That logic is terrible, but it works.
I wonder if VIA is effected by any of these exploits that are effecting Intel and AMD.
1 Like
Who has audted Itanium however 
It could have NSA code and we will never know.
1 Like
I think they’re safe from most of them, there may be some that affect them though. I really really dont know.
implying that x86 DOESNT have NSA code
1 Like
With HUAWEI and the US calling out china. One would imagine if this progress’s on public media to higher levels we will find out Well us Aussies that are outside the great US wall
Is there a table of confirmed/assumed vulnerable CPUs?
Well, might have closed the Gap or not. The Problem with Bulldozer is that its heavily reliant on software optimization for the Architecture (wich makes it a shame that it isn’t in a console)…
Regardless, the Intel vulnerabilitys are really “interesting”…
Why are people still considering the Intel Chips despite all the problems they have?? 
I don’t get it…
öhm, no. In 2005 HTT was on the way out and already had a couple of implementations with the 65nm Pentium 4 (Cedar Mill, that one I had to look up).
It was first implemented in the Northwood based cores, but ont enabled on Desktop variants (IIRC the S603 Xeons with B-Step Northwoodish Core had some performance problems).
The first issues were fixed with the C-Step Northwoods.
Later, C-Step Northwoods had, in some cases, SMT enabled on the Desktop -> Pentium 4B, 3,06GHz with 133MHz FSB. The later Pentium 4 with 200MHz FSB had SMT enabled in General.
The later, 90nm redesign of the Pentium 4 (that failed miserabely as it increased the Power consumption). But it wasn’t a shrink and more comparable to Zen -> Zen2 than other things. Just with regressed performance…
Anyway, I’d say that by around 2005, a year before the C2D, they already had some good experience with SMT. I’m not sure if the old Willamette had SMT as well. I think they might have had as well…
PS: I had the System Linus dreamt of muhahahah
A 3,06GHz Intel P4 on an ASUS P4T and IIRC 1GiB RAM!!1