You are not signed on; if you are a visitor please register for a free account!
|The Market Ticker Single Post Display (Show in context)||
User: Not logged on
|User Info||Oh Oh; entered at 2018-01-02 23:23:20|
IFF this is confirmed to be as bad as it seems to be, and IFF this gets the coverage it deserves, I don't see how Intel will avoid replacing the silicon for at least Xeon v3+; it'll be too much of a PR ****-storm, especially now that AMD has something that competes. I suspect Intel will wrangle something on the desktop side.|
I started building a dual-socket Xeon workstation (FreeBSD, E5-2630v3) a couple years ago. At the time there simply wasn't a performant alternative from AMD. I've obviously wasted my money on the 2nd CPU (pull from new server but not via any "official" channel, not installed yet), but I see no reason why Intel shouldn't replace the first with something that does the job they claimed it would do.
However, I don't expect this to get coverage (cheaper for Intel to pay for a cover-up), so when they wriggle out of everything I'll be having words with my insurers: in any rational world (yes, I know) a 30% loss of performance is called "broken", and since I didn't cause it my insurance should cover it. (I won't be trying to claim for the whole machine, just the mobo and CPU - the Noctua cooler is AMD compatible and everything else will work fine).
Needless to say, the machine I'm spec'ing for the Windows software I still need to run and that isn't fast enough in VirtualBox (Hello, Adobe? Will you please hurry up and support Linux already?), won't be Intel; from what I've read Coffee Lake doesn't have this problem, but damned if I'll take that risk. Besides, what other corners have Intel cut?