Intel stop Spectre and Meltdown updates for older CPUs


Bad news for anyone still rocking a really, really old Intel processor today, as the CPU giant has announced it’s going to stop developing microcode updates to deal with the ongoing security problems caused by Spectre and Meltdown for certain types of architecture. The news comes with the release of a new microcode revision guide that sets out the current schedule of planned updates for each type of affected CPU.

If you’ve bought a PC within the last couple of years, you should be absolutely fine as most of the culled processor architectures date from around the late noughties. As a result, you’d have to be running an almost decade-old PC to be affected by this change in update development.

The only ones that might catch people out are a couple of Intel Atom chips (codenamed SoFIA 3GR) that I’ve listed below, as these only came out in 2015. However, it’s still highly unlikely you’ll actually own a device with one of these CPUs, as these particular models were aimed at Internet of Things applications rather than consumer laptops or tablets.

Intel themselves have said that part of the reason why they’ve decided to cease supporting these processors is because “most of these products are implemented as ‘closed systems’ and therefore are expected to have a lower likelihood of exposure to these vulnerabilities.” They also said that the affected processors have “limited commercially available system software support” and that they have “micro-architectural characteristics that preclude a practical implementation of features mitigating Variant 2 [of Spectre].”

Here’s a full list of all the processors that will be missing out:

  • Bloomfield (Intel Core Processor i7-920, 930, 940, 950, 960, Extreme Edition i7-975 and i7-965)
  • Bloomfield Xeon (Intel Xeon Processor W3520, W3530, W3540, W3550, W3565, W3570, W3580)
  • Clarksfield (Intel Core Extreme Processor i7-920XM, 940XM, Processor i7-720QM, 740QM, 820QM, 840QM)
  • Gulftown (Intel Core i7-970, 980, Core Processor Extreme Edition i7-980X, 990X, Xeon Processor W3690)
  • Harpertown Xeon C0 / E0 (Intel Xeon Processor L5408, L5410, L5420, L5430, E5405, E5410, E5420, E5430, E5440, E5450, E5462, E5472, X5450, X5460, X5470, X5472, X5482, X5492)
  • Jasper Forest (Intel Celeron Processor P1053, Xeon Processor EC3528, EC3529, EC5509, EC5539, EC5549, LC3518, LC3528, LC5518, LC5528)
  • Penryn/QC (Intel Core 2 Extreme Processor X9000, X9100, Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q9000, Q9100, Intel Core 2 Duo Processor T6400, T6500, T6670, T8100, T8300, T9300, T9400, T9500, T9550, T9600, T9800, T9900, SU9300, SU9400, SU9600, SP9300, SP9400, SP9600, SL9380, SL9400, SL9600, SL9300, P7350, P7370, P7450, P7550, P7570, P8400, P8600, P8700, P8800, P9500, P9600, P9700, Intel Core 2 Solo Processor SU3500, ULV SU3500, ULV, SU3300, Intel Pentium Processor T4200, T4300, T4400, T4500, Intel Celeron Processor 900, 925, SU2300, T3100, T3300, T3500, ULV 763, Intel Celeron M Processor ULV 722, ULV 723, ULV 743)
  • SoFIA 3GR (Intel Atom x3-C3200RK, x3-C3230RK)
  • Wolfdale C0, M0 (Intel Core 2 Duo Processor E7200, E7300, E8190, E8200, E8300, E8400, E8500)
  • Wolfdale E0, R0 (Intel Core 2 Duo Processor E7400, E7500, E8400, E8500, E8600, Intel Pentium Processor E5200, E5300, E5400, E5500, E5700, E5800, E6300, E6500, E6500K, E6600, E6700, E6800, Intel Celeron Processor E3200, E3300, E3400, E3500)
  • Wolfdale Xeon C0 / Xeon E0 (Intel Xeon Processor E3110, E3120, E5205, E5220, L3110, L5215, L5240, X5260, X5270, X5272)
  • Yorkfield (Intel Core 2 Extreme Processor QX9650, QX9770, QX9775, Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q8200, Q8200S, Q8400,Q8400S, Q9300, Q9400, Q9400S, Q9450, Q9500, Q9505, Q9505S, Q9550, Q9550S, Q9650)
  • Yorkfield Xeon (Intel Xeon Processor L3360, X3320, X3330, X3350, X3360, X3370, X3380)

If you do happen to have one of the processors listed above, Intel recommend that you stop using previously released microcode updates, as some patches have been causing problems with certain types of CPU. While it’s a shame these chips will now be vulnerable to the Spectre and Meltdown flaws for the rest of time, Intel have clearly decided it’s not worth the effort to continue supporting all these ancient processor models in addition to more recent ones that people are actually likely to own.

