Closed

Three Lawsuits Launched Against Intel Over ‘Defective Chips’

Intel sued in three different states over performance-degrading Meltdown and Spectre patches and allegedly misleading advertising from the company.

Three Lawsuits Launched Against Intel Over ‘Defective Chips’ : Read more
27 answers Last reply
More about lawsuits launched intel defective chips
  1. Well, that didn't take long at all...
  2. So like 10 years ago, we had an idea of the kind of security requirements of today.... on advertising.. I see advertising on speed, not on iops... should be interesting to see how this fly's.
  3. Considering the loss of performance by too much heat due to no longer soldering their chips, now Intel will decrease it more with fixes for security flaws.... wow
  4. LOL...people buy stuff that doesn't perform to their expectations? Maybe they should go build their own that does.
  5. skyfaller said:
    LOL...people buy stuff that doesn't perform to their expectations? Maybe they should go build their own that does.

    Did you read the article?
    Intel knew about it awhile and they still release the flaw products.
  6. You get 5 dollars and You get 5 dollars and You get 5 dollars and the lawyers get MILLIONS of dollars!
  7. This situation has caused me great stress and pain everytime i use my computer.

    Therefore I plan to join the lawsuit and am requesting 50 million dollars for my pain and suffering.
  8. hgchuong said:
    This situation has caused me great stress and pain everytime i use my computer.

    Therefore I plan to join the lawsuit and am requesting 50 million dollars for my pain and suffering.


    Yup i plan on joining it also cause i expected get the performance at the fullest extent as advertised and they knew about it (before they sold the stocks)

    Expecting the get
    More than 20$ for my Intel i5 7600
    More than 20$ for my Intel i9 7940X
    More than 20$ for my Intel i7 6950X.
  9. Only the computer industry could find an Apple company who stole just about every technology they use today. Now they have the cold hearts to actually claim they designed anything. They are a waste of technology and my time.
  10. Who makes the patches for the exploits?
    When were the patches released?
  11. There is a tool put out by Intel to detect whether your PC is "vulnerable" -- which they all are of course. But with all the talk of patches, I have not seen any appear on my machines....https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/27150
  12. I didn't think the class action lawsuits would start until after Intel AND the other companies had a chance to patch...there are flaws and vulnerabilities found and patched all the the time. When I purchased my i7-7700K (and Intel processors before it) I didn't read any fine print in the box, but I don't recall ever reading that it "promises" a specific performance (especially benchmarks)....except for specs of a normally operating chip: cores, threads, clock speed, temp threshold, etc. Internet benchmarks, not Intel, seem to set people's expectations. While some of the enterprise workload discussed may have reason to seek compensation, I suspect these class action lawsuits are simply an attempted money grab by some lawyers in an American legal system that doesn't punish for lost frivolous lawsuits. Whether Intel wins or loses, the consumer will end up paying the legal and compensation costs with price adjustments. FWIW I've applied the patch to my Windows 10 machine and, after stabilizing, I'm not experiencing any noticeable impact. My only initial concern was that immediately after install my CPU was running 100% at 75C (100C on a laptop) but that came down after a few minutes and a restart. To be honest, there have been plenty of other Windows Updates that have resulted in more immediately noticeable performance impacts. I guess Intel is targeted because they got the worse press. AMD said it didn't affect them at all but there are side stories that says that it can/does. Likewise, my Pixel 2 got a patch day before yesterday for the same bug after ARM processors were allegedly susceptible to it.
  13. LOL dont use intels own tool haha...its like all the tools used for benchmarks tuned for intel processors
  14. LOL MY 4790K is not vulnerable according to that tool posted above, hmmm something tells me that is a lie.
  15. I thought that tool was for a different issue...the Management Engine firmware vulnerability?
  16. A day we thought would never come. An x86 chip maker in big financial trouble and it's not AMD.
  17. @mikeynavy1976 has to be i just checked the date of release at says 12/19/2017 so yea u goof @darobin!!!
  18. Hmm, since my CPU doesn't use "Intel® Trusted Execution Technology", I can't even run the detection tool. So now I wonder if the issue goes are far back as some suggest.
  19. Speculative execution actually **executes** (but doesn't commit) the next instructions (especially after a branch that was predicted). Pre-fetch/Multi-issue/Instruction Caching will seek the (probable) next instructions and pre-cache them. Lets get things right, at least, because 99% of people reading don't really understand the issues anyway.
  20. Their competitors could sue them for lost business as their designs were less effected. I think intelligence services were using these flaws based on other countries designing their own CPU when they could have gotten these mass produced ones for nothing.

