
The topic came up in a discussion about AMD’s new Zen 3 Ryzen 9 5000 series processors on the Real World Tech forum site. AMD has semi-official ECC support in most of its processors. “I don’t really see AMD’s unofficial ECC support being a big deal,” said an unwary contributor. “ECC absolutely matters,” retorted Torvalds. “Intel has been detrimental to the whole industry and to users because of their bad and misguided policies wrt ECC. Seriously. And if you don’t believe me, then just look at multiple generations of rowhammer, where each time Intel and memory manufacturers bleated about how it’s going to be fixed next time… And yes, that was — again — entirely about the misguided and arse-backwards policy of ‘consumers don’t need ECC’, which made the market for ECC memory go away.”
The accusation is significant particularly at a time when security issues are high on the agenda. The suggestion is that Intel’s marketing decisions have held back adoption of a technology that makes users more secure — though rowhammer is only one of many potential attack mechanisms — as well as making PCs more stable. “The arguments against ECC were always complete and utter garbage. Now even the memory manufacturers are starting to do ECC internally because they finally owned up to the fact that they absolutely have to,” said Torvalds. Torvalds said that Xeon prices deterred usage. “I used to look at the Xeon CPU’s, and I could never really make the math work. The Intel math was basically that you get twice the CPU for five times the price. So for my personal workstations, I ended up using Intel consumer CPU’s.” Prices, he said, dropped last year “because of Ryzen and Threadripper… but it was a ‘too little, much too late’ situation.” By way of mitigation, he added that “apart from their ECC stance I was perfectly happy with [Intel’s] consumer offerings.”