vivster said:
WolfpackN64 said:
It's not about speed really, it's about security. Just know that no amount of encyrption will really safely store data on an affected PC, as a Spectre attack can glimpse sensitive information from RAM. Intel, instead of having to choose whether to impact perfomance with a patch or keep the systems up to speed decided that they'll just put an optional flag for program compilation, thus forcing programmers to choose if they want to implement the patch for eacg individual program. That's a complete lack of responsability on Intel's part and will probably mean over a decade worth of CPU's will remain vulnerable to Spectre.
If security is completely unimportant to you and you just want performance, Intel is atm still in the lead. But they're certainly atm less trustworthy then AMD.
|
As an IT security specialist myself, security is completely unimportant to me because I know I'm not a target. It's kinda irrelevant what security flaws in software or hardware exist if I don't invite the hackers into my home. And there aren't even any useful exploits around to effectively target Spectre or Meltdown. I feel quite safe regardless of my choice of CPU.
|
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.
