Kernel memory leaking Intel processor design flaw

Got a nice discussion going on at another forum about that Intel issue. It's gonna be bad, from the looks of it - still under embargo, according to one of the people involved in the discussion we're having....

RoasterMen said:

Off you go, Intel. That's a bad karma for ripping off people.

You obviously have evidence that shows Intel knew of the bug and continues to manufacture flawed CPUs anyway. Please provide a link.

That is one solution - but as everything is still being speculated upon (although the almost-emergency-like triage being performed on both the Linux kernel as well as the NT kernel says otherwise) we still don't know what is really going on.

Suffice it to say, though, that I'll be very interested to see which processors are affected and the level of severity by processor lines.

I'm already planning a new build for the summer, might have to move that timeline up a bit.

Then I have to call my parents - their 3 and 4 year old laptops will need replacing lol....

Lol

First of all, the bug has been in existence because of the way Intel CPUs perform tasks, particularly multi-tasking. More will be learned when the bug itself is un-embargoed soon. Until that happens, most everything is speculation.

Second of all, on the flip side of that argument, the fact that both the Linux kernel and the NT kernel were being revamped hardcore (without any real news about it) since at least November, and possibly even before then, since 17025 was released Oct 25, and Microsoft created this new screwy leap ahead program to go ahead and skip 16299 and start testing RS4 builds in the first place (which has always made me suspect something was up even as I also jumped on that bandwagon) means that it is not just a run of the mill bug.

One thing to note, we don't even know which processor lines are affected here - it may be only for the Core lines, leaving out the Pentiums, or it may be from later Pentiums all the way through modern processors, it may be for all processors with hyperthreading, who knows?

This may be the smoking gun AMD needs to pull ahead of Intel - or it may be nothing at all. We just don't know yet.

HippsieGypsie said:

Oh? This is the first I've heard of it, but then again I live in a closet and rarely get out.

Actually don't have the time to read much tech news other than what I see on the forum. I should peek in on the news thread more often.

I wonder if I can get a chip replacement for my Intel Pentium duo core D925 in my Acer.

Thanks to the Admin that moved my post here. Guess I'm in the news thread now. LOL.

xips said:

these changes were seeded to beta testers running fast-ring Windows Insider builds in November and December.

I'm curious if any Insiders are experiencing significant slow downs?

Depending on the first build the patches were included, I've noticed a significant slower change of speed on my Acer with 10 vs 8.1. It was when the weather started turning cold in late Fall that I got it out of moth balls to throw FCU and an IP on it. Couldn't be more than 2 months ago. I'm thinking 17046 was the first? If that be the case then yes, I think it has affected me, but we'll have to see. I'll have to look up when 17046 was released.

xips said:

Windows 10 1709 vs 17063 sampled benchmarks (German / auf Deutsch)

Seems to be very little difference.

HippsieGypsie said:

Thanks to the Admin that moved my post here. Guess I'm in the news thread now. LOL.



Depending on the first build the patches were included, I've noticed a significant slower change of speed on my Acer vs 8.1. It was when the weather started turning cold in late Fall that I got it out of moth balls to throw FCU and an IP on it. Couldn't be more than 2 months ago. I'm thinking 17046 was the first? If that be the case then yes, I think it has affected me, but we'll have to see. I'll have to look up when 17046 was released.

17025 was released 25 October. It was then released to slow ring 1 Nov. So that is about the right time frame....