By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC Discussion - [Project] [Complete] "Get all the stuff out of my gaming PC and put it somewhere else"

vivster said:
WolfpackN64 said:

I wish I had your confidence, but I wouldn't install an Intel CPU in my personal rig next time, especially with how their handling the entire situation.

Yeah, they're being pretty stubborn. Though properly reacting to the issue could actually cost them quite a bit. Replacing every single Intel CPU out there is actually physically impossible. The least thing that they should do is to fix whatever next CPU generation is coming in hardware. But it looks like they're not even willing to do that, which is kinda sad. Stupid capitalism and its monopolies.

I hear you. Even their software solution for the vulnerability is stupid. Linus Torvalds had one of his famous rants on Intel's ineptitude. I hope it'll come back to bite them later on.



Around the Network
WolfpackN64 said:
vivster said:

Yeah, they're being pretty stubborn. Though properly reacting to the issue could actually cost them quite a bit. Replacing every single Intel CPU out there is actually physically impossible. The least thing that they should do is to fix whatever next CPU generation is coming in hardware. But it looks like they're not even willing to do that, which is kinda sad. Stupid capitalism and its monopolies.

I hear you. Even their software solution for the vulnerability is stupid. Linus Torvalds had one of his famous rants on Intel's ineptitude. I hope it'll come back to bite them later on.

In my opinion all of that hullabaloo about Meltdown and Spectre is completely overblown, as are Linus' rants. I don't think CPU designers deliberately took security risks in their designs and I also don't think that AMD designers avoided that technology specifically to mitigate security risks. It's just something that CPUs evolved with. It's just impossible for humans to design something as complex as processors without any flaws or potential future risks. So instead of screaming at each other we should come to the table together and work on a proper solution instead playing the blame game.

I mean recently they discovered a problem with WPA2, which is about the same scale as Intel CPUs. The vulnerability  was in the protocol itself and not the software. So instead of everyone starting to rant abut the incompetent IEEE and their design, people just went and fixed the issue in software. Sure, it's easier to fix than Spectre 2 but at the same time Spectre 2 is also extremely difficult to exploit.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
WolfpackN64 said:

I hear you. Even their software solution for the vulnerability is stupid. Linus Torvalds had one of his famous rants on Intel's ineptitude. I hope it'll come back to bite them later on.

In my opinion all of that hullabaloo about Meltdown and Spectre is completely overblown, as are Linus' rants. I don't think CPU designers deliberately took security risks in their designs and I also don't think that AMD designers avoided that technology specifically to mitigate security risks. It's just something that CPUs evolved with. It's just impossible for humans to design something as complex as processors without any flaws or potential future risks. So instead of screaming at each other we should come to the table together and work on a proper solution instead playing the blame game.

I mean recently they discovered a problem with WPA2, which is about the same scale as Intel CPUs. The vulnerability  was in the protocol itself and not the software. So instead of everyone starting to rant abut the incompetent IEEE and their design, people just went and fixed the issue in software. Sure, it's easier to fix than Spectre 2 but at the same time Spectre 2 is also extremely difficult to exploit.

Oh and while we are at it, I checked to see if the Switch is weak against Spectre, and yup.
Sure looks like it.
https://developer.arm.com/support/security-update
(A57)



caffeinade said:

Oh and while we are at it, I checked to see if the Switch is weak against Spectre, and yup.
Sure looks like it.
https://developer.arm.com/support/security-update
(A57)

I think we can trust Nintendo to have a handle on this.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
caffeinade said:

Oh and while we are at it, I checked to see if the Switch is weak against Spectre, and yup.
Sure looks like it.
https://developer.arm.com/support/security-update
(A57)

I think we can trust Nintendo to have a handle on this.

Nintendo will finally put an end to all these guessing games.

Last edited by caffeinade - on 29 January 2018

Around the Network
vivster said:
WolfpackN64 said:

I hear you. Even their software solution for the vulnerability is stupid. Linus Torvalds had one of his famous rants on Intel's ineptitude. I hope it'll come back to bite them later on.

In my opinion all of that hullabaloo about Meltdown and Spectre is completely overblown, as are Linus' rants. I don't think CPU designers deliberately took security risks in their designs and I also don't think that AMD designers avoided that technology specifically to mitigate security risks. It's just something that CPUs evolved with. It's just impossible for humans to design something as complex as processors without any flaws or potential future risks. So instead of screaming at each other we should come to the table together and work on a proper solution instead playing the blame game.

I mean recently they discovered a problem with WPA2, which is about the same scale as Intel CPUs. The vulnerability  was in the protocol itself and not the software. So instead of everyone starting to rant abut the incompetent IEEE and their design, people just went and fixed the issue in software. Sure, it's easier to fix than Spectre 2 but at the same time Spectre 2 is also extremely difficult to exploit.

