Thread regarding Qualcomm Inc. layoffs

Thanks Intel!

The security flaw in their chips (which will lead to performance reduction to fix) is exactly what AMD and Qualcomm need to take away a sizable share (10-20%). Time to hammer them hard.

by
| 2763 views | | 19 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+R3eN2Ul

19 replies (most recent on top)

http://fortune.com/2018/01/10/intel-chips-meltdown-spectre-microsoft-amazon-google/

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ejjw+R3eN2Ul

Thanks Intel! Let's capitalize on this.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2cym+R3eN2Ul

The Snap Dragon has slain Gandalf and his sword me thinks.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2hft+R3eN2Ul

@1kuy

What? Gandalf is not real?

Man! what a bummar! I always thought "one Chip to rule all" --or some trash like that :-)

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1rgj+R3eN2Ul

Intel sells very, very few cpus (almost zero percent) to mobile market. This might effect AMD, but not QCOM.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1awz+R3eN2Ul

@1jpu No, I just don‘t like to live in a fantasy world. The purpose of this site is to discuss whether or not layoffs are realistic prospect, not to be supportive of Q.

The 30% performance drop would happen in outlandish scenarios, like a constant loop of getpid() calls. The realistic performance drop for normal users, gamers or server scenarios is somewhere around 2-3%. That is definitely not great, but anyone who thinks that would cost Intel 10-20% market share probably also believes that Gandalf and Sauron are real.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1kuy+R3eN2Ul

Do Qualcomm cores from ARM have the security issues?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1bsu+R3eN2Ul

woe to the design engineer who made decision to sacrifice security for CPU cycles.

what a colossal blunder.

justice was served today on Intel.

Now SEC can go after Krzanich for insider trading.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1jhj+R3eN2Ul

I'm hearing rumors of 120% performance degradation on certain workloads. Let's see the Intel cheerleaders come in and dispute it.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1hmv+R3eN2Ul

@1pje you know nothing about this either. You wouldn't be posting here if you did. You just want to BS anyone/anything that is supportive of Qcom.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1jpu+R3eN2Ul

@1upf The 30% performance hit is nonsense that is only being spread by people who have no clue of what is behind this topic. The fact that people like you or OP fell for it indicates that you probably don‘t even work for Q, but you are just generic idiots who are happy to see the monopolist Intel get a deserved punch in the face. But anyone with a little bit of insight on the issue understands that this will blow over soon with fairly little noticeable impact.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1pje+R3eN2Ul

How do we know same issue doesn't affect Qualcomm processors? They haven't exactly come out and said we're clean.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1hfl+R3eN2Ul

I guess the Snapdragon laptops will now be able to compete speed wise with Intel laptops. The SW fix incurs a 30% performance hit.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1upf+R3eN2Ul

Guys, the end of QC is near, all BS, attrition, lawsuits and nepotism are consuming the company, last choice is BCOM and might not be happening

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1iqu+R3eN2Ul

Hey Intel, how are you going to subsidize selling modems to Apple at little profit after the lawsuits from this?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1fqa+R3eN2Ul

You think we are better? Wait till we have a few 835's on win 10 pro out for a few months.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1sgx+R3eN2Ul

and your point is?????? how does this possibly change the narrative of the unfolding situation ?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @wbh+R3eN2Ul

Sorry but this will not fix the f----g environment niether the attrition at QC.....

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hvj+R3eN2Ul

I am really amazed at the number of flaws in hw and sw lately. It seems like everyone is in a hurry to get to market to beat each other.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @eyl+R3eN2Ul

Post a reply

: