My own addition:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3112...e-zen-chips-will-support-only-windows-10.html
Offhand, I'd say that with the enormous amount of code that Intel contributes to the Linux kernel, that their processors will always be safe on Linux. Intel is now the #1 kernel contributor, passing up Red Hat recently. I would take this prediction to the bank.

About what I'll say now, I'm not as sure: this has to be a Windows-only thing. I also doubt that Win7, for example, won't run AT ALL on Kaby Lake. We just won't get all of those great 'features' that Microsoft has been forcing down our throats.

But that's just a guess. The Linux part will be true, almost surely.

Windows 7 and Windows 8 won't suddenly quit working if you put in a Kaby Lake CPU, and Linux won't refuse to boot if you use Kaby Lake hardware.

What MAY happen is that, because CPUs optimize instructions internally in different ways based on their internal design, you may not get as much performance as you'd expect. This is caused by the OS making a set of assumptions about how to best distribute processes across the various cores in the CPU, and those assumptions resulting in a less that optimal distribution of work.

That's what the CPU driver is for, to inform the OS about the capabilities of the CPU so that the scheduler can then make better decisions about how to schedule work on the cores.

When you say "driver" you mean UEFI right?

No, I mean 'driver' as in 'device driver', as in that piece of software which tells the computer how to properly access a piece of hardware.

I realize it seems weird to think of a CPU as needing a 'device driver', but with modern CPUs that is in fact necessary, due to the varying internal architectures.

While it is obvious to most that an x86 CPU is not the same thing as a PowerPC or ARM CPU, and it is even fairly obvious that an 80286 is not the same thing as a Core i7, it's not necessarily obvious that Intel and AMD CPUs are in fact very different critters despite the fact that they run the same software and execute (mostly) the same instruction set.

The significant differences between the Intel and AMD CPUs (and indeed between e.g. an Intel PIII and an Intel P4) are due to the design tradeoffs made internally in the CPU. These design tradeoffs affect how quickly instructions are executed, to be sure, but (particularly when dealing with multiple CPU cores on the same die) can also impact how efficient it is to schedule a thread on CPU 1 vs. CPU2.

As far as I know, this first started to really become apparent in mainstream operating systems (i.e. Windows) when the first Core Duo chips from Intel became available and people started experimenting with putting multiple chips on a motherboard. Performance would quickly deteriorate because the computer couldn't differentiate between two cores on the same chip and two cores on different chips.

Generally speaking, you try to schedule a thread to run on the same core it ran on previously when dealing with multithreaded applications. You do this because the CPU caches will typically still contain instructions and data from the last execution of the thread and thus you don't end up doing a cache 'flush', which is horribly time-consuming and inefficient. However, you can end up in situations where one CPU core is idle while there is work to do, because the core a thread was scheduled to run on is busy running another thread (the core is already busy).

So now, the scheduler has to make a decision; take the resource hit to move the thread to another core, or wait for the current thread to finish so the waiting thread can run.

But what if you could schedule that thread to run on another core on the SAME CHIP? And what if that core could share things like the cache, making it a much less expensive proposition to move the thread to another core?

That's where the CPU driver comes in; it helps the scheduler make the decision, because it knows about the internals of the CPU, and what things can positively or negatively affect performance.

In the case of the AMD Zen CPUs and the Intel Kaby Lake CPUs, Microsoft have basically said "We aren't supporting these CPUs on anything older than Windows 10. If you want to write a driver for it, any problems are YOURS to deal with." Intel and AMD have both said, "Ah, OK, we'll do it your way". So, no driver for versions before Windows 10.

This absolutely does NOT mean these CPUs won't work on Windows 10 (Hell, you can run Windows NT 4 on a current-generation Skylake processor and it will work just fine, despite the fact that Windows NT 4 doesn't support the CPU). In other words, all this furor of "OMG, Kaby Lake isn't supported on Win 7 or Win 8) is just a bunch of fear mongering from people who should really know better. This isn't anything new, nor is it part of some nefarious plan on the part of Microsoft (well, any more than normal, anyway). Windows 10 has been out now for over a year, and the vast, VAST majority of people who are likely to get anything with a Kaby Lake processor are going to be buying a new machine anyway, which means it will be coming with Windows 10.