The good news is that Intel expects their new Coffee Lake CPUs to have built-in hardware fixes for both security flaws when they’re released later this year. So if you’re thinking about upgrading your CPU, you’ll be better off waiting just a little bit longer.


  1. Kefren says:

    My PC is from November 2009. Oh well, despite probably being vulnerable to other nasties, it works perfectly and is super-fast for everything I need to do (thanks to upgrading to an SSD, more RAM, and a new graphics card to play Witcher 3). I did buy a more recent PC recently for VR, but sold it on soon after because I hated Windows 10. And now I don’t even know what my point was. I’m screwed? It won’t affect me? I’m not good with lists of numbers and codes: I got totally lost as to how to compare Nvidia graphics cards (I used to have one with a higher number but it turned out the newer ones had lower numbers, which I guess is like Microsoft going from Windows 98 to Windows 7, or Xbox 360 to Xbox 1).

    • DeepFried says:

      Basically if you have an unpatched CPU at some point in the near future there will be malware that will own you.
      So I strongly recommend you start planning replacing that PC, or at least the mobo/cpu.

      Also windows 10 really isn’t bad, just turn off microsofts spyware and aside from that its basically windows 7 with things moved around a bit.

      • Kefren says:

        Nah, it was hundreds of little things – even Windows Explorer was like an alien beast! A weird mismatch or programs and “apps”, settings all over the show, no control over updates (twice in a week the forced Windows updates broke things), things I couldn’t remove or hide – it was tons of stuff that impacted on my day-to-day use. It even seemed ugly (I remember when MS went on about their lovely Aero interface for Win7 – then they just ditched it) I lasted two months and reverted to Win7.

        I’ll just have to hope my security settings will keep protecting me. I use a Firewall that blocks all outbound traffic (apart from a few chosen programs), blocks ads, run AV and anti-malware, and am generally very sensible about what I download and where I go. I’ll just have to hope that’s enough! I always find it weird when companies that hid security vulnerabilities in their products for as long as possible then say “To fix it, buy our NEW products”. Intel and Microsoft both seem to be terrible choices in terms of data protection, forcing DRM, spying and so on. I’ll put off giving them any more money for as long as possible. By the time this PC dies I may be ready to give Linux a go, and just use a virtualised PC for playing Windows games.

        • haldolium says:

          Basically your software cannot protect you, that is the entire thing about this issue and why it’s a big thing: it’s a hardware architecture problem which can only be fixed with replacing that hardware.

          However you still need to get malicious code onto your PC in the first place, so being careful in using the interweb is the best protection you can have.

          • DeepFried says:

            There is no guarantee that passive attacks wont be possible, e.g. a drive by attack from some website you vist and run some otherwise innocuous script for. I wouldn’t say even “being careful” will be enough to protect you. An ad on this very site could nail you.

        • DeepFried says:

          Linux is wonderful, I’m typing this comment from a linux machine right now. There are some game that run on linux, maybe 40% of titles, even that is surprisingly good considering that according to steam surveys less than 1% of people run linux. Plus with wine and PlayOnLinux you can get another chunk of windows games running more or less right. On top of that with steam you can stream a game from your windows box and play it on your Linux machine.

          All great options, and yet Linux is absolutely not an option for me as a primary gaming machine. I have circa 500 games on steam, there is no reality in which sacrificing even 1% of that library for an objective as trivial as ditching windows makes any sense, nevermind the actual sizable chuck of my library I would lose.

          On top of this, as much as I love Linux, its really (no REALLY) not for everyone. I have an IT degree and sometimes I feel like I lack the IT skills to keep my linux box running right. Plus the community is fragmented and siloed, causing glaring bugs and flaws to persist for several years just because developer X is stubborn…. its infuriating as much as it is beautiful.

          If you do go the Linux route make sure the hardware you get is well supported. With windows you can basically buy any computer and expect it to have drivers for windows, thats very much not the case for linux. Sometimes it takes linux 3-4 years to get drivers for new laptops.

