maartendc

I beg to differ. I had a 6600, non K, and it held me back significantly in games. (Battlefield V in 64 player MP). A 6600 is a 4-core, 4-thread CPU. That just doesnt cut it anymore these days I'm afraid. If we were talking 6700K, maybe. The Hyperthreading helps a bit. But 4 threads... really getting long in the tooth. Went to a Ryzen 2700X, best money I ever spent.

As @justpoet said previously, OS's can load CPU microcode, so you don't necessarily need to update the BIOS to receive the new Intel Microcode, just keep your Windows Up to date and you will be patched as soon as Microsoft rolls out a Windows Update for it. Then also according to JustPoet, these microcode updates are really just "workarounds" to exploiting the vulnerability, but not really a proper "resolution" of the vulnerability. That is impossible without redesigning the chip. The only way to really "mitigate / resolve" this issue, and future issues that are likely to be discovered, once and for all in older CPU's is to disable Hyperthreading permanently. The performance impact of the Intel microcode updates is likely minimal. Disabling Hyperthreading entirely to be secured from any "unknown" / "Zero-day" hardware exploits is very large. If I was dealing with sensitive / security stuff on an enterprise level, I would also take the drastic step of disabling Hyperthreading on all machines. These exploits have been fixed, but the way things are going, more hardware vulnerabilities in Hyperthreading are likely to pop up in the future! For home users, disabling Hyperthreading is propably not necessary, because the known vulnerabilities will be fixed on a OS and/or BIOS level. If you are really paranoid about yet undiscovered vulnerabilities, only then should you disable HT.

Given the OP's usage is mostly gaming and Adobe, I would concur, the Intel chips are better suited for this. Adobe favors single core performance unfortunately. I agree with you 8700K is probably what I would get, especially if it is cheaper. I would agree that 2700X is the overall better CPU, but not for this strict particular workload. I would get the 8700K, or whichever is cheaper. But as others have said, there is very little difference between these two CPUs. The 9700K is a very strange CPU to be honest. Intel did a very strange thing by not having it have HyperThreading. I guess they did this so they could sell you the 9900K for a lot more $. Sad.

Extremely useful information, thank you! Like you probably can tell, I only know half of how these things work. Good to hear from someone with a deeper understanding. I think it is interesting like you said, the patches are "good enough" for most users, as it just introduces workarounds that make the exploits less exploitable. But like you say, the one and true only fix is to disable Hyperthreading. Good to know that AMD relies less on SMT / speculation in their chip designs, did not know that. So AMD is by design a safer choice I guess, although not immune to some forms of it. Will be interesting to see if Intel will start altering their chip design in the longer term based on these hardware vulnerabilities. Ah, good to know. Did not know the OS could load Microcode. In that case, BIOS update is nice, but less of a concern.

This is a good article about the status of fixes for this mess: https://www.zdnet.com/article/patch-status-for-the-new-mds-attacks-against-intel-cpus/ I mean.. as far as I know installing the Microcode updates requires updating the BIOS? So you will never be fully protected from this, unless your Motherboard manufacturer releases a microcode update? First of all, the average user does not know how to update the BIOS Secondly, motherboard manufacturers support for older motherboards is really bad usually. Thirdly, updating the BIOS is not without risk of bricking the PC, so even as an experienced user, I am not too keen on updating the BIOS too often. Is this the world we live in now? Are BIOS updates going to be like Android updates or Software updates: critical to your security? Will we need to start looking at which manufacturer updates their BIOS the best when selecting a motherboard? Further, if we cannot get these kinds of vulnerabilities under control, is this the end of Hyperthreading and SMT??

I am not sure. I thought Meltdown and Spectre were only vulnerable to local attacks. It seems disconcerting that this exploit can apparently be executed via Javascript. So-called Drive-by attacks on websites. Extremely disconcerting. Once the browser is patched however, it seems you would need local access to the machine OR malicious software to exploit it, which makes the risk lower. With Spectre and Meltdown, the implications were especially severe for servers, because if you are running two clients on the same server, one could potentially extract data out of the CPU of another app / client (or something to that effect, I might have the terminology wrong). The real question is: once Intel patches this with Microcode updates: how will it affect CPU performance?? Spectre and Meltdown fixes DID slow down CPU's although not too severely. Again the branch predicting / speculative execution is vulnerable. I doubt AMD will be spared from this / future vulnerabilities like this, because as far as I know, AMD CPU's do similar predicting.

This is more disconcerting: https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT210107 Apparently this has already been patched in Mac OS 10.14.5 for Safari to prevent exploitation via Javascript through a malicious website.. The security flaw was already disclosed to Intel in September of 2018, which is why there already are fixes available. You could still be vulnerable if you use unsigned software / harmful apps, this is what Apple has to say about this: YIKES. I don't know if I WANT to "mitigate" this vulnerability now. Way to go Intel. Apparently Hyperthreading is completely UNSAFE now. I am sure the repercussions are the same for Intel based Windows machines, since the CPU and Hyperthreading seem to be at the core of this vulnerability. Would apply for all OS. Glad I got a Ryzen CPU for my Desktop now!

This Thread is a trainwreck. Really, do we need clickbaity titles for Forum Threads now? People just read the thread topic, and start jumping to conclusions, without actually reading the article. This makes for very frustrating spread of misinformation, not good discussion. Mods can close this topic for all I care.

Again, NOT what is happening here. You fail to read the article. Adobe is pointing out you MIGHT get sued by THIRD PARTIES. Not by them. As for the subscription: I am not a big fan. I wish you could still buy Photoshop or whatever outright, rather than pay a subscription. ... which costs you more money in the long run. Adobe don't even offer purchasing their software anymore, it is all subscription based now. Has been for several years now.

No it does not cost money to upgrade. That is the whole point of Creative Cloud, that you pay a subscription, but you always get the newest version included in your plan. Again, people are jumping to conclusions here. Adobe is just pointing out that, if you use the old version, they are not taking the blame if you get sued by a third party, because their IP is included in the old version and is no longer licensed. In reality, this is extremely unlikely to happen, they are just covering their legal bases. If you actually take the time to read the details: This story is a storm in a Teacup. A whole load of Nothing.

The article says that this applies to users of Creative Cloud, so people who are ALREADY on the subscription model. They just somehow did not update their apps? Updates are free as long as you are a subscriber. We have Adobe CC at work, and that is how it works. There are no more "versions" of the software, it just updates continuously, like Windows 10 does. This whole thing is puzzling to me. If you are a subscriber, why would you not just update to the latest version? "Please be aware that should you continue to use the discontinued version(s), you may be at risk of potential claims of infringement by third parties." Sounds like some legal licