Intel CPUs have another bug that can leak sensitive information

[kgbme]

Power consumption, incorrect.

Excuse me for being lazy (pls, hehe); but, can we just settle it like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=latest+intel+cpus+vs.+amd+power+consumption

?!

EDIT: Because it is true, Intel's manufacturing process is more refined; & in nanometers.

(err, unless I'm -rly- missing something)

 

[HardReset]

Excuse me for being lazy (pls, hehe); but, can we just settle it like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=latest+intel+cpus+vs.+amd+power+consumption

?!

EDIT: Because it is true, Intel's manufacturing process is more refined; & in nanometers.

(err, unless I'm -rly- missing something)

There you go https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-ryzen-7-2700x-review,5571-12.html

So Ryzen 2700X (8 cores, 16 threads) consumes LESS than i7-7700K (4 cores, 8 threads).

 

[Evernessince]

You do realize AMD has the same, if not worse flaws right?

https://amdflaws.com/

I really don't think a hit and run piece done by an investment fund manager and 2 other guys posing as security researchers counts as anything remotely close to the flaws found by Google and others in Intel processors.

Those guys followed zero professional conduct and their exploits required physical access to the computer along with admin privileges. At that point it's not an exploit, you already have full control of the machine.

 

[kgbme]

Ryzen 2700X (8 cores, 16 threads) consumes LESS than i7-7700K (4 cores, 8 threads).

And there's, also (for example!), an argument how it would take a number of years for Intel to "pay-off" @

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBeeGHozSY0

but, what if we're talking about a country (like Germany) where electricity is ridiculously expensive... I'm not saying that it's the LAW, only that AMD is not -far- ahead; like, at all (certainly, not like people seem to claim. )

EDIT: Honestly, wasn't trying to make some argument out of it - only, it bothers me (a little, hehe) how opinions get skewed, when praising AMD (which, I love for being competitive again, btw.)

EDIT: Oh (!), just noticed the first comment:

 

[Evernessince]

Completely agreed. AMD and Intel are equally as bad as each other. But the fact is most people will probably have given Intel their money over the last 10 years as they have been far more consistent. Il always buy what’s better for me (gaming performance) regardless of brand or how much someone screams at me that Intel are a “dirty” company.

It seems that people like Hard Reset have probably had a bad experience with Intel and haven’t let it go. It’s pathetic.

I don’t know we try and reason with him, he’s got a clear and strong agenda and it doesn’t favour the tech community or it’s consumers.

I used to buy Intel for that very reason. It was always "Do you game? Buy Intel.". No doubt Intel makes amazing processors, was rocking my 6700K. Then Ryzen came out and made me realize that I can get excellent gaming performance AND longevity. Typically I would have upgraded from the 7700K to the 8700K. Thanks to the Ryzen platform though, I only had to upgrade my CPU. It saved allot of time.

I also run a 144 Hz monitor and I still get well over the refresh rate, typically 190 FPS in overwatch. I can get wanting maximum performance but for me, Ryzen was the better choice because I couldn't see the benefit of having even more frames. With Ryzen I could run applications in the background without issues.

It used to be that Intel was the only choice in gaming processors but now I'd only recommend the 8700K over the 2700X if you are an eSports gamer. Otherwise the extra frames simply don't matter for 99.9% of PC gamers and the drawbacks simply aren't worth it.

 

[Nocturne]

That's another well deserved punishment for those who bought Intel CPU's.

This is a really short sighted statement. Phenom II wasnt on par with sandy bridge, and was almost 3 years old when bulldozer finally came out, after intel sent them through the ringer.

Bulldozer was an abysmal failure, piledriver was slightly better, then AMD just gave up for about 3-4 years on the CPU market altogether, only finally competing last year. And before that, phenom II was really playing catchup after AMD's phenom was slower then expected, and they sat for years selling athlon 64 when the core 2 chips were getting progressively faster every 6 months.

You cant blame people for buying Intel CPUs when all AMD could do was drop the ball time and time again while trying to maintain ATi at the same time. If you wanted a fast CPU, you bought Intel, full stop. Especially from 2012-2017, when AMD was too busy sucking its own thumb to pay any attention to the world around it.

Since the Q6600 that was AMDs downfall, they started falling behind and really haven't caught up till Ryzen hit.