You know me, you know I'm a Linux head, and that I pretty passionately hate Windows. I use it every day, under protest, because there some things I HAVE to do for work that I simply CAN'T do under Linux (the software just won't work). That said, this whole uproar is just completely idiotic, IMO.

Sorry, I wasn't saying or implying that you're an idiot, George, and if it came across that way I apologize. You don't spend your time in technology, and keeping up with all the latest technology trends. The people who DO and are spreading this trash are the ones who are grating on my nerves.

Thanks for the detailed answer Gizmo!
Kinda threw me off at first because I was thinking "I don't remember installing CPU drivers"...
I remember chipset drivers, which probably included CPU drivers, but also include a bunch of other junk as well.

Sad that controversies get the most attention in social circles these days.

If windows can make and support drivers for this CPU, Why can't Linux?

I may be missing something major, but it really doesn't like anything outside of the MS domain is really changing.
Linux or Intel made the driers I'm using now right?

As pointed out above Intel has always been quite fond of Linux and I doubt they would enjoy a world in which their chips could only run Win 10 and above...
I mean, when has MS ever not abused a partner?

And yeah what George said about always benefiting from Gizmo's and TR's post. No flip of the coin there, always good always helpful!

You misunderstand (I'm assuming from the meds ).

Microsoft are saying that on the Windows platform, ONLY Windows 10 will support the CPU.

OF COURSE it will be supported on Linux and BSD and anything else not under MS control!

However, as I pointed out above, even if they didn't release drivers, it would still WORK. You just wouldn't have access to some of the more interesting features, leading to a potentially 'sub-optimal' experience.

Just another way Microsoft wants to kill off older Operating Systems

If you aren't running Windows, why does it matter? Linux will get support for the new CPUs. You MAY have to upgrade to a newer version of Linux than what you are running now if you are using e.g. RHEL or Ubuntu LTS (which are designed for longevity and stability rather than latest features), but other than those specific situations (which are intended for server environments that only change very slowly in any case and thus are unlikely to be getting new CPUs without an entire hardware and OS refresh as well), anyone else will be able to get support for their latest and greatest CPU just by simply downloading the latest updates for their distribution.

Even for the people who are running Windows, the likelihood is that they will only upgrade to a newer CPU (which, BTW, requires a new motherboard) when they upgrade their computer, at which point they are likely going to be upgrading Windows as well, so again, why does it matter?

Microsoft's move only shafts Microsoft customers; everyone else is yawning. Well, except the tech press, who are breathlessly reporting it as an apocalyptic event, and the geeks who are pissed because they can't play with new toys without Microsoft's blessing. For the geeks, I have no sympathy; if you're a true geek, you shouldn't be running Windows. 'Nuff said. For the tech press, well, again, I have no sympathy. They are mostly morons anyway, and the few who aren't are actually reporting this correctly.

So you have to have Windows other than 10 for MS to screw with you this time?

Not good! Not helpful! LOL

Exactly

I still think MS will perish under the weight of it's greed. There is a whole new gen coming up that has been teethed on computers and software. Right now I doubt there's a trend setter among them that doesn't understand what MS is and does...
"The wheel grinds slowly but exceedingly fine."

But then again...

The new I phone is now considered news on all the networks...but not one of them informed self-satisfied America that to buy one is to invest in slavery as vile as any other.

Just think! Every time you answer the phone from APPLE YOU LAY A WHIP ACROSS THE BACK OF SOME KID IN CHINA.

What's news is the new camera! It's kinda magical!

You never get the picture as long as you slave along with apple...

Here's the picture!:
"If one of us is in chains
none of us is free."