upvote

points

by themafia11 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby willis93611 hours ago|
next
[-]
How can manufacturers simultaneously have exceptional control over flags and not enough control to know what flags are enabled on their shipping products?

They either have that control or they don't.

reply
upvoteby rincebrain9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
AMD, historically, has taken a "we don't test enterprise features on consumer SKUs, but we don't fuse them off if you really want to qualify it or let them try it" approach to e.g. ECC on consumer chips with Zen.

So it's quite possible they were doing the same with TSME, and either made a rude marketing decision that the people using it on consumer chips would probably pay for PRO chips if they were prevented from doing so, or kept getting people attempting to RMA the chips for a feature they never said worked on them not working, or there's some systemic flaw in the consumer chip's implementation that they didn't feel like trying to qualify fixing versus just killing the not-guaranteed support.

Hard to guess without more data than just them going silent about it.

reply
upvoteby lmz10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
They always had control. Awareness is a different thing. You could just as well ask "if you've written every line of code, why did you write that bug?".
reply
upvoteby willis9369 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I'm trying to progress the discussion past "we don't know if it was intentional". We know it was intentional. What was the intention of having it on before and what is the intention of turning it off?
reply
upvoteby 10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
deleted
reply
upvoteby nikanj10 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
You choose every piece of food you eat, how do you not know all the macros?
reply
upvoteby willis9369 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
This analogy holds true if I invented every molecule in my food.
reply
upvoteby Karliss9 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
AMD has limited control over what motherboard manufacturers do. And there have been plenty of examples demonstrating motherboard vendors don't fully understand what they are doing. Stuff like shipping builds with example/placeholder keys, ridiculous voltage settings which destroy the cpu. Even if motherboard vendors don't have full control to configure to freely change every flag, they probably have access to some kind of debug/development firmware which has a lot more features enabled than what you would have in consumer builds.
reply
upvoteby AussieWog939 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> I would guess that the number of owners of consumer chips who also relied on them for encryption is exceedingly small.

I guarantee you that there's one small company that put 1,000 of these chips in a server room or datacentre though, and they're now completely boned.

reply
upvoteby NekkoDroid8 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
In that case I would expect them to try and work something out with AMD directly instead of building a company on undocumented features.
reply
upvoteby Azantys8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Just dont upgrade the Mainboard firmware then
reply
upvoteby Ygg210 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
To be fair same can't be said of ECC, even though ECC should be basic feature out of the box.
reply
upvoteby vfclists9 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
> A feature that was possibly accidentally enabled on consumer chips is now being disabled.

Bro what are you smoking? The highly paid and experienced engineers designing these chips could have "possibly enabled" the feature on consumer chips.

The chips were designed with the feature as it is cheaper to do everything right from the get go and disable functionality rather than design a less capable chip then tack on the feature afterwards, just as the consumer versions of Windows are the server versions with functionality removed.

reply