On Monday 17 January 2011 16:59:26 Jason Weisberger wrote: > The word "probably" implies that you have no idea what the statistics were > on getting a perfectly good core were or why they disabled entire batches of > cores based on an error from one. > > You are just overdriving your point. If he doesn't want to enable updation > of microcode, it won't hurt anything. If it was functioning fine before, it > will also be fine without an update. There is nothing wrong with keeping > the version of code that is stable for you. It isn't stupid, its a good > rule of thumb. If it isn't broken, don't fix it.
the problem is: how do you know it is stable? Just might be lucky that fixed function was not hit by you so far. But will that be true tomorrow? Next week? With the next gcc version? Microcode updates are there for a reason. There are ZILCH reasons to turn it off in the bios. 'Oh, there are a lots of fine 4cores marketed as 3cores. I want that' is not a reason not to turn it on. It is a reason to buy a mobo who can unlock those cores without turning off microcode updates. Call me old fashioned, but I prefer computers as deterministic machines - and not very expensive random number generators (which is also the main reason why I don't overclock. 5% faster for 1% better chance of errors? 5% I will never ever able to 'feel'? No thank you).
