Talk:Advanced Micro Devices

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

See comprehensive edits below from Michael Silverman

Please provide sourcing. --JustBerry (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Advanced Micro Devices:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup : Work on citations where appropriate, unify dates in article using WP:DATES.
  • NPOV : Try your best to ensure a neutral, balanced tone throughout the article.
  • Verify : Check that all information on future products in up-to-date.
  • Other : Add Barcelona and Torrenza information. K8L NGMA details need to be updated.

Key staff changes[edit]

Shouldn't there be a section about staff changes/resignations, when it seems like they are quite major (long time AMD, ATI staff replaced by ex-IBM people?)

2002 Sanders -> Hector Ruiz

"Ruiz endorsed the decision to buy ATI, which led to a period of financial reverses. Ruiz survived rumors of his ouster in late 2007.[3][4] However, he resigned as CEO on July 18, 2008, after AMD reported its seventh consecutive quarterly loss" [5] (ref in Hector Ruiz

2007 EVP of AMD/ex-CEO of ATI David Orton resigned "It is with mixed feelings that I am leaving AMD,"

January 2011 CEO Dirk Meyer, father of Athlon "resigned in January under pressure from AMD's board" http://eetimes.com/electronics-news/4219307/AMD-appoints-former-Lenovo-exec-CEO

Fall 2011 Rick Bergman, head of Products Group, ex-ATI

Dec 2011 Nigel Dessau, marketing chief

Feb 2012 Eric Demers (Corporate VP & CTO, Graphics Division)


This is from comments on another site: "month after they fired Meyer I can see why they fired/pushed out his VP & COO/CIO/whatnot Rivet, along SVP Strategy head Seyer"

"now everything is headed by Papermaster, a guy who took the SVP & CTO of AMD as his 4th job within 4 years at 4 companies (pre-AMD was Cisco, Apple and IBM, in reverse order, all since 2008) and keep hiring his ex-IBM buddies. Of course, he was hired by CEO Rory Read who is a 20+ years IBM veteran"

Trademark of Numbers[edit]

The article asserts "U.S. Trademark and Patent Office had ruled that mere numbers could not be trademarked.[109]" The link is to an article in the New Yorker which states: "after finding that it was impossible to trademark a number..." I think this is kind of weak as a source, and I believe it to be a stretch of the truth, perpetuating a myth that's been around AMD processors for decades now. Here's a list of numbers registered as trademarks, with citations. Also, here's another that came up in a quick google search. Further, the mark 586 is trademarked by Intel!

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:880:c000:3062:19fd:52de:c139:d7e7 (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Advanced Micro Devices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

security vulnerabilities[edit]

@Objective3000: I see you have reverted my recent edits about the 2018 security vulnerabilities. I do not see why. You state "revisionist history" but I do not see how that is the case. Dbsseven (talk) 15:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