          • Thankmar says:

            “…its infuriating as much as it is beautiful.”
            So much this.
            When you tried Linux for a while — and you can do your day to day things like mail, surfing, and even office stuff very well with some basic tech knowledge if you’re willing to copypaste a lot of commands from forums — there is this very strange feeling about both OS and how there are so many things so much easier on Linux which are difficult on Windows, but at the same time vice versa. Splits mind and heart.

          • Danley says:

            One practical reaction and one emotional one:

            This is a problem with the hardware architecture of the processors themselves, which millions of Linux distributions are run on. I’m sure this has been clarified in other conversations on this site (RPS is great) but the patches that Intel and motherboard manufacturers have had to roll out are also for Linux, meaning you’ll still be balancing performance and security with older processors, and if any of them are listed here you’ll simply be left unsecured anyway. But this is the nature of using 3+ year old hardware, which is a long time in economic terms. There are many devices where 3 years is enough for a company to come and go completely. Even if they’re at the same company, asking separate teams working on newer projects to switch back to stuff they may not have ever touched before isn’t any less unreasonable than it would be in game development.

            And regardless of how you feel about any of these operating systems, it’s frustrating that CPU bugs from Intel somehow translates to ‘Windows is flawed.’ People still had to patch KTPI on Linux once this vulnerability was discovered:

            link to

            (Thread about how to check if KTPI is enabled in Ubuntu: link to )

            And in many cases saw huge performance hits, same as Windows PCs:

            link to

            If anything, the corporate-to-consumer nature of Microsoft and Intel (Apple, Samsung, Sony, et al) creates this false version of cohesive software and hardware, like once something has been programmed it becomes part of the physical product itself which will from that point forth go unchanged. Technology just isn’t presented in a way that people know what they’re getting, and then we construct the rest of the business culture and economy on top of that.

      • MajorLag says:

        > Basically if you have an unpatched CPU at some point in the near future there will be malware that will own you.

        There may be malware in the future that pwns him, but chances are it won’t have anything to do with Spectre or Meltdown. This class of vulnerability has too many limitations to be worth the effort when ransomware is such an easy path to profit.

        If you’re a cloud host, or work with really sensitive data people are significantly motivated to steal, these vulnerabilities are a big deal, but for home users they’re pretty much all hype.

        • DeepFried says:

          Right now, you’re absolutely right – Which is why i’m in no hurry to patch my microcode. but there will be scripts available in the future to exploit spectre, and once they’re in the wild its hard to imagine they wont be exploited. What form those exploits might take I couldn’t say.

          • patstew says:

            All they allow you to do is read memory you’re not supposed to be able to access, not run code. If you’re running local malware it can probably get hold of everything you care about on your desktop by just reading it without resorting to Meltdown/Spectre. It’s very different on cloud servers with multiple users who expect to be isolated of course. They can be blocked in browsers, and have been in the latest versions, so web scripts can’t do it. They also run extremely slowly and rinse the CPU, so you’d probably notice it happening on a desktop anyway.

          • frenchy2k1 says:

            ^^ This
            Meltdown has been fixed by OS updates (separating the process table for user and kernel spaces).
            What will not be patched is Spectre and spcter:
            – allows to read normally unaccessible memory on a system (very slowly)
            – requires already arbitrary program execution on the machine.

            If you already have arbitrary execution, there are so many worse things to do on a computer (like ransomware, bot install…).
            Spectre is critical for *shared* servers, as it lets people read what other users’ programs are doing, but there is so little to gain on a personal computer and most info can be gained more easily through other means…

    • haldolium says:

      Just check your current CPU with CPU-Z and see if it is affected. link to

    • Jp1138 says:

      I´m on your same boat: i920, gtx 970, SSD and 12GB RAM. I see no need for upgrading based on game performance, but this development has made me consider a not so distant update :(

      • DeepFried says:

        Really? I upgraded from a 920 because it was bottle-necking my mid range GPU even back in 2012. I hate to think what that 920 would be doing to my 1080gtx.

        • Jp1138 says:

          Well, a 1080 is not a 970 ;) I play in 1900×1200 and have never been too fussy about getting 60fps all the time or getting a little less detail in some games.

          • DeepFried says:

            Thats fair enough, but I think you will find its significantly bottle-necking your 970. My i7-920 was bottle-necking my HD7870 which has little more than half the benchmark scores of a 970gtx.

