Intel are not going to patch older CPUs for Spectre Variant 2

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by Arrrrbol, Apr 4, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Arrrrbol

    Arrrrbol Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    3,129
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    1,053
    Trophy Points:
    156
    Intel will not be patching older CPUs for Spectre Variant 2:

    https://wccftech.com/intel-no-patch-spectre-variant-2/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


    "the company said it has stopped working on Spectre Variant 2 mitigation for some processor series because fixes are either impractical or the processors are no longer widely supported."

    The affected families are:

    Bloomfield, Bloomfield Xeon, Clarksfield, Gulftown, Harpertown Xeon C0, Harpertown Xeon E0, Jasper Forest, Penryn/QC, SoFIA 3GR, Wolfdale C0, Wolfdale M0, Wolfdale E0, Wolfdale R0, Wolfdale Xeon C0, Wolfdale Xeon E0, Yorkfield, and Yorkfield Xeon.

    As someone still using a Clarksfield CPU, i'm glad they are not going to patch it. I need every bit of performance I can get out of it, and the patch would reduce that further. The security vulnerabilities aren't a big deal if you exercise caution.
     
    Vistar Shook and hmscott like this.
  2. hmscott

    hmscott Notebook Nobel Laureate

    Reputations:
    7,072
    Messages:
    20,418
    Likes Received:
    25,218
    Trophy Points:
    931
    KY_BULLET and Arrrrbol like this.
  3. Fishon

    Fishon I Will Close You

    Reputations:
    7,988
    Messages:
    1,334
    Likes Received:
    7,291
    Trophy Points:
    531
    If it's really going to degrade performance I understand it's not intentional. However for a CPU produced up until (and certainly sold after) 2012, less than six years is a awfully short time for obsolescence, or for a manufacturer to stop supporting... or whatever you want to call it.
     
    Arrrrbol likes this.
  4. Arrrrbol

    Arrrrbol Notebook Deity

    Reputations:
    3,129
    Messages:
    713
    Likes Received:
    1,053
    Trophy Points:
    156
    I agree, and having the extra security would be nice - but it's not going to stop me using it. It does seem strange that Bloomfield is in the list though, as those should be able to cope with the performance loss. It would be nice if Intel would instead provide some clarity on how to avoid being victim to this vulnerability, or perhaps develop a piece of software to run as an optional extra rather than patching them.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page