Hacker News Reader

Comment by sdhgaiojfsa | Hacker News Reader

I think the big institutional clients are always evaluating AMD, and even more exotic options. But I don't think this bug has materially affected the equation here. Savvy buyers understand that there will occasionally be bugs, and this one has already been mitigated. How Intel verbally responds to the issue matters much less than their actions, because the words do not affect the costs of using their products, and the actions do.

I am deeply skeptical of the commentary on Intel's attitude and press releases. I really doubt that matters much to most buyers.

View on HN

I think Intel has two problems:

First, ARM is doing to Intel what Intel did to the Unix workstation vendors in the 80’s.

Second, given that they’re being cornered into the server business, they need to have products that are rock solid there until they can regroup. This is one of a long parade of recent screwups with their big bets in this space:

(1) A while back, all their server atom chips (tons of crypto and I/O with piles of ECC DRAM and cores for < $1000 and < 20W) had a bug where they stopped booting af 18 months of uptime. These compete exactly in the space server-ARM has a chance, so many affected vendors were already dual sourcing.

(2) NVIDIA crushes them for AI, and Intel is a distant third for graphics in general

(3) Samsung SSDs generally trounce Intel ones.

(4) They’re rapidly losing client device share. Their big recent innovation there is AMT, which is increasingly considered an anti-feature.

That leaves conventional IT compute, (web services, DBMS, etc) for their core business, but even on-prem stuff is moving to private cloud, which needs multi tenancy, and they’re looking pretty risk for that use case too (vs AMD?)

They’ll certainly be around for a long time, but it’s not clear how long they’ll keep their “no one gets fired for buying IBM”-level of dominance.

> (3) Samsung SSDs generally trounce Intel ones.

This is true only for the consumer SSD market, where Intel outsources large portions of the product development. It's also a market that Intel may abandon completely in the next few years as Intel and Micron start to pursue separate flash memory development. If Intel doesn't score a solid win with a consumer SSD in the next two generations, it would be reasonable for them to pull out and focus solely on enterprise SSDs, where they have no trouble winning.

> this one has already been mitigated

Correct me if I'm wrong: It's been mitigated by applying a patch that has fairly severe performance implications, no? How does this not affect the institutional clients' bottom line in that case?

> fairly severe performance implications

1 - 30% impact range for best / worst case. On the kernel mitigations. So really workload dependant.

There's the 15-20% hit for going to database. Most servers out there do nothing but CRUD to some DB somewhere because most businesses don't do HPC. It's definitely an issue for them.

Then there are companies like Epic Games who reported horrific numbers. It seems if you do lots of simple communications (eg websockets or UDP), you can expect a huge slowdown.

https://www.epicgames.com/fortnite/forums/news/announcements...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com