            I suspect you’re losing a significant chunk of your potential GPU performance. Maybe run some benchmarks and compare the results to typical values for your card.

          • wengart says:

            I had an i7 930M until recently. It was a bottleneck, but I just overclocked it from 2.8 to 3.5 and it solved my problems. The broad variety of games I play seem to be improved by just throwing more speed at them. After I upgraded I noticed no real improvement, but my reason for upgrading was a dying motherboard rather than poor performance. For the average person the extra performance they are going to eek out probably isn’t worth the cost of both a new motherboard, processor, and RAM.

            The funny thing about building a really high end PC is that you often don’t need to upgrade it substantially as long as you are okay with playing not playing everygame on ultra. My old PC ran games in 2010 on ultra, a few years later on high, and just before it died I was hovering around medium for single player and low for multi where 60 frames really counts. I was perfectly fine with that, but it got to the point where a PC I built with longevity and upgrades in mind lasted so long that I just had to buy a new one.

          • Jp1138 says:

            Yes, I agree the processor may be bottlenecking the card, but it hasn´t bothered me enough as to buy a new MB, processor and RAM – at least. It´s a lot of hassle for a fairly minor upgrade in performance, at least for my habits. As wengart says, I could just overclock it, but even that is too much work for my needs right now ;)

          • DeepFried says:

            @wengart sure, to a point the gains of a CPU/mobo upgrade are limited, but I think you’re missing just how ancient the i7-920 is at this point, for this guy he is probably loosing 40% of the performance of his graphics card, even if he overclocks the CPU from 2.66ghz to 3ghz as I did its still a huge bottle-neck.

      • PhoenixTank says:

        i7 980x, 48GB RAM here, just under 8 years old. I was pleased last month to see “gulftown” enter pre-beta on Intel’s datasheet – quite disappointed to see the fix get canned. Single thread performance on this CPU isn’t great these days, but 6 cores have only just hit mainstream. Usually only effectively CPU limited if the game doesn’t actually use the extra cores properly. Most cases, no problem hitting 60+ FPS. A steady 120FPS in Overwatch is fine.
        This isn’t just a gaming machine so I’m a bit stuck. To get a real, worthwhile, upgrade I need something like Threadripper, and just replacing with an equivalent amount of DDR4 RAM is offensively expensive right now. Intel have definitely pushed me a fair bit further towards AMD with this announcement, however. Hope I can hold on until Zen 2 and that by then RAM prices will sort themselves out again.

    • Kefren says:

      Thanks for all the comments – I feel both reassured and informed. :-)

  2. Pogs says:

    Does anyone know what AMD are doing?

    • Tholesund says:

      AMD’s Ryzen CPUs are not vulnerable to Meltdown at all, so no OS patches or microcode updates are required.

      The situation with Spectre Variant 2 is more complicated. According to AMD, exploiting Spectre on Ryzen chips is theoretically possible but extremely difficult. AMD’s statement is supported by the fact that as far as we know, nobody’s been able to demonstrate a functioning Spectre V2 exploit running on a Ryzen chip. Nevertheless, AMD is reportedly working on an optional microcode update to reduce the chances of a successful exploit further.

      I haven’t really been following what’s going on with older generations of AMD CPUs.

  3. automatic says:

    An industry that hit a roadblock on mandatory efficiency upgrades now forces sales through fear of damage from old product defficiency. That’s capitalism in a nutshell for you folks.

    • ColonelFlanders says:

      Couldn’t agree more. I’m gonna keep using my old and vulnerable CPU, running windows XP with no firewall and AV, so no one gets my money. Joke’s on you, capitalist pigdogs!

      • Dogshevik says:

        What exactly makes people so sure spending that money will actually make you “safe”? Promises that there won´t be a hidden flaw the manufacturer won´t tell you about? This time, for sure?
        If it makes people feel better, sure. But the only thing you can really do about safety is storing irreplacable data externally or give up the internet entirely.

        • ColonelFlanders says:

          That’s like saying that it isn’t worth installing a lock on your front door just because lockpicks exist.

          • automatic says:

            No dude, that’s like saying you’re not upgrading your lock because the people who is selling it is also an authority on lockpicks and might just be selling you something he knows won’t be safe for long before you need to upgrade it again.

