Radeon Vega Pro Introduces A "AMD Secure Processor"

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Radeon Vega Pro Introduces A "AMD Secure Processor"

The embargo just expired on the Radeon Pro Software Crimson ReLive Edition for Vega Radeon Professional Graphics. There isn't much to share from the Linux driver side, except worth noting that Vega Pro graphics hardware has a "secure processor" onboard...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Vega-Pro-Secure-Processor

[uid313]

Totally uninteresting. More of an anti-feature. I don't care for this feature, as a matter of fact I don't even want it.
It seems rather useless. I don't see it providing anything of use.

AMD should have spent that money on something useful such as performance or energy efficiency. Maybe Nvidia is a better choice.

[torsionbar28]

Totally uninteresting. More of an anti-feature. I don't care for this feature, as a matter of fact I don't even want it.
It seems rather useless. I don't see it providing anything of use.

AMD should have spent that money on something useful such as performance or energy efficiency. Maybe Nvidia is a better choice.

Didnt you post something similar about Ryzen PSP, implying that intel CPU's were a viable alternative? LMAO. Try a pen and paper and slide-rule for your secure computing needs.

[duby229]

If on linux it's just a driver that allows access to the processor, then that's perfectly fine. But I think if ti's programmed to do anything like it was intended, then people will go up in arms.

[schmidtbag]

Totally uninteresting. More of an anti-feature.

Normally it would be uninteresting, except the odd thing is how this is in a GPU, and the way it behaves at POST. I'm guessing this is to prevent malicious attacks when using Vega for GPGPU purposes - those are becoming increasingly important and popular, where companies can't afford data to be meddled with. As long as it doesn't interfere with normal users, it isn't an anti-feature. I doubt this is going to be the next Secure Boot.

I don't care for this feature, as a matter of fact I don't even want it.
It seems rather useless. I don't see it providing anything of use.

Saying "I don't care for this feature" and "I don't even want it" is redundant, as is "useless" and "[not] providing anything of use". Seems like you have a lot of frustration for something that will likely be forgotten (even by AMD) after today.

AMD should have spent that money on something useful such as performance or energy efficiency. Maybe Nvidia is a better choice.

AMD can't just magically make GCN more energy efficient - it's an aging architecture, and it isn't aging gracefully. As a result, they need something else to increase the GPU's value, so claiming to increase security in a time of tin-foil hat wearers (regardless of how well it will actually do so) is that "something."
I don't disagree that Vega's performance-per-watt so far seems to be disappointing, but stating "maybe Nvidia is better" as a result of this insignificant feature is ridiculous. That's like saying "maybe I should go for <car brand #2> because <car brand #1> keeps the daytime running lights on all the time". DRLs are a safety feature, and though their safety or efficacy is debatable, deciding against a product because of such an insignificant "problem" is just plain stupid, especially when you consider <car brand #2> will likely at some point do the same thing - I assure you, Nvidia will at some point implement something similar (if they haven't done so already).

[rabcor]

This feature may be a good thing... But I'm wondering how well it'll play with open source drivers...

[AndyChow]

Maybe we'll get a nice AMD watermark again when using open-source drivers.

As for GNC not aging well, what do you mean?

[jstefanop]

If on linux it's just a driver that allows access to the processor, then that's perfectly fine. But I think if ti's programmed to do anything like it was intended, then people will go up in arms.

Yea my initial attempts at modifying Vega BIOS caused the card not to boot. So I guess this is why.

[schmidtbag]

Maybe we'll get a nice AMD watermark again when using open-source drivers.

To my understanding, this is security for malware, not DRM.

As for GNC not aging well, what do you mean?

In terms of performance-per-watt, Vega doesn't seem fare well against Pascal. It'd have been a fantastic product if it was:
* released a year ago from today
* released as the RX 490 (and no, I didn't mean 590)
* underclocked a bit so the performance was closer to the GTX 1070 (which would also give it great OC headroom, which would've increased its interest and value)
I'm not trying to be too hard on AMD here, Nvidia put them in a tough position. Pascal was better than what people were expecting, and to my knowledge is proportionately the best architecture Nvidia ever made. That's a tough contender for a 6-year-old architecture. If Vega was competing against a Maxwell refresh, it'd have been very appealing, if not the better choice.

[boxie]

Totally uninteresting. More of an anti-feature. I don't care for this feature, as a matter of fact I don't even want it.
It seems rather useless. I don't see it providing anything of use.

AMD should have spent that money on something useful such as performance or energy efficiency. Maybe Nvidia is a better choice.

and? I do believe a "that's nice dear, but we live in the real world" applies.

Security is not an inherently bad thing, especially for the pro work place where a stolen movie could be worth millions in revenue.