News Intel Says Its CPUs Have Fewer New Bugs Than AMD, Nearly Half of GPU Bugs Come From AMD

[jacob249358]

One good generation of cpus and they are acting like their schlong is twice the girth of amd. Just calm down pat.

 

[hotaru251]

Some of Intel's bugs have overall been more egregious because they were remotely exploitable.

iirc also in a lawsuit over their mitigations to fix some.

as ppl were buying processors that were not hitting speeds stated due to patches.

 

[mitch074]

to which Nvidia has never once in that time lost in performance.

amd's top gpu atm "can" beat 3090 in some stuff (which will lose to 3090 ti), but overall? it loses and for gaming nvidia's software benefits are overall better than AMD's and graphic driver support? That is truly AMD's weakest spot.

not saying amd's gpus are "bad" in the general sense (as i mean they arent) however you can't deny they lack the mojo their CPU side has.

Depends on what OS you're gaming on - on Linux, Nvidia drivers are the pit, AMD drivers are the reference and Intel a close second. I don't really care about this or that hardware maker, only the needs I have at the moment and the best bang for buck.

If Intel's discrete GPUs are any good for the price, my RX480 8Gb will get a well-deserved retirement and I'll switch manufacturer for my personal rig for the first time in 15 years.

Right after the prehistoric age of PC graphics ended (circa 1996), I had a 3dfx Voodoo connected to my S3 Trio64. Then I got a card from a newcomer : Nvidia TnT 16 Mb. Corretly tuned, it allowed me to game up until GTA3 came out - then I got a Geforce 4 4200 8X. My last Nvidia card was a Geforce 6600 passively cooled. Right before that though, my brother wanted to build his own rig : Ati Radeon 9500 VS Geforce 5 "dustbuster", you'll understand I couldn't inflict that on him. When his Radeon fried due to a stuck fan (he never cleaned up his PC), I got him a Geforce 9600GT.

The Geforce was getting long in the tooth, so when I built my first quad core machine (Athlon II X4 620) I switched to a RadeonHD 4850, which attained legendary status when it kept a "recommended" spot for more than 2 years and a half at Tom's. It's also the time when I dual booted Windows XP and Linux, and the AMD drivers got good enough that I could play WoW onLinux without much trouble on AMD hardware when before that only the Nvidia drivers were worth anything. Catalyst 11.4 had a major update, that is the driver advertised all the OpenGL extensions it actually supported, and it solved a BUNCH of bugs.

After more than 4 years of daily use, the 4850 died, and I replaced it with a Radeon HD 7770 1Gb - good for HD gaming. Then I got a 1440p monitor and it couldn't cut it anymore, so I got a HD Radeon R9 270X. Nice enough, especially since I was now mostly gaming on Linux; I still had a dual boot, but looking back, I only booted Windows 7 to keep it up to date; it took an hour every time and was quite a drag. So when I replaced my O/C'd Athlon X4 620 with a Core i5 4870K, I did away with dual boot and got myself an SSD to run Linux on.

When it came out, I bought the RX 480 8Gb - Ati/AMD had usually struck gold on the 4th iteration of their main GPU architecture, so I thought it was time to really enjoy what GCN was about. And, at less than $300 for a card, it was a lot of bang for the buck when Nvidia had the problematic Geforce GTX 970 in that bracket. Also, AMD drivers on Linux had switched to open source and improvements in performance and stability were almost daily (Mesa driver daily snapshots FTW). So, when I retired the Core i5 for a Ryzen 2700X, I kept the Polaris on it.

Probably the best IT investment ever - 6 years on, I still drive it as my main GPU, and it still runs everything I throw at it @1440p. I don't have much time for AAA games nowadays, but I did finish Doom Eternal on it with good graphics @1440p and adaptive resolution disabled. I switched it back on for The Ancient Gods part 2 though, the external shots did drag the FPS down.

