Clear information should take precedence over mitigating liability. Yet it's fallen to others to explain defects in their products, and people are even mostly left guessing what their attempts to fix things actually do.
Screwups happen. But do I want to go live through the consequences of one with this vendor at my side ever again?
Of course their longer term strategy seems to be to get ahead in areas like quantum and neuromorphic computing. This is going to keep them relevant in the long term, but in the medium to short term they could have difficulties.
Intel is a company that has a highly hierarchical structure and a very thorough process of product development and market approach. Add to that that they are historically one of the key examples of a company that plans their strategy many years ahead and I find it way more sane to default Meltdown to a premeditated conscious decision/tarde-off of their part. Like VW emissions scandal but worse.
"We think long term at Epic. We're like Intel. We look at what we're going to do in five to ten years from now, and set our direction that way..." Tim Sweeney in a Kotaku interview 2011
Meltdown could be a simple bug that doesn't incur a perf loss when designed for properly, but happens to require an expensive fix in the field. Does anyone know?
Continuing with their strategy of full transparency..
PCID was introduced with Westmere (2010). 
However it wasn't used in the Linux kernel until 4.14 because no one saw the need. 
> For context, on newer CPUs such as on Skylake and
> beyond, Intel has refined the instructions used to
> disable branch speculation to be more specific to
> indirect branches, reducing the overall performance
> penalty of the Spectre mitigation.
Ok so that’s probably most websites these days?
Intel seems to be trying as hard as possible to define narrow scenarios in which the performance drop isn't too big and only mentioning those. In its first benchmarks, for instance, it only tested a six-core 8700K, one of its highest-end consumer products, because obviously the percentage drop would be lower on high-performance machines than on slower ones.
I have measurably noticed the decrease in speed in various web benchmarks. Enough to make it feel like I was mislead in what I thought I had purchased. I wrote down two tests I did the day I first brought PC home and have run them many times since the first patches hit Windows 10. I got two clear hits - A small hit with the Windows 10 patch, then another hit with the PCU microcode update (through a BIOS update released by Lenovo).
Windows10 x64 1709
Jetstream: 271 in Dec, 246 today. -9.2%
MotionMark: 307 to 245. -20%!
Jetstream: 199 In dec on FF-57, 175 today FF-57.0.4. -12%
That is bad enough to me that I would just take this PC back to store for money back if it was still within return timeframe. I'd rather just wait for this to be fixed at the hardware level now or wait for a Zen APU in a few months. Imagine you bought a car a month ago and today got 9-20% LESS horsepower because of a "Fix".
I can only imagine how upset cloud providers must be at this. Or any company needing every ounce of CPU performance they paid for. AutoCAD farms/rendering comes to mind.
I hope there is a class action lawsuit for anyone who bought Intel CPU's. Obviously pro-rated by how long ago you purchased. I'd definitely sign up at this point for some $ back. Problem is it will only be like $5 in my pocket after lawyers get their payday.
When I bought a 7700k over the summer, I went by benchmarks which showed it over Ryzen for most non-parallel workloads. I suspect these numbers bring Ryzen much closer if not beyond. With all these old benchmarks online, CPU shoppers are likely to be misled.
Thinking further, I wonder how benchmarkers patch machines? Will they keep anti-virus enabled so that they receive the 2018-01 patch?
gone down to 86% :-(
Seriously? To Intel, all of the world is just overreacted?
What I mean is (using a hypothetical): Suppose there's a flaw in the arithmetic unit (e.g. integer division). There's a microcode update, all integer divisions are correct, but run at 86% of previous performance. In next generation, the hardware is fixed and performance will be back up to 100% of designed performance.
Does the same type of handwaving apply to these types of security exploits?
Also how far back are they going to patch?
> [...] Intel expects to have issued updates for more
> than 90 percent of processor products introduced within
> the past five years.
Sandy Bridge is older than that.