Intel roasts AMD and Nvidia in its latest product security report, claiming AMD has vulnerabilities with no fix planned, Nvidia has only high-severity security bugs [Updated]

13th Generation Intel CPU
(Image credit: Intel)

Update 2/12/2025 3:16pm PT: Our original report said Intel highlighted 78 AMD vulnerabilities with no fix planned, but that was incorrect. AMD has six vulnerabilities with no planned fix, which impacts a total of 78 AMD SKUs. We have corrected the text below.


Intel threw shade at its two biggest competitors in its latest product security report, claiming that AMD has over four times more firmware vulnerabilities while Nvidia had 80% more GPU security issues.

Intel's last three points focused on its two biggest competitors: AMD and Nvidia. According to Intel, the former reported “4.4x more firmware vulnerabilities in their hardware root-of-trust” and “1.8x more firmware vulnerabilities in their confidential computing technologies” when compared. It also criticized Nvidia in the GPU category, saying it “had only high-severity vulnerabilities (18)” for 2024.

On the GPU front, the company claimed that it has the fewest vulnerabilities, saying that there were only 10 reported issues on Intel GPUs, of which only one is noted as a high or severe threat, and the rest are labeled as medium. On the other hand, Nvidia reported 18 security vulnerabilities—all of which are marked as high severity, with 13 of them potentially allowing a bad actor to execute code on the affected PC.

Jowi Morales
Contributing Writer

Jowi Morales is a tech enthusiast with years of experience working in the industry. He’s been writing with several tech publications since 2021, where he’s been interested in tech hardware and consumer electronics.

  • MoxNix
    Putting it bluntly Intell is full of it.
    Reply
  • Pierce2623
    Sure guys, of course we believe you….
    Reply
  • TheSecondPower
    Aside from claiming its products are the most secure, Intel is also trying to take AMD and Nvidia down a peg. Now probably isn't the time for that.
    Isn't it though? Intel is arguing that if security is important to you when shopping, Intel should get some points for it. As I recall, AMD similarly jabbed Intel during the Spectre days. (And I believe a similar though less-severe vulnerability was found in AMD CPUs just a short time later.)
    Reply
  • eichwana
    Can't take advantage of a vulnerability if the chip has burned out
    Reply
  • ottonis
    Psychologically, mocking competitors is a sign of own insecurity rather than dominance.
    Reply
  • subspruce
    eichwana said:
    Can't take advantage of a vulnerability if the chip has burned out
    yeah Intel 14th gen Suicide Lake has no usable vulnerability because it is not usable.
    Reply
  • stuff and nonesense
    TheSecondPower said:
    Isn't it though? Intel is arguing that if security is important to you when shopping, Intel should get some points for it. As I recall, AMD similarly jabbed Intel during the Spectre days. (And I believe a similar though less-severe vulnerability was found in AMD CPUs just a short time later.)
    Ryzenfall? The attempt to make AMD stock tank.. nah
    Reply
  • Gururu
    Smells like AMD boasting about AI performance over nVidia and getting hammed for it. Stay in your lane companies!
    Reply
  • DS426
    Intel's report sounds like its narrative was either written by AI or child. "More = bad, less = goooooood!" Lol, there's so much more to cybersecurity than raw numbers of vulnerabilities, such as exploitability characteristics (ease of exploitation, reliability in (re)producing, proof-of-concept code, how common in the wild, etc.), CVSS scores, time-to-patch of the software/hardware vendors, and so on. Context is needed around each vulnerability. There's other nuances to consider as well, but no need for me to ramble on.

    That paper become a marketing paper rather than a pure security one, which is a shame. Should Intel get security brownie points? Meh, I'll say sure for governments and large enterprises. Is it serious enough to overcome their performance, efficiency, and overall Total Cost of Ownership problems? That's for each individual and organization to decide, but at the consumer level, Intel's arguments are completely moot; how many consumers are running however old CPU's and motherboards with old BIOS versions, EOS Operating Systems like Windows 7 and/or not keeping up on Windows Update (yes, forgive me Linux crowd as I'm just scoping Windows users this time), and so on.
    Reply
  • husker
    To the naysayers who posted above...

    You can't just say no it isn't and call that an argument
    Reply