 

[Nightseer]

For people who are asking who this is for and why, this is for businesses, like data center. Because priorities for businesses are way different than home user. Home user might not care about whole security thing much, probably more caring just about performance that might be taken away. But for businesses stability and reliability is basically top with security being pretty much equal. Because in business use, downtime costs money and any sort of security breach costs money too. And figures can easily shot to 6 digit numbers without decimals very fast. Plus reputation hit can take long time to fix.

As for whose security vulnerabilities, both have them, both will have more to be discovered. And as for performance effecting fixes, to be fair, home users really exaggerate effect from their end while really biggest effect was on businesses. And AMD was lucky so far, because I got no doubt that, if major vulnerability was found on their end and they had to sacrifice performance, they would do it. As for businesses, it really did show how much they are tied to one choice and stability, since those even with loss of performance found it cheaper to just buy more Intel servers, than it was to go through whole validation and software development to ensure stability on AMD systems. As I said, priorities there are different.

But personally, regardless of that, I will always buy whatever gives me best bang for the buck. Had both AMD and Intel systems, can't say either really disappointed.

 

[renz496]

AMD has never burned your cards though... 😀

Regards.

They did. I think with one of those crimson drivers. That's why most people no longer talk about this when talking about nvidia vs AMD driver.

 

[TerryLaze]

iirc also in a lawsuit over their mitigations to fix some.

as ppl were buying processors that were not hitting speeds stated due to patches.

Intel (and AMD as well) never states "performance" let alone "speeds" in a vacuum, any number they ever show comes with a list of conditions, of OS software versions hardware used and so on, they don't state "performance" they state "performance under these conditions" so there is no way to sue them unless using the exact same setup numbers are way off.

People can't even sue AMD for claiming 5Ghz single core turbo but only hitting 5Ghz on like 5% of CPUs.

 

[-Fran-]

They did. I think with one of those crimson drivers. That's why most people no longer talk about this when talking about nvidia vs AMD driver.

I will need an exact source, because I don't believe you.

As for nVidia: GTX590 (sparks in the dark; https://www.geeks3d.com/20110324/geforce-gtx-590-burns-no-need-furmark/), 8800GT (famous soldering issue; https://hardforum.com/threads/nvidi...-to-get-your-settlement-money-inside.1550848/) and I think it was the GTX560/570 that had a driver update and stopped the fans from working and burning a few? (https://www.engadget.com/2010-03-05...ver-amid-reports-its-frying-graphics-car.html)

Looks like people is really good at forgetting the egregious stuff and keep crying wolf at AMD for "but muh game crashes", when it doesn't happen as often anymore and I'd even say nVidia has more or less the same amount of driver shenanigans nowadays.

EDIT: And how can we forget the RTX3800 and RRTX3090 issues of just recently! Down-clocking the cards to account for a "barebones" reference card they didn't expect partners to build or something? I'm baffled at how nVidia gets such passes so easily. People still craps out on the 5700 siblings and they're not having issues anymore; and none of them actually died to those issues. Even with the New World shenanigans, people claimed AMD had cards burning, but it was all smoke and mirrors by fanboys.

Regards.

 

[spongiemaster]

iirc also in a lawsuit over their mitigations to fix some.

as ppl were buying processors that were not hitting speeds stated due to patches.

The mitigations didn't affect clock speeds. The lawsuit was over lower performance. Apple and AMD were both hit with class action suits for the same thing. The Apple one got dismissed. Among the reasons for the dismissal was that the plaintiffs couldn't prove they were impacted by the scenarios where performance dropped. I don't know what happened with the Intel or AMD suits, but I can't see how that's a winnable suit as there is no minimum guaranteed level of performance when you buy a CPU. If you don't hit advertised clock speeds, sure, that's easy to objectively determine, and if you don't that's false advertising. But generically speaking performance there is no guarantee. Intel is still facing lawsuits over not revealing the exploits in time. If they lose that case, will the lawyers who filed the case be the first to demonstrate a real world exploit of meltdown/spectre?

