[Various] Spectre & Meltdown: Critical vulnerabilities in modern processors - Page 2 - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community
Forum Jump: 

[Various] Spectre & Meltdown: Critical vulnerabilities in modern processors

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #11 of 1857 (permalink) Old 01-02-2018, 01:49 PM
Waiting for 7nm EUV
 
tpi2007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,469
Rep: 898 (Unique: 504)
Quote:
Originally Posted by PiOfPie View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

I'm assuming that the patched OSes will automatically choose the best path for AMD CPUs, or in other words, apply this (or equivalent in Windows) automatically:

Unless Intel decides to grease some palms to ensure the AMD CPUs are also flagged for the instruction so that they also get hit with the performance decrease.

That would last for about half a day, at best. The complaints would be so numerous and so loud that Intel would stop before it began.


tpi2007 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #12 of 1857 (permalink) Old 01-02-2018, 01:49 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Just a nickname's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,192
Rep: 170 (Unique: 130)
Quote:
Originally Posted by azanimefan View Post

thats a sign of one of three possibilities.

1) Intel's CEO is planning to leave
2) Intel's CEO is expecting some awful news to affect intel's stock in a bad bad way. (remember Equifax? their whole board of directors withheld the news about the hack so they could divest themselves from the company, once they were divested they released the news about the hack). I would expect company affecting bad news to result in most of the directors divesting, not just the CEO; so unless the rest of intel's directors also recently sold off shares, then this probably isn't why he's selling.
3) Intel's CEO wants to invest in something else, or needs a lot of liquid assets for some reason (this is unlikely unless he plans to buy or massively invest in a company; or he's going to be sat on the board of another company and that company has share requirements to be seated... this is more common then you'd expect)

I don't like your hypothesis.
1) he's leaving - does he really needs to sell share / keep the bare minimum for that?
2) and 3) pretty much the same - bad stock performance.

I've heard the rise of silicon pricing, not sure how this is affecting Intel considering that they probably make their own ingot. I like to think tech stock will perform poorly due to rising production and R&D cost.

CPU owned:
i5-750 & EVGA Classified 200 - 4.8GHz
i7-870 & EVGA Classified 200 - 5GHz
i7-2600k & Z77X-UD3H - 5GHz
i7-4790k & MSI Gaming 5 - 5GHz
Just a nickname is offline  
post #13 of 1857 (permalink) Old 01-02-2018, 01:55 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
azanimefan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 1,906
Rep: 142 (Unique: 101)
2 and 3 aren't the same thing at all

Lots of corporate officers hold seats on multiple companies. It's really inbred that way. I would not be surprised at all if he was being added to the board of another company; one which requires a min percentage of ownership. Look it up, I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's already on several corporate boards already.

[URL="https://www.overclock.net/t/1490324/the-intel-devils-canyon-owners-club/0_40"]Intel Devil's Canyon Owners Club
CPU
Ryzen r5 3600
Motherboard
Asus ROG Strix x470-I Gaming
GPU
GIGABYTE GeForce RTX 2070 Super Gaming OC 8G GV-N207SGAMING OC-8GD
RAM
GSkill Ripjaw V DDR4 3600
Hard Drive
Samsung Evo 970 m.2
Hard Drive
Samsung Evo 850
Power Supply
Seasonic X-650
Cooling
AMD Wrath Cooler
Case
Fractal Design Nano S
Operating System
Windows 10 Pro
Monitor
Acer K242hl
Monitor
Acer K242hl
Monitor
Acer K242hl
Keyboard
Corsair Strafe RGB Mechanical Gaming Keyboard
Mouse
Corsair Scimitar RGB Optical MOBA/MMO Gaming Mouse
Audio
Sennheiser - MOMENTUM Over-the-Ear Headphones
▲ hide details ▲
azanimefan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #14 of 1857 (permalink) Old 01-02-2018, 02:11 PM
Linux Lobbyist
 
EightDee8D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 1,864
Rep: 184 (Unique: 64)
biggrin.gif

Quote:
"if (c->x86_vendor != X86_VENDOR_AMD)
setup_force_cpu_bug(X86_BUG_CPU_INSECURE);"
EightDee8D is offline  
post #15 of 1857 (permalink) Old 01-02-2018, 02:26 PM
Newb to Overclock.net
 
mouacyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 3,927
Rep: 168 (Unique: 124)
Do I sense a wave of incoming cheap Xeons for hobbyists? wheee.gif Sorry...