AMD clearly suggested that Spectre would not affect its processors and that it was an Intel problem, resulting in large moves in both Intel and AMD stock. Numerous articles appeared on how datacenters were thinking of switching from Intel and that this was a huge setback for Intel. Spectre wasn’t even mentioned in this article. Yesterday’s admission that Spectre affects virtually all of AMD’s chips for the last 15 years is a dramatic reversal. And the Intel article still makes the discredited performance claim of 30%, while this article makes no such ludicrous claims. O3000 (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Objective3000 Your position of a reversal is in opposition to the cited source which states: "AMD's initial statement last week said, in part, that "AMD is not susceptible to all three variants." In other words, some of AMD's chips are vulnerable to two flaws -- just not all three." (And AMD's risk to Spectre is found in earlier sources too [1]) None of the cited sources state AMD "suggested" it was invulnerable to Spectre, or that this was a reversal of AMD's position. (Though it is a clarification of it's response.) As for datacenters switching to AMD, please provide a source because it is not in the cited sources. (And as we discussed before on the Intel talk page, stock pricing has nothing to do with WP or editorial policy.) Dbsseven (talk) 16:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
This is simply not true. On Tuesday the Register suggested that the flaw did not impact AMD's chips but instead primarily impacted chips from Intel. One of the many reasons I don’t like The Register as a source. But, this narrative was widely reported and AMD fell silent until yesterday when they reversed course. Numerous articles talked about the opportunity of the AMD CEO to take advantage of the "Intel flaw". Spectre comprises two of the three vulnerabilities, and is the most difficult to deal with as well as resulting in the largest performance hit. Spectre is also the only one that requires microcode changes. Until yesterday, AMD said nothing about a need for AMD microcode changes. I certainly don’t mean to cast aspersions – but an outsider reading these articles will come to the conclusion that we are downplaying the effect on AMD and exaggerating the effect on Intel. [2], [3]
Again, I do not see any source stating "reversal" (WP:PROVEIT). The Register is not cited here, nor has any credible source stated that The Register/CNBC speaks for AMD. AMD continues to state they are less at risk from Spectre: "AMD’s processor architectures make it difficult to exploit Variant 2" (the one where they're releasing microcode). Therefore, an assertion of a "reversal" is OR without a cite. That AMD "not speaking" was tacit approval of the narrative is without a source also (and may be mistaken). (And I would disagree that AMD didn't speak, sources clearly state they did, though the sources also state they should have been clearer [4]) Ptu another way: We need to be clear about what AMD said, and what was said about AMD. Dbsseven (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
If we want to include a discuss of market position/competition, that is reasonable, but that should be independent of AMD's risk to this vulnerability. Dbsseven (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The market changes are due to the changes in AMD's position. AMD rebukes Intel, says flaw poses 'near-zero risk' to its chips.[5] The claim just wasn’t true. As for the claim that it might be more difficult exploit Variant 2, so what? It must still be fixed by both software and microcode updates and will still impact performance. Spectre affects Intel, AMD and others. AMD did not admit the scope of the problem until yesterday. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] O3000 (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
We must be clear about what AMD said versus what was said about AMD. Multiple of the source you cite there state "AMD said there was “no change” to its position on the susceptibility of its chips" and "...investors believed..." Again, clarification versus reversal. Dbsseven (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, AMD claimed there was no change in position. The sources I provided said there was a change in position. O3000 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I do not see a conflict between what AMD said then and now. Zero is not the same as near zero. Can we agree on that? (Similarly, I would assert that saying nothing is not the same as saying "we don't need to do anything".) Dbsseven (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
We need a consensus on language: Are we to discuss in this article about what AMD said, or what was said about AMD? (And if AMD "implied" something an explicit source is needed. I don't see how we can cite AMD not saying anything). Dbsseven (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
And this section is about security flaws, not market position. That is a fine discussion to have, but probably not in this section and runs the risk of WP:TOOSOON (just as discussing Intel losing market share would be too soon that page). Dbsseven (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I have said nothing about adding any discussion of markets. O3000 (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps I am mistaken, but if it's not relevant why is it brought up? "large moves in both Intel and AMD stock", "...opportunity of the AMD CEO to take advantage...", "Numerous articles appeared on how datacenters were thinking of switching from Intel and that this was a huge setback for Intel" Dbsseven (talk) 17:12, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
And if you'd like to discuss Intel's performance I am happy to discuss it on the Intel talk page as there are a number of new and reputable sources discussing performance impacts. Dbsseven (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