          • DeepFried says:

            I’m with Flanders. Computer security is about mitigating known risks. And the simple fact is older software (and apparently hardware) becomes vulnerable if its not updated.

            You can’t expect to mitigate unknown risks, but you should be taking action on known risks, at least if you care about your online security at all.

            There are no guarantees, all you can hope to do is stack the odds in your favour.

          • automatic says:

            @DeepFried We’re talking about a known risk Intel doesn’t want to mitigate, because those CPUs are too old. This is not about security it’s about corporate responsability.

          • ColonelFlanders says:

            I mean, if you’re going to be paranoid and assume they are lying about their reasons for not implementing fixes to older architectures then the conversation’s already over. The reasons have been given, believe them or don’t.

          • automatic says:

            They don’t need to lie. Not fixing older achitectures it’s just more profitable. It’s how the system works, my friend.

          • ColonelFlanders says:

            What is this I don’t even. Have you actually read the article? Or the update guide? Or any of the media that exists on this issue? The reasons are laid out, in black and white, for all to see.

            This isn’t some oligopoly rubbing their hands together about all their new processors they’re gonna sell, this is about damage control,and the (non) practicality of removing instructions on old architecture, not least because anyone can just buy a second hand 2600k, save a load of money, and still have a safe processor. No matter which way you spin this, this is a nightmare for both AMD and Intel, and trying to force some kind of planned obsolescence into the bargain would be just about the most moronic thing either of them could do.

          • automatic says:

            Stick your ad hominens in your secure place my friend. This is about corporate responsability. Nowhere in a world where people are worried about damage control a company would deny reparation for a mistake of their own fault. OH BUT THERE’S UPGRADES YOU CAN BUY.

          • automatic says:

            And they are not worried simply because there’s no threat for their dominance. Welcome to the bright corporate world of capitalism. Intel and AMD are just like Coke and Pepsi. You can choose not to buy one or the other. They will still rule the market and do however they please. They may even merge eventually and a single corp sell products from both.

          • ColonelFlanders says:

            “micro-architectural characteristics that preclude a practical implementation of features mitigating Variant 2 [of Spectre].”

            As much as I’m tempted to paste that another 20 times, I hope you’ll allow me to return to my locks analogy again, do you think Yale are paying to replace the products that have been compromised 10 or 20 years after the fact? Have they fuck. There comes a point in a product’s lifespan that the resources spent on practically implementing something are less costly than the repercussions of not. I’m sure the idea of selling a few new CPUs to the cheapskates who are using 10 year old chips is a nice little bonus, but I somehow don’t think that this is some far reaching conspiracy to sell more CPUs to the corporate sheep or whatever. If Intel’s revenue was declining year on year, or if there was reasonable competition in the field I might be more inclined to suspicion, but it isn’t, and there isn’t.

          • automatic says:

            I never said there was a conspiracy. I said processor development has hit a roadblock and companies will push their sales anyway they can. Check how much processor clock speed has evolved in the last 20, 10 and 5 years. I told in another comment that I work with processors about 10 years old that are faster than consumer grade processors available now. Technology does not evolve forever. We still use the same technology for pulling carts around people from the rock ages used. With that in mind figure electronics are not like gears. Unless you overload them, they do not wear significantly with time (I will not even say how ridiculous this proposition is with software). Why would anyone change their system for something that’s not a significant upgrade if theirs is working perfectly fine? What an industry that depends on sales to exist do when the market is saturated? Do they just say their work is done and switch the lights off?

          • automatic says:

            And remember we’re not talking about average companies. We’re talking about huge monopolies that single handed control worldwide markets.

          • Dogshevik says:

            No, it is like saying mitigate the risks, but don´t reward incompetence. Twice.

            You will always have to upgrade your CPU at some point. Why panic and do it imediatelly with inflated prices for something we can safely assume will be rushed out products? Not only are you paying through your rear-end, you are also giving the wrong incentives. You can just as well invest the same amount of money at a later date. Most likely more cost-effectively.
            Worst case? Malware kills the CPU and you have to buy a new one. So you jump on buying an overpriced CPU to avoid having to buy a CPU … what?

            I like the effort to paint people disagreeing in one corner with conspiracy theorists, though. That´s helpful for having a reasonable discussion.

