Not every OS actually has a ucode update facility, or one that they bother to keep up to date with new ucode images. BIOS vendors include the updates because they can, and it guarantees that the CPUs start with the desired ucode level before the OS is even loaded which is important when it comes to things like UEFI/PXE bootloaders slurping things down off the network to boot.
1 Like
Itâs how processor work and are designed which is related to op.
You were mentioning it was not, so I included what is related since you were the one mentioning it was not.
It includes military example of hardware and the reasons they are more reliable in scientific proof and the factors why.
Also note that those systems are designed for harsher conflict conditions than delays, arguments or suggestions.
What Quickload mentions are systems designed for the processor problems.
Those solutions are not working on the other systems because they are more efficient for this.
By the way, where did you find those solution to the so called Meltdown/Spectre (issue),
and where should people get it from?
If you verify, it also include shuttle systems, and Apollo project systems, and why this chip is designed after this and the Von Neumann model.
If you verify what you wrote, it seems to me that you said it had nothing to do with it, although that is how it was created.
Oh yes, that, plus the Pentagon article explaining why the new design is 1,000 times more efficient and how + why.
Thatâs a bit different than 20% or 1% less.
smack dab
adverb NORTH AMERICAN informal
exactly; precisely.
âhere I am in Bolivia, smack dab in the heart of South Americaâ
Military hardware design seems a bit far off from a slight performance degradation on consumer level hardware due to a design flaw.
Thatâs what they are trying to make it, however,
this is from:
âSo the new chip(s designs) works faster (and are designed to work faster), but after a few years , is (also) designed to run slower.â
This is turn is presented or made as a flaw which it may not be.
To which was replied by Ima Wreckyou:
"No, they are not designed to do that. The current performance hit is because of a new class of attacks which was discovered and some of the performance improvement features of modern CPUs had to be disabled/modified to mitigate the security issues.
If this was by design that would mean itâs planed obsolescence and that is illegal in certain countries."
Regardless of whether I am taking it as an offense or not, or if I was attacked or not.
To which I replied:
Not the most efficient for military application.
followed by:
Maybe I just canât brain today, but I have no idea what you try to say with that comment
which to me seemed as an attempt to raise confusion and repeat more of the previous methods and goals used in posts.
Then I confirmed that:
âI meant that other systems are more efficient for military application.â
Again replied with the same diversion to derail the subject:
âi still donât get what military applications have to do with all of thisâ
I mean, this is nothing new.
Then, this:
âMilitary hardware design seems a bit far off from a slight performance degradation on consumer level hardware due to a design flaw.â
Which, while the reference to those systems was not intended to be construed as an error in relation to scope of other design for hardware, was integrated into the portrait.
I should frame it and put it in my hardware design.
On the other hand, it military hardware design which seems a bit far off from a slight performance degradation on consumer level hardware due to a design flaw should become more prevalent for military grounds, then, maybe itâs for the better.
But I donât see the point.
By the way, I bet 500 PLEX the urge to misinterpret me will be too strong to stop.
This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.