As for Intel, just dump the 30% number. The Register should not be used as a source. O3000 (talk) 16:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Please stop separating one discussion into three. I bring up the market impact NOT because I want this included in the article; but because I do not want Wikipedia to be part of the incorrect messages that have caused market swings. And because it is caused by WP:RECENTISM in the press. I have warned about RECENTISM from the very start of this subject. We avoid recentism to avoid making false statements in WP. So, let's get the articles back on track. The changes you made to this article tend to downplay the effect on AMD chips by removing the useful list of chips and repeating their older claim that effects would be minimal. A claim made when they said there was a near-zero impact. Changing the microcode on all of their chips and requiring OS changes to numerous versions of Windows and Linux is not near-zero. OTOH, the Intel article still contains the ludicrous 30% claim that should never have been allowed. So, we state Intel is up to 30% impact and AMD near-zero. This is false and makes us look biased. What I added to this article is what happened. O3000 (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining why you keep bringing up the market. However, I believe the current version over-emphasizes a contradiction in what was said about AMD, rather than what AMD stated. (The "near zero" was only in reference to Spectre 2. Form all sources I have found AMD's Spectre 1 solution was always OS patches.) Therefore I propose the following text: "While AMD initially stated architectural differences would result in less risk to its chips, they later announced that software and microcode updates would be made available to further mitigate against these flaws." As for an impact of the AMD fixes, that will require a cite. (As for my writing style on talk pages, I believe it was in keeping with WP:INDENT) Dbsseven (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
We need to talk more to what RS say, not what AMD says. I gave six sources that say AMD changed its position. Of course, they said this in respect to AMD stock as they are financial sources. We shouldn’t talk about the stock prices. But, we should say they changed position. I don’t see any evidence that the microcode and software changes “further mitigate” the problem. They solve a problem that had to be solved. There is no reason to believe the problem is any more or less a problem than Intel’s. AMD is still mum about effects. Intel has discussed, to some degree, effects on various OS and chip families. Intel needs to do more along these lines as it would be difficult for a third party. AMD has said nothing about performance effects beyond its original, incorrect statement. O3000 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
"There is no reason to believe the problem is any more or less a problem than Intel’s." this is original research without a cite and contradicts cited/citable sources. For example: If Intel had 100% risk and AMD had 1% risk, AMD and Intel releasing fixes to produce 0% risk does not make AMD's original position incorrect. (Even if AMD realized it originally had 5% risk.) We cannot assume equivalent risk without a cite, and technology publications/cites do not support this. [12][13][14] Dbsseven (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
And we cannot discuss impact without a cite (this screams our previous Intel discussion of WP:RECENTISM) Dbsseven (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Proposed consensus language: While AMD initially stated architectural differences would result in less risk to its chips, they later announced that software and microcode updates would be necessary to further mitigate against these flaws. Dbsseven (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, how can saying we have no reason to believe the problem is more or less different OR? It’s the opposite of OR. I’m saying we can’t make this claim. And of course we shouldn’t talk about impact quantitatively with AMD since they haven’t said anything. And there is no way we should assume that it is less than the effects on Intel chips. This is my problem with the Intel article. It contains a made up number that The Register attributed to an anonymous source. I am opposed to your changes. We have NO reason to believe there was any initial mitigation. That was a prior claim by AMD. AMD reversed its position and there exists no third party evidence that the effect on AMD and Intel chips is any different. Perhaps there is a different impact. But, we have zero AMD benchmarks from any source. We don’t even know if they know as they only say that they plan to make changes. It doesn’t appear that they have solved the problem as of yesterday’s announcement. O3000 (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
AMD is currently making the claim that it's architecture is low risk.[15][16][17] AMD is a citable source, even if one would prefer an external source to confirm. (And editor saying they have significant or equivalent risk is definitely NOT a citable source.) And a reversal would require them to have stated they have no risk, something they didn't do and reiterated in the latest sources.[18] Dbsseven (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I did not say they are equivalent. All of the affected architectures are low risk as Spectre II is extremely difficult to hack.(No reports of hacks in 15 years and a billion chips.) I am not the one making any claims about effects on AMD chips. I don’t know the performance effect and am opposed to any such mention or suggestion that the effect on AMD chips is any more or less than Intel chips as no one is making this claim at this point. We must not make the mistake made in the Intel article of publishing assumptions that were bound to change. AMD’s initial statement suggested that no vulnerability had been demonstrated on AMD processors and they would probably not need to take any action. And, they promised no action. And that’s why RS focused on Intel, which had admitted the problem. Only eight days later did AMD admit vulnerability and say they were taking actions -- and RS reacted. I provided a half-dozen sources stating that AMD changed their position yesterday. O3000 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
"I did not say they are equivalent." -> "There is no reason to believe the problem is any more or less a problem than Intel’s." ?! Dbsseven (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Please stop bringing up performance. We agree, it should not be discussed yet. Dbsseven (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
So don't say "further mitigate". That indicates there is already mitigation. It suggests a performance impact difference betwixt Intel and AMD chips. The words have no other purpose. O3000 (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
It says nothing about performance, relative or otherwise. It addresses risk (And the already present mitigation is AMD's microarchitecture, according to them.) From AMD's site: "While we believe that AMD’s processor architectures make it difficult to exploit... further mitigate the threat" Dbsseven (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