      • automatic says:

        I work with 10 year old CPUs faster than any consumer grade stuff Intel or AMD has available. And I’d totally stick with Windows XP if it could run the programs I use while also using a third party firewall and AV, but that’s not how capitalism works. The least corps control everything you need the better, that’s how it works.

        • ColonelFlanders says:

          I agree with the sentiment of your comment, but the target of your philosophy is misguided at best, and naive at worst. I hate giving money to mega corps as much as you do, but I also hate having my entire universe stolen through a risk I could have mitigated by spending a couple hundred on a new piece of microcircuitry.

          You can cross the street and get killed at any time, but you’d sure look like much less of a dickhead if it happened at a crosswalk versus if you were jaywalking.

          • automatic says:

            That’s not the point at all. If your whole universe depends on the actions of a corporation, then you have already been stolen. I gladly give my money to a specialist when I know for a fact they are acting in my favour and not just trying to keep their industry alive. I already discussed this here on a different article before this exploit was even publicized and I told it would happen more and more often with all sorts of products. Eventually people will need to pay a toll just turn on their machines.

        • Tholesund says:

          I work with 10 year old CPUs faster than any consumer grade stuff Intel or AMD has available.

          That’s quite the boast. I’m guessing your definition of “faster” involves some specific, unusual (from consumer perspective) workloads under some specific conditions which consumer-grade systems are not designed for.

          But even then, I’m tempted to say that unless you’ve somehow gotten access to some super-secret government black project tech (and decided it would be a good idea to brag about it on Rock, Paper, Shotgun), you’re full of poop.

          • automatic says:

            The contrary of specific. Just general purpose servers. But you don’t even need to get out of consumer range to find the same situation. I also have a computer built with a Phenom X4, also a 10 year old processor, and it stands perfectly fine besides actual processors. I remember the time when processor clocks almost doubled every year and I had to respeck all my systems just to have enough power to run new softwares. There’s no reason to do that anymore. Most upgrades now are just junk companies push to force sales.

    • Premium User Badge

      subdog says:

      Right? I’d been getting away with ignoring my old CPU for a while now- GPU, RAM and SSD upgrades all gave me more than enough performance. But now it’s not just costing me a couple frames per second, it’s turning into a security risk.

  4. DanMan says:

    Is that really an exhaustive list? ‘Cause I’m still sporting a Lynnfield CPU, and according to that list, I’m good in terms of microcode.

    • Colthor says:

      This is the complete microcode upgrade guide from Intel, and the Lynnfield update is listed as “production”, albeit in yellow for some reason. So yeah, Intel’s released a fix.

      The fly in the ointment is that the way you get that fix is in a BIOS update, which is up to your motherboard manufacturer.

      For instance, MSI haven’t released updates for either the 77 or 87 series boards in my PCs, so the fact that Intel have released updates for Ivy Bridge and Haswell is academic.

      • DeepFried says:

        Yeah thats the real rub, my laptop from 2013 (which frankly is at end of life anyway) almost certainly wont be getting a bios patch from Dell.

      • DanMan says:

        Thanks. Hmmm, that sucks, ofc. But at least there’s some mitigation on Linux towards that, and I’m about to upgrade to a Ryzen 2xxx anyway this or next month.

  5. iainl says:

    I’ve got a vulnerable Core2 Duo, but that box is only used for a bit of video streaming, light Steam use and occasionally doing a first pass on massive photo dumps, so I’m not inviting a lot of rogue code onto it in the first place.

  6. mitrovarr says:

    Wow, they’re not even patching all of the i7s? I wish AMD was an actual competitor to Intel, because I need to replace my system core, but I kind of hate Intel for this. But I guess I’ll be forced to go with them anyway…

    • frenchy2k1 says:

      Not sure what you are talking about as for once in 7 years, AMD *IS* competitive with Intel.
      Their Zen architecture, sold in their Ryzen products are giving Intel a run for their money.
      Zen+, in the Ryzen 2XXX family should b in store in the next month, dropping prices on the 1xxx family.
      So, if you want to avoid intel, now is a good time…

      • mitrovarr says:

        That’s good to hear. I generally don’t like AMD (usually somewhat less performance for way more power) but after more thought, I totally refuse to buy any company’s product if the only reason I need a new one is because they failed to support the previous one from them I had.

        I bet Intel will lose a lot of goodwill over this. There are probably a lot of early i7s out there. I mean, they’re still fast – I do VR with my 970, for crying out loud.