I think Linus' rant was pretty mild to be honest. You have a widely publisized problem with hundreds of millions of CPU's and what is Intel's solution? An optional flag at the compiler level. That's pure and utter incompetence. Linus isn't wrong to doubt if Intel even wants to really "fix" the issue. Sure, newer PC's won't be affected (but everything that's out now will be). But having such a security hole that remains open is not a good thing. Intel had 6 months to sit with the captains of industry and the Linux engineers, and they came up with probably the semi-worst solution to a big problem.



Why are you doing this? I actually read the first few lines and figured it was a joke, are you really going to use 2 PC's because you can't handle management of startup items on a system?



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

Ganoncrotch said:
Why are you doing this? I actually read the first few lines and figured it was a joke, are you really going to use 2 PC's because you can't handle management of startup items on a system?

I don't know where you have the idea of "startup items" from.

I'm doing it to fix current issues and potential future ones. I probably should have made a pro and con list to start things off. But it's basically like this:

Pro:

No performance impact on games whatsoever caused by non-essential programs and components.

No driver issues due to multiple monitors with different resolutions and refresh rates. GPC will have only one monitor going forward.

Ability to turn off gaming PC with electricity hungry components instead of having it run 24/7.

Ability to move default main screen to TV instead of gaming monitor. Saves me a lot of window pushing.

Ability to upgrade GPC and SPC separately without impacting the other.

 

Con:

Money?

 

That's from the top of my head. There are probably more pros somewhere. What you should keep in mind is that I have a very specific setup that is far from the norm. The vast majority of the time I use my PC from my couch via the TV. My gaming chair is on the other side of the room.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

vivster said:
Ganoncrotch said:
Why are you doing this? I actually read the first few lines and figured it was a joke, are you really going to use 2 PC's because you can't handle management of startup items on a system?

I don't know where you have the idea of "startup items" from.

I'm doing it to fix current issues and potential future ones. I probably should have made a pro and con list to start things off. But it's basically like this:

Pro:

No performance impact on games whatsoever caused by non-essential programs and components.

No driver issues due to multiple monitors with different resolutions and refresh rates. GPC will have only one monitor going forward.

Ability to turn off gaming PC with electricity hungry components instead of having it run 24/7.

Ability to move default main screen to TV instead of gaming monitor. Saves me a lot of window pushing.

Ability to upgrade GPC and SPC separately without impacting the other.

 

Con:

Money?

 

That's from the top of my head. There are probably more pros somewhere. What you should keep in mind is that I have a very specific setup that is far from the norm. The vast majority of the time I use my PC from my couch via the TV. My gaming chair is on the other side of the room.

I just always think of PC's as being flexible to fill all roles but I guess the idea for power drain isn't a bad one really but most components today with newer fabrications will use a small amount of wattage while a PC isn't under load, I mean if you go for something cheap from a few years ago in comparison to my Ryzen 1700 right now just with some browser action there is no way an older chip would be hitting 13watts at any point unless it was off.

in terms of what it's used for I either sit here and game directly at it, or else make use of some 15m HDMI cables which run it off into other rooms for a TV and projector as well, just aye... one machine with setup to be everywhere can work.

The only thing I would think would be a good idea for a separate work machine... would be to avoid the risk of a virus or such from downloaded apps infecting and ransomwaring your work files, that would definitely be a good reason to have a separate machine for them.



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

Ganoncrotch said:

I just always think of PC's as being flexible to fill all roles but I guess the idea for power drain isn't a bad one really but most components today with newer fabrications will use a small amount of wattage while a PC isn't under load, I mean if you go for something cheap from a few years ago in comparison to my Ryzen 1700 right now just with some browser action there is no way an older chip would be hitting 13watts at any point unless it was off.

in terms of what it's used for I either sit here and game directly at it, or else make use of some 15m HDMI cables which run it off into other rooms for a TV and projector as well, just aye... one machine with setup to be everywhere can work.

The only thing I would think would be a good idea for a separate work machine... would be to avoid the risk of a virus or such from downloaded apps infecting and ransomwaring your work files, that would definitely be a good reason to have a separate machine for them.

Well, it is a very specific setup and use case. I will get all of the pros with basically no drawback whatsoever. So there really is no reason not to do it. It makes everything cleaner and more streamlined.

I'm going to assume that you're not playing Rocket League at 144fps with G-sync and an Nvidia driver that does what the fuck it wants all day while trying to watch Twitch on a 60Hz monitor.

Last edited by vivster - on 29 January 2018

If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.