Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : AMD, ARMH, INTC, NVDA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (21847)	1/4/2018 11:33:34 AM
From: stsimon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 72896

I suspect that a lot of large company CIOs are getting asked by their CEO what the hell is going on as a result of the publicity. When these CEOs discover how dependent they are on Intel there is a good chance that there will be some pressure on CIO's to diversify. Perhaps not immediately, but certainly over the medium to long term. Your point about the cloud providers announcements on using Epyc in I/O intensive applications has this situation written all over it. I am not a big believe in coincidence.

To: neolib who wrote (21847)	1/4/2018 8:57:23 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 72896

I have tried to find out just what the bug was. Since I've been retired a few years I have fewer contacts who might actually know. The most informed guess I have heard is that the Intel hyper-threading can leave data in the cache that AMD processes do not. This can allow a cache update to drop a change in the part of the address page table which is generally used by the kernel, thereby changing a permission. If so, then the AMD processors really wouldn't exhibit the same vulnerability.