CPU: Q6600 X5470 2100T 1680V2 9900K
GPU: 8800GT 9800GTX+ 750Ti 1080Ti
RAM: 2x8GBTZ
Gentoo64 in Water
(14 items)
LGA775 X5470
(6 items)
CPU
9900K 5GHz 1.224v
Motherboard
EVGA Z370 Micro
GPU
MSI 1080TI GXEK 2100.5/12627
RAM
16GB Trident Z 4000C16
Hard Drive
970 EVO 500GB
Power Supply
Seasonic X850 Gold
Cooling
480mm Radiator Custom
Case
Silverstone FT03
Operating System
Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
Operating System
Gentoo Linux 64 Multi-Lib
Monitor
Acer Predator XB271UH 165Hz
Keyboard
Logitech G710+
Mouse
Logitech G502
Audio
Sound Blaster Z
CPU
X5470 4GHz (stock v)
Motherboard
GA-EP45-UD3P
GPU
EVGA 9800 GTX+ 512MB
RAM
8GB 4x2GB GSkill 1066MHz DDR2
Cooling
XSPC Rasa, D5 + Res, 240mm Rad
Case
Lian-Li PC7-HX
▲ hide details ▲
mouacyk is offline  
post #16 of 1857 (permalink) Old 01-02-2018, 02:27 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Pro3ootector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Poland / Deutschland
Posts: 1,082
Rep: 48 (Unique: 29)
Intel will relase new socket, and a new CPU wink.gif
Pro3ootector is offline  
post #17 of 1857 (permalink) Old 01-02-2018, 02:30 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Avonosac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: PA
Posts: 2,960
Rep: 158 (Unique: 114)
Quote:
Originally Posted by KyadCK View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
They wouldn't need it anyway because a major selling point on Epyc is per-VM hardware memory encryption. I can steal a book from someone all I want, but if I can't read the language then it doesn't do me much good, does it?

Boy I bet that marketing line is being taken a lot more seriously now. tongue.gif

I know, but my point is that *THEY* also knew it, and yet included something so completely stupid in the article. This is so inflammatory it's at honest-to-god shill level. Intel didn't even need to PAY for this kind of negative association.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Yeah, they should have included results from an Intel CPU so we could see what the performance impact is. Bringing AMD into the discussion when it's not affected seems pointless to say the least.

Well, at least they went on to clarify and quote someone from AMD saying that it doesn't apply to AMD CPUs and I'm assuming that the patched OSes will automatically choose the best path for AMD CPUs, or in other words, apply this (or equivalent in Windows) automatically:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/27/2


Now I really want to see what the performance impact on Intel CPUs is going to be. From 5% to 49% is a big gap and we need to know the usage scenarios to see if this is a big issue or not. If a 49% impact is only on exotic workloads, Intel will get away with it, but a more general scenario could (I never thought I'd say this) actually break them. Even if 5% performance impact is what will happen in most cases, that means that the IPC advantage Intel has over AMD right now is going to be mostly wiped out.

Pointless, ha. This might be a somewhat rare exception to Hanlon's razor. They should immediately remove the tweet and any reference to the 49% number as the *HARDWARE* already provides this security. Any retraction of the AMD numbers should be replaced by the worst case scenario of Intel's numbers.


Avonosac is offline  
post #18 of 1857 (permalink) Old 01-02-2018, 02:41 PM
Overclocker
 
JackCY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 10,359
Rep: 345 (Unique: 244)
Intel's new CPUs do not improve performance but security, well try to tongue.gif
JackCY is offline  
post #19 of 1857 (permalink) Old 01-02-2018, 02:41 PM
Waiting for 7nm EUV
 
tpi2007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,469
Rep: 898 (Unique: 504)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avonosac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Yeah, they should have included results from an Intel CPU so we could see what the performance impact is. Bringing AMD into the discussion when it's not affected seems pointless to say the least.

Well, at least they went on to clarify and quote someone from AMD saying that it doesn't apply to AMD CPUs and I'm assuming that the patched OSes will automatically choose the best path for AMD CPUs, or in other words, apply this (or equivalent in Windows) automatically:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/27/2


Now I really want to see what the performance impact on Intel CPUs is going to be. From 5% to 49% is a big gap and we need to know the usage scenarios to see if this is a big issue or not. If a 49% impact is only on exotic workloads, Intel will get away with it, but a more general scenario could (I never thought I'd say this) actually break them. Even if 5% performance impact is what will happen in most cases, that means that the IPC advantage Intel has over AMD right now is going to be mostly wiped out.

Pointless, ha. This might be a somewhat rare exception to Hanlon's razor. They should immediately remove the tweet and any reference to the 49% number as the *HARDWARE* already provides this security. Any retraction of the AMD numbers should be replaced by the worst case scenario of Intel's numbers.

I agree with them posting Intel numbers.

When it comes to AMD, that part has perhaps the unintended consequence that people will know that something happened behind the scenes if AMD CPUs also degrade in performance when they shouldn't.

The correct way to post that story would be:

1. Here are the Intel numbers;
2. Here are the AMD numbers if something behind the scenes happens.


tpi2007 is offline  
post #20 of 1857 (permalink) Old 01-02-2018, 02:56 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Avonosac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: PA
Posts: 2,960
Rep: 158 (Unique: 114)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpi2007 View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I agree with them posting Intel numbers.

When it comes to AMD, that part has perhaps the unintended consequence that people will know that something happened behind the scenes if AMD CPUs also degrade in performance when they shouldn't.

The correct way to post that story would be:

1. Here are the Intel numbers;
2. Here are the AMD numbers if something behind the scenes happens.

I disagree completely with any association with AMD. This is disclosed and referenced as a solely *INTEL* bug. If at any point in the future something in this affects AMD directly somehow, then and *ONLY* then do they even get mentioned. The only exception being the statement AMD is unaffected by this bug and has no performance impact.

This legitimately may make EPYC superior in performance to intel, not just better PPD. The new normal is to compare AMD throughput on all tasks to Intel's new throughput when the fixes are released to all kernels.


Avonosac is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off