On another forum somebody suggested laywer / legal reasons. That if default performance takes too big of a dive the case for lawsuits is stronger. They already have a class action filed against them. A benchmark performance dive would be one angle to use in court.
Coming to a court with "unclean hands" won't help their case either. And showing bad faith can really crank up the damages awarded if it's a jury trial.
The processor's security features should perform as described - anything less is a very nasty surprise waiting for users. Intel could allow users to opt-in to insecure behaviour for performance, but insecurity absolutely must be opt-in rather than opt-out.
"The processor should perform as described - anything less is a very nasty surprise waiting for users. Intel could allow users to opt-in to less performant behaviour for security, but bad performance absolutely must be opt-in rather than opt-out."
Take away: it all depends on the users preferences. I am with you, in most cases, it should be about security, but I guess there are legitimate use-cases for the opposite as well.
I do video crunching on internal systems, I'm happy that the code I run has nothing to gain from spectre or meltdown, but even a 10% drop in performance is bad, and sometimes can mean doubling the cost (if the cpu that was encoding two real time feeds is no longer powerful enough to do so without dropping frames)
Not every one runs a lamp stack on the intenet.
That said the default should be security. I have to opt in for "maximum performance" in the bios of my hp kit, rather than "balanced power and performance", why shouldn't I have to opt in to "faster but less secure"?
> "The processor should perform as described - anything less is a very nasty surprise waiting for users. Intel could allow users to opt-in to less performant behaviour for security, but bad performance absolutely must be opt-in rather than opt-out."
But that isn't true. Poor performance is not remotely in the same class of "very nasty surprise" that security model violations are.
Users can already choose. They can buy old processors without the fix.
I really don't see what case anyone could have against Intel if they just fixed this. Having a fix but turning it off by default seems far more dangerous from a legal perspective. Or having the processor perform far worse in reality than advertised.
Tell me where you could buy old processors in sufficient quantity today and please explain how a modern motherboard with sufficient RAM would hold such an old processor?
But if you want a processor without this fix, then you're in luck: from what I understand, all modern Intel processors don't have this fix yet. And they're very well supported by motherboards.
And by the time the current crop of processors becomes unavailable, I suspect newer processors will be much faster than anything currently available.
Yeah if you could point me towards instructions on how I can install this old processor I just bought in my Macbook that'd be great, also if you know how I can install this old processor in my AWS instances that'd be awesome too.
