught, they are making a "fix" but it makes the processors slow. So they don't want anyone to test how fast they can go.

The only hope they have is to keep making fast processors with disabled security and hope most people don't want to patch them.

load more comments ▼ (13 remaining)