 

[hotaru251]

Intel (and AMD as well) never states "performance" let alone "speeds" in a vacuum, any number they ever show comes with a list of conditions, of OS software versions hardware used and so on, they don't state "performance" they state "performance under these conditions" so there is no way to sue them unless using the exact same setup numbers are way off.

People can't even sue AMD for claiming 5Ghz single core turbo but only hitting 5Ghz on like 5% of CPUs.

Intel fails to get Spectre, Meltdown flaw lawsuit tossed

Cheesed-off customers have 'alleged enough facts at this stage' to allow legal battle to continue, says judge

www.theregister.com

2 yrs of trying to overturn it and they failed and will go to court over it.

 

[TerryLaze]

Intel fails to get Spectre, Meltdown flaw lawsuit tossed

Cheesed-off customers have 'alleged enough facts at this stage' to allow legal battle to continue, says judge

www.theregister.com

2 yrs of trying to overturn it and they failed and will go to court over it.

About if they disclosed the information in a timely manner or if they withheld it to have better sales, and the only thing intel has to do is to show sale numbers after the date in question to show that disclosing or withholding the information made no difference at all in sales.

 

[renz496]

I will need an exact source, because I don't believe you.

lol you think i was lying? in the past when talking about AMD vs nvidia driver issues there are always some people that try to defend AMD with this saying: but AMD never release a driver that kill a card! now people no longer say this because AMD also end up releasing drivers with the same issues in the past.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/latest-amd...k-fan-speeds-overheating-cards-to-break-point

People still craps out on the 5700 siblings and they're not having issues anymore

go to the graphic forum section and we can see some people still posting about issue they are having with 5700.

Even with the New World shenanigans, people claimed AMD had cards burning, but it was all smoke and mirrors by fanboys.

smoke and mirrors eh? i get it both AMD and nvidia can have their own issue. but when you fav brand being point out as having issues it was just a noise from the fanboys....

 

[hotaru251]

About if they disclosed the information in a timely manner or if they withheld it to have better sales, and the only thing intel has to do is to show sale numbers after the date in question to show that disclosing or withholding the information made no difference at all in sales.

if Intel was so sure of it they'd not try to avoid it (as they could win it easily)

Trying to dismiss soemthign for so long means they are not sure they'll win.

 

[-Fran-]

lol you think i was lying? in the past when talking about AMD vs nvidia driver issues there are always some people that try to defend AMD with this saying: but AMD never release a driver that kill a card! now people no longer say this because AMD also end up releasing drivers with the same issues in the past.

https://www.pcgamesn.com/latest-amd...k-fan-speeds-overheating-cards-to-break-point

"However, reports of large numbers of cards insta-burning seem a little far-fetched. All modern GPUs are equipped with hard-coded safety measures to throttle themselves when overheating, or shut down totally in the worst scenarios rather than simply running until they melt. Anyone with a fan locked at 30% should have noticed some serious heat coming off the card and bad drops in performance once throttling began. The temperature should have stabilised around 95C, an unsafe but non-fatal level, and it would have been very obvious to anyone trying to game that things weren’t as normal. "

/facepalm

Regards...

 

[renz496]

"However, reports of large numbers of cards insta-burning seem a little far-fetched. All modern GPUs are equipped with hard-coded safety measures to throttle themselves when overheating, or shut down totally in the worst scenarios rather than simply running until they melt. Anyone with a fan locked at 30% should have noticed some serious heat coming off the card and bad drops in performance once throttling began. The temperature should have stabilised around 95C, an unsafe but non-fatal level, and it would have been very obvious to anyone trying to game that things weren’t as normal. "

/facepalm

Regards...

AMD acknowledge the issue so they release the hotfix for it. and you know what? when nvidia releasing those driver that mess up with the fan speed not everyone affected by it as well. majority of modern card have some sort of protection build in when over heat although this protection are not 100% will work on everyone. anyway my point is AMD also have release drivers that caused the overheating issues just like nvidia did in the past.