Intel: no benchmark for you

Intel updates it’s license, saying

  1. LICENSE RESTRICTIONS. All right, title and interest in and to the Materials and associated documentation are and will remain the exclusive property of Intel and its suppliers. Unless expressly permitted under the Agreement, You will not, and will not allow any third party to … (v) publish or provide any Materials benchmark or comparison test results.

Welcome, can you please add a brief info into your post other than the link?

1 Like

So, lots of people are interested in the speed penalty incurred in the microcode fixes, and Intel has now attempted to gag anyone who would collect information for reporting about those penalties, through a restriction in their license. Bad move. The correct way to handle security problems is to own up to the damage, publish mitigations, and make it possible for your customers to get along. Hiding how they are damaged is unacceptable. Silencing free speech by those who would merely publish benchmarks? Bad business. Customers can’t trust your components when you do that.

put it here


Original source:

You will not, and will not allow any third party to (i) use, copy, distribute, sell or offer to sell the Software or associated documentation; (ii) modify, adapt, enhance, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer, change or create derivative works from the Software except and only to the extent as specifically required by mandatory applicable laws or any applicable third party license terms accompanying the Software; (iii) use or make the Software available for the use or benefit of third parties; or (iv) use the Software on Your products other than those that include the Intel hardware product(s), platform(s), or software identified in the Software; or (v) publish or provide any Software benchmark or comparison test results.

or (v) publish or provide any Software benchmark or comparison test results.

It seems the Intel Memory Latency checker uses the same license:


I feel that the patch should be pulled from all distributions until Intel owns up and changes the policy.

This is bad business practice! Shameful


tbh, given that many distro’s don’t care about the code being non-free anyway. I don’t know if this is really that different form what they had.

This same license clause seems to be everywhere

And now lastly

From the latest microcode update file from August 7 2018

Code that is non-free is one thing - but this is a blatant try to hush everyone about the mistake they made.

1 Like

they certainly also do it in the code?

The background in Intel used to be the fastest, but at any cost it seems. They created security bugs in the name of speed. These bug have been uncovered and now being patched. But the patch to give you the security, reduces speed.

Intel do not want you taking say an 8700k for 3-4 months ago and then get the patch now and rebenchmark the CPU and show in clear terms how much performance you have lost for the premium they are still charging for the speed.

Does anyone know if this microcode is being applied to older platforms like Sandy Bridge?

It would surprise no one that this is also blatantly illegal both in EU and US


I do wonder if reviewers simply won’t sidestep this ban, illegal or not, by just benchmarking other parts and catching information about the CPU in the process. So comparing old graphics cards to new and by consequence showing the CPU Performance.

Edit: is this one of those times where thus has been in their terms for ever and people are only catching it now? Or is this actually a new change?

1 Like

Yes, see

which is the latest Intel microcode windows update

You know, I already liked AMD’s new Ryzen CPUs, Intel didn’t need to make me like it even more…This should be a red flag right here that Intel wants to be disingenuous about their CPU performance.

Still, I never saw AMD resort to this before when AMD had Bulldozer nor with AMD’s Vega GPUs and yet Intel is going to be desperate and cowardly here.

Also though, ain’t Intel violating a law someone just mentioned?

Bulldozer was already slow without the vulnerabilities : P

1 Like

Yes but I never saw AMD shut people out from showing how slow Bulldozer was.

1 Like

Forget reviewers, I want Linus Torvalds himself to sidestep this ban. You piss off the guy making most of the world run, you get in HUGE trouble.


for those that do not know just do benches anyways intel cant stop the dissemination of information with a TOS that almost no one reads or pays attention to nor actually respects. in addition
sorry your broken TOS violates consumer protection laws. gives middle finger to intel and benches for public anyways.
intel is just a 5,000kg monkey in the room that nobody takes seriously.( at least i do not)

1 Like