try again consensus[edit]

Okay Objective3000 I'd like to try again. Starting from the current text I have three larger and one minor thought. Larger:

  • I strongly disagree with "reversed" as it not AMD that was reversed, but what was said about AMD's products. Either we should replace the word or, state "AMD said... while commentors stated/believed/assumed...".
  • I think the “near zero” quote should be removed. This only ever applied to Spectre 2, and is an incomplete view of AMD's position.
  • I also believe it worth noting that AMD stated their products' microarchitecture makes this attack difficult.

Minor:

  • Listing the affected products is un-necessary and extraneous. A better descriptor, such as is used in the Intel article (by date range) would be better.


I will let you propose consensus language, as I have tried previously. Dbsseven (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
  • AMD changed their position. This is important as some readers may have only seen the original position
  • Spectre 2 is the difficult one to fix. Near-zero was what AMD said and RS repeated.
  • Intel’s microarchitecture is also extremely difficult to attack in this manner. 15 years and a billion chips without an attack. Also, AMD made the statement before they changed their position.
  • We don’t have a source for a date range, and might be dates of manufacture, not sale. We have a source for affected chips – which may be of interest to AMD users. O3000 (talk) 21:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Please provide evidence AMD changed their position. I have searched all the cites provided, none say "reversed". One clearly states "AMD clarified that it never said its chips were not susceptible to variant 2"[19] Journalists/commentators/investors may have assumed that this but there is no cite for AMD taking this position. (A number of the cites note this fact.) AMD only said "near zero", not "zero".
As for the "near zero" quote, then it needs to be clearly stated that this was only for Spectre 2. Otherwise this is unclear and misleading.
And why bring up Intel? That is irrelevant here. ("Pepsi is a popular cola" cannot be included excluded simply because Coke is popular too.) (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
AGAIN, I provided six sources that say AMD changed its position. And you were the one that brought up Intel. This is boring. The absurd, incorrect, 30%, scary as Hell number was forced into the Intel article and you look like you're trying to whitewash AMD's problems and responses in this article. Intel and AMD BOTH have major flaws with the same dangerous effect. Let's not dump on one and act as apologists for the other. O3000 (talk) 21:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Please, no personal attacks. I am not suggesting dump or whitewash anything. But I am saying we should be precise. None of the sources say "reverse". Some say "admits", that AMD argues this is "no change", and that "investors believed AMD’s chips were at less risk".
The position that AMD and Intel's respective flaws' have the "same dangerous effect" is OR without a cite.
And I have never supported the 30% number and in-fact just proposed to remove it with updated figures, to which you agreed. But (again) that is off topic here. Dbsseven (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The claim AMD and Intel DON'T have the same risks is OR. They both risk exposure of sensitive information. Both companies have now stated this. It's just that Intel was not silly enough to claim near-zero risk. Investors believed AMD had little or no risk because that's what AMD claimed, before reversing themselves. Admit means: "confess to be true or to be the case, typically with reluctance." O3000 (talk) 21:50, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
No, both companies have stated that exploiting Spectre 2 is hard. We do NOT have a source saying the risks (ease of exploiting the flaw) are equal. And I know what "admit" means. But Reverse "to turn in an opposite direction", is not the same as admit. (I have never heard of anyone to reversing their guilt, or driving their car in admit.) I believe AMD already acknowledged their exposure to Spectre 2 when it was announced on Jan 3rd, and is clarifying now. Investors assumed "near zero" was "zero". Again, AMD said yesterday in the sources you cite "no change", and also "AMD clarified that it never said its chips were not susceptible to variant 2". Dbsseven (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Frankly, I don’t understand how you cannot see the total difference between Intel and AMD’s initial reaction. The investors certainly saw it. RS saw it. And when AMD changed course yesterday, RS saw that too. We now know that both are vulnerable to Spectre. That’s the same. The risk is exposure of sensitive data in both cases. Trying to suggest that it’s somehow better for AMD is not acceptable. I find zero sources with such a claim now that AMD has admitted they are vulnerable. I am assuming good faith. But, your reactions to Intel and AMD, along with the fact that you have created several AMD-related articles suggest you may be unwittingly affected by bias in this area. I’m not casting aspersions. I just don’t see any other explanation for your continuing attempt to ignore RS and use wording that suggests AMD chips are somehow safer. No RS makes this claim. O3000 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Totally inappropriate, this is the second reference to my editorial style and suggesting bias. And "unwittingly affected by bias" is exactly "casting aspersions". No single editor gets to determine what "is not acceptable" or what the facts are. We discuss them here to find consensus. I am trying to discuss facts and have repeatedly proposed compromise language. My interests do not mean bias, as I frequently edit AMD, Intel, and nVidia pages. To accuse me of bias rather than discussing facts is completely over the line. I should not have to defend myself here just because we disagree. Dbsseven (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I am going to begin a new section, state my issues clearly and propose compromise language. I will also ping a number of editors who have an interest in computational topics, inviting them to the discussion. Hopefully more editors will allow us to find consensus. Dbsseven (talk) 22:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
As long as it's not WP:CANVASSING. O3000 (talk) 23:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Community consensus on Spectre language[edit]

Okay, so I am trying to find consensus on the language for AMD's exposure to the Spectre vulnerability. I am pinging some other editors interested in computational projects to get additional outside voices. (@DSmurf:, @Ajfweb:, @Intgr:, @Peter K Burian:, @Sbmeirow:, @Wikiinger:)

The current language is:

In early January 2018, it was reported that AMD processors are subject to the two variants of the security flaw dubbed Spectre. The announcement reversed an earlier statement that there would be “near zero” impact on its chips. The older AMD Opteron, Athlon and AMD Turion X2 Ultra families as well as RYZEN and EPYC chips are affected. AMD announced that software and microcode updates would be made available to provide protection against these flaws. The impact on performance resulting from these patches is unknown. GPUs are not affected.

