From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-181902-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE04B138330
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 00:55:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B920AE0B73;
Mon, 8 Jan 2018 00:55:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-yw0-x231.google.com (mail-yw0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::231])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A68AE0B37
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 8 Jan 2018 00:55:05 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-yw0-x231.google.com with SMTP id m129so3750267ywb.11
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 07 Jan 2018 16:55:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=P6KLWYLDIuXEs4OUzb9nm3kA52MyuVc2Ptb5msF/1UA=;
b=h5j7KXTuot3V2TMX9ogIOQk5ITZsLP7rhm8X7IVBjErsIQyfolJHYynYV2esfFFa7P
87/vGd3E2WVGm2QYZGNhtLAQ3ksDpDKAuxFjdoehy/kodWRewJX1XwCQd+UGsNKdhx59
5prNmUAAqOm9xBE4cJIyBgeGQzgS0X2atRqbjUXpWjfOnFETxi7jphMiMDebcPA1GIFA
XvsOS2aePTXlkM/YWUjH2OeDis5vIe9IyrUrS5+7ikwv2STkGU0Ng18ZHn9xZmPvLLbs
u5J3noUlqRLwsqKk0zL1v0BZ6rpp4sP1Dx4RSqgBQGlJe7Ju+bzJP+UmEJHKRE8jb1c6
GSSA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
:message-id:subject:to;
bh=P6KLWYLDIuXEs4OUzb9nm3kA52MyuVc2Ptb5msF/1UA=;
b=JAFMH7BsSQzUU/rzY+9IJxQBBsnPeH+/5HovjCBbdCNZ/IN6jyiAF9IhyrSbFaXqiu
FtxB4Rg3sVeQt/LhlfiEfx9MyWsKUrmGE1vpMMyk1QHWNHsFCmErHj8chcFHLa5oP1s+
5PWjN59UX+dr1BKB707kQe0nJu4LV7fkjavgp58wG42d42q8adjZtqXiTL1gUqVchheI
jpHI9pjVZkeahJ2pSrPhKHOXmObta0vzBV8nm1TU+ieAUuKfpdl+gsjp+lUXZDOJue4T
BuYaKI8t8PuW/qZ7Hg8v7F07/YlUawq1/VZVjbbjJToV2+7cl5e8dRgF16/ZYGvdoAKL
Fo0w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mL0xKPJ9fR9RXGp1mOENs7uNhbu+Kklw1CPE0U1hcQ6Tng9OMQY
OY0XlZ6urcnDB0sfHQystlt7RP7f5mBQI1LdWMMAOw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBosn7ca+NGa9Z1DixI41pOK8xD6AZDNFuHwSDHH/q8CgnFe4X2EEe3qo/QabeCw99eTUTYEgPq7rhlVby2jGYjc=
X-Received: by 10.129.201.10 with SMTP id o10mr9190450ywi.65.1515372903930;
Sun, 07 Jan 2018 16:55:03 -0800 (PST)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.157.2 with HTTP; Sun, 7 Jan 2018 16:55:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <15310596.tlLjEkevsN@peak>
References: <de1d77f6-8d16-a696-0ebc-68c1c37e0b0e@gmx.com> <15310596.tlLjEkevsN@peak>
From: R0b0t1 <r030t1@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2018 18:55:03 -0600
Message-ID: <CAAD4mYj27pMOMsJM0PUkchHBZpH6-U2TL7sWN7Wb+tNQkB2=+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Microcode updates for "old" Intel CPU's
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Archives-Salt: 079b6e32-fd33-4a76-8721-01d6cd011f53
X-Archives-Hash: b9a575aff2757e89a7f9803429e6715f
On Sunday, 7 January 2018 20:46:52 GMT Taiidan@gmx.com wrote:
> I have several sandy/ivybridge CPU's and I was wondering if anyone knows
> as to if intel is releasing microcode updates for them.
>
> It sure would be funny if intel wanted you to buy a new CPU to fix a
> problem that was their fault to begin with.
As I found explained elsewhere, what can be done with microcode
updates is actually very limited. It was claimed that most often Intel
would use updates to disable features, permanently, and could not do
much more with microcode. This agrees with my understanding of
electronics, though I originally did think that slightly more was
possible. Perhaps they could disable some cache functionality or
speculative execution, but you would still be left with the
performance penalties of most of the code-based fixes.
In any case, using my original expectations, I would not expect them
to be able to modify the behavior of the execution units in such a
fundamental way. If great changes are possible with microcode then
Intel's processors are actually closer to FPGAs, which I do not think
is likely, as FPGAs are very power and space inefficient.
On Sun, Jan 7, 2018 at 6:00 PM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> Welcome to unbridled capitalism, USA-style.
>
I have a mobile device that I noticed had a severe reduction in
battery life mid-November, about the time the patches were rolled out
by Microsoft. I may have to look at legal action in this regard, as
now the device is unusable. I assumed it was compromised anyway and
would prefer the performance back.
Cheers,
R0b0t1