    They could have honeypot a computer that was infected and study the design of the malware using this exploit.
  21. Lets see here....
    Core2Duo E6750
    Core2Duo E8400
    Core2Quad Q9650
    Core i7 860
    Core i3 530 (for girlfriend at the time pc)
    Pentium G 3258 (in current girlfriends daughters pc I built for her)
    Core i5 3570k

    Should net me about $30 from these class action lawsuits right? xD

    Love my ryzen 7 1700!
  22. btmedic04 said:
    Lets see here....
    Core2Duo E6750
    Core2Duo E8400
    Core2Quad Q9650
    Core i7 860
    Core i3 530 (for girlfriend at the time pc)
    Pentium G 3258 (in current girlfriends daughters pc I built for her)
    Core i5 3570k

    Should net me about $30 from these class action lawsuits right? xD

    Love my ryzen 7 1700!


    After the lawyers take their multi-million dollar cut, you can expect about $0.30.
  23. Martell1977 said:
    btmedic04 said:
    Lets see here....
    Core2Duo E6750
    Core2Duo E8400
    Core2Quad Q9650
    Core i7 860
    Core i3 530 (for girlfriend at the time pc)
    Pentium G 3258 (in current girlfriends daughters pc I built for her)
    Core i5 3570k

    Should net me about $30 from these class action lawsuits right? xD

    Love my ryzen 7 1700!


    After the lawyers take their multi-million dollar cut, you can expect about $0.30.

    Plan to file a class action lawsuit for Fraud and False Advertisement
    behalf of my Intel i5 7600,Intel i9 7940X and Intel i7 6950X. .

    Very unconstitutional move by Intel Corporation.
  24. Really?? The majority of users are using about 20% of the CPU. Even company servers don’t use 100%. The servers I ran hit 30% with peaks around 50% while operational and doing backups. Now what about the other manufactures with security flaws.

    It’s just greedy people looking for money. This will a long drawn out process.
  25. I am not willing to sacrifice the kind of performance noted for my Windows 7 laptop running a Sandy Bridge i7 CPU. That is stupid, especially given that there really is NO threat. Now that so many systems are going to be updated, there is little reason for any scumbags to try to exploit these vulnerabilities, IMO. From my perspective, the cure is far worse than the disease, especially on older hardware / OS combinations. It just is not worth it. So, I believe Microsoft should make a way to have these patches be OPTIONAL and AVOIDABLE and UNINSTALLABLE. This is crap!
  26. thuck777 said:
    I am not willing to sacrifice the kind of performance noted for my Windows 7 laptop running a Sandy Bridge i7 CPU. That is stupid, especially given that there really is NO threat. Now that so many systems are going to be updated, there is little reason for any scumbags to try to exploit these vulnerabilities, IMO. From my perspective, the cure is far worse than the disease, especially on older hardware / OS combinations. It just is not worth it. So, I believe Microsoft should make a way to have these patches be OPTIONAL and AVOIDABLE and UNINSTALLABLE. This is crap!


    I know a lot of people agree with you but this is the legal system we have. It would only take one incident and the same lawyers going after Intel would happily look for another pay day against Microsoft. Besides, even if the current update was optional, you'd still get it during the next major update (e.g. Fall, Creators, etc.) unless you intend to stop accepting those updates as well.
  27. mikeynavy1976 said:
    thuck777 said:
    I am not willing to sacrifice the kind of performance noted for my Windows 7 laptop running a Sandy Bridge i7 CPU. That is stupid, especially given that there really is NO threat. Now that so many systems are going to be updated, there is little reason for any scumbags to try to exploit these vulnerabilities, IMO. From my perspective, the cure is far worse than the disease, especially on older hardware / OS combinations. It just is not worth it. So, I believe Microsoft should make a way to have these patches be OPTIONAL and AVOIDABLE and UNINSTALLABLE. This is crap!


    I know a lot of people agree with you but this is the legal system we have. It would only take one incident and the same lawyers going after Intel would happily look for another pay day against Microsoft. Besides, even if the current update was optional, you'd still get it during the next major update (e.g. Fall, Creators, etc.) unless you intend to stop accepting those updates as well.


    Unconstitutional behavior of Intel knowing it for probably years...put defective CPU products on the stores ...sell stocks...wait till someone finds out..
Ask a new question

Read More

Security Intel CPUs Components