My concerns are:

  • I think the “near zero” quote should be removed or clarified
    • This only ever applied to Spectre v2, and is an incomplete/misleading description of AMD's statements.
  • I strongly disagree with "reversed"
    • As I have read the primary and secondary sources, AMD stated the risk was "near zero", but never "zero". AMD's exposure can be found in cites from the beginning [20][21], and reiterated recently.[22] The recent acknowledgement of further mitigation does not conflict with this.[23][24][25][26] And while "admit" in the headlines is florid, the content of the articles do not support a reversal of position. Rather AMD states in many there has been "no change" in it's position and "never said its chips were not susceptible".
    • The recent sources, particularly financial, often note that "investors believed AMD’s chips were at less risk". But this was not AMD's stated position, and investors beliefs are not encyclopedic/citable IMO. If we are to discuss other's beliefs, we should be clear who said what with "AMD said... while commentors/investors may have stated/believed/assumed..."
  • I also believe it worth noting that AMD continues to state their microarchitecture makes a Spectre v2 based attack difficult.[27]

I realize this is nuanced; but I believe we should be clear in what AMD said, and what was said about AMD. More generally, I believe we should focus on high quality sources, in particular in regards to financial versus technical journalistic sources.

I propose the following language:

In early January 2018, it was reported that AMD processors are subject to the two variants of the security flaw dubbed Spectre. AMD initially stated that Spectre 1 would be addressed in OS patches, while AMD's microarchitecture would resulted in a "near zero risk of exploitation" with Spectre 2. AMD later acknowledged that software and microcode updates would be necessary to further mitigate the threat of Spectre 2. The impact on performance resulting from these patches is unknown. GPUs are not affected.

Thoughts? Dbsseven (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

  • You state that we should remove the near zero quote – and then suggest we use it in your proposed language.
  • You state that it was not AMD’s position that their chips were less at risk, when that was their exact position.
  • AMD clearly, substantially changed their position. This is widely reported in RS. Chose a different word if you wish.
  • Yes, we all know a Spectre 2 attack is difficult. But, it is difficult in implementations by Intel, ARM, and Qualcomm also. We have no secondary sources attesting to the claim that AMD is any less vulnerable. We only have self-serving statements from a primary source that appears to have been less than forthcoming about the issues. Further, this is meaningless. The fact is that all of these implementations are vulnerable. So, they all have to be fixed. Either you have a security flaw or you don’t. Any security flaw must be repaired. None of them is easy to hack – as suggested by the fact that there have been no reported problems in 15 years and one billion devices. This is weasely.
  • Yes, we need to focus on high-quality sources. Bit financial and tech sites both have RS issues. One group is no better than the other in general.
  • You continue to use the words: “further mitigate”. Mitigate means make less severe. One would hope they are eliminating the problem, not mitigating it.
  • For some reason, you insist on removing the list of affected processors. This is sourced and of immediate concern to many readers. O3000 (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


