Note the first bullet under "WHAT THIS LIMITED WARRANTY DOES NOT COVER":
"design defects or errors in the Product (Errata). Contact Intel for information on characterized errata."
Guess we're not covered on this one.
EDIT: That being said, given the potential scope of this issue (years of affected CPUs, massive PR hit) I'm hoping that Intel will at least offer some remedy to recent buyers. According to the article from The Register [1], OS vendors have been working on the fix since November. The blog posted over on pythonsweetness [2] posits the bug may have been identified in October. It'd be interesting to know for how long Intel has been selling Coffee Lake CPUs that are known to be vulnerable.
[1] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_fl...
[2] http://pythonsweetness.tumblr.com/post/169166980422/the-myst...
It seems self-contradictory to me. How can Intel warrant that
> the Product will substantially conform to Intel’s publicly available specifications
while simultaneously disclaiming warranty for
> design defects or errors in the Product (Errata)
?
If an instruction does something different than what their specs say on occasion, do they take that to mean it's substantially conforming to their specs?
In some abstract, philosophical sense it means that the specs are actually elected by majority of the produced processors.
> If an instruction does something different than what their specs say on occasion, do they take that to mean it's substantially conforming to their specs?
We're on the same page. What do you think Intel will argue?
Keep in mind Intel did initiate a substantial recall of Pentium CPUs in the late 90s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_FDIV_bug
