Hacker News Reader

"As someone who worked in an Intel Validation group for SOCs until mid-2014 or so I can tell you, yes, you will see more CPU bugs from Intel than you have in the past from the post-FDIV-bug era until recently."

A most prescient remark in 2014.

Here's where they are more recently:

https://www.zdnet.com/article/intel-fixed-236-bugs-in-2019-a...

https://www.techradar.com/news/latest-intel-cpus-have-imposs...

View on HN

When this news broke I though Intel lost their mind.

Did they really intend to just "skip" validation or did they try to automate it further, to decrease time to produce a new chip?

Testing is expensive. That's why it has a great potential for savings.

I think Intel was more concerned about the time it took to make a new CPU rather than the cost. At least that was my impression of it at the time.

That testing is a cost is a given. But it's a known cost compared to what a huge batch of faulty CPU's can cost. Or how about a ruined reputation, how do you even know what that could cost you?

I suppose Intel already use a lot of automated testing, but given all the bugs since the change it seems it is not enough.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com