  • Further mitigate is appropriate as AMD already states this exploit is hard. That makes this a FURTHER mitigation. (Having a door-lock and stating it can be improved is NOT the same as stating the door was wide open.)
  • Mitigate is the correct and common term in the field for fixing this vulnerability.[28][29]
  • The discussion of relative risk across manufacturers is not proposed here and off topic (straw man argument). We do not have a cite of how difficult this exploit is across manufacturers; therefore we cannot assume it is the same. (In fact: as this is exploit reads the cache and cache sizes vary, I doubt the risk is he same. But this is my own OR)
  • ”None of them is easy to hack – as suggested by the fact that there have been no reported problems in 15 years and one billion devices” this is OR without a cite and a logical fallacy. The absence of proof is NOT the proof of absence.
  • The remaining issue of what AMD said, we appear to fundamentally disagree on. I have not seen a source where AMD said “zero” risk. At some point I think there at least needs to be consensus that “zero” and “near zero” are NOT the same thing (IMO anyway, but I’m pretty sure my math is correct).
  • you are correct about my proposed language and near zero. Clarifying my own comment Dbsseven (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
No, I am not performing OR. I am using RS. Everything I have said comes from RS. You simply refuse to admit RS state what they state. RS state that Spectre is very difficult to hack, for ALL chips affected. And, I am not the one that wants to edit the Intel and AMD articles in a manner that suggests AMD had less risk. You continue to insist on language in the two articles that favors one manufacturer. (The same manufacturer for which you have added several articles.) AMD said that there was near-zero risk – and then admitted they were wrong eight days later. That’s what RS say. I listed a half-dozen RS that say AMD changed their position. And it only took me one minute to find them as AMD’s admission was dramatic. Further, I still fail to see any reason to remove the list of affected processor families. It is documented by RS and of importance to many readers. Look, this is an easy edit. You just state what RS state. O3000 (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
please, for the third time: No personal attacks. Accuracy or interest are not bias. Please stop suggesting bias without providing evidence to ANI.
I would suggest reviewing WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. The reliable sources you cite say AMD stated “no change”. Other recent RS have said “AMD's initial statement last week said, in part, that "AMD is not susceptible to all three variants." In other words, some of AMD's chips are vulnerable to two flaws -- just not all three.” (Entire quote from source, including them quoting AMD) Please provide a cite that says “reversed”, I have searched and not found it. The inclusion of “some outside commentators viewed this as an admission that...”, that would be accurate and could be done in keeping with WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV.
Again, there is no mention of or comparison to Intel/ARM/others in the proposed language. (And I don’t care about the list, I think it could be done neater but whatever.) Dbsseven (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
I stand by what I said. You are insisting on self-serving statements from a primary source instead of the prevalence of secondary sources. 20:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)O3000 (talk)

I don't have time to read all the debates but here's what the Reuters News agency said 2 days ago. And that is a very solid sourcce:

  AMD on Jan. 3 also said that its chips were vulnerable to one variant of the Spectre bug, but there was “near zero risk” from the second Spectre variant and vulnerability to the second variant “has not been demonstrated on AMD processors to date.”
   In Thursday’s statement, however, AMD said the second Spectre variant “is applicable to AMD” processors and that it would issue patches for its Ryzen and EPYC processors starting this week and older chips in the coming weeks. "While we believe that AMD's processor architectures make it difficult to exploit Variant 2, we continue to work closely with the industry on this threat," Chief Technology Officer Mark Papermaster wrote in a blog post on Thursday wrote.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-batteries/house-republicans-want-answers-on-apple-throttling-older-iphone-speeds-letter-idUSKBN1F12OY

Peter K Burian (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S. On the Intel article, most of the fully-cited content that reflected negatively on Intel was deleted. IMHO, the discussion of the security flaws in that article are a whitewash. Not sure if that applies to this article.
See the Talk topic at Intel: Let's discuss Security Flaw section
User:Dbsseven tried to find consensus and he rewrote the content about the flaws, but -- in an attempt to satisfy everyone -- that compromise still omitted most of the content that reflected poorly on Intel. At least that was my perspective as to what happened. Peter K Burian (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
If by “whitewash” you mean your desire to add to the Intel article a suggestion that the Intel CEO had committed a federal crime, that’s a serious BLP issue. If he’s charged, it will be added. O3000 (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Dbsseven, what is your problem with the edit you just removed? It was taken directly from the main article on this subject. Further, it removed the text that you keep complaining about. O3000 (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Reading the cites, the sentences: "However, AMD later stated that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre." and "Later reports also noted AMD problems with the security vulnerabilities." refer to the same facts/events. I would suggest one should be removed. Dbsseven (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I copied these from the Spectre article. I assume they included the two sentences because they refer to different problems. The first sentence refers to the fact that AMD requires microcode and software changes. The second sentence cites a source that talks to the problems Opteron, Athlon and AMD Turion X2 CPUs are currently having with Microsoft fixes. That is, the first sentence talks to protection against future hacking while the second also talks about problems presently affecting users with some AMD chips. I think we should keep the articles synced since that is the main article dealing with this section. O3000 (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Keeping the articles synched is fine. And if the purpose of the second sentence is to note problems with the update rather than the vulnerability, it is not at all clear. (Also, Intel is having similar problems, so both should be noted on the Spectre page if this is the purpose. [30].) But we should keep WP:RECENTISM in mind, as these sorts of bugs are common in rushed out fixes and not necessarily encyclopedic (IMO).Dbsseven (talk) 17:22, 15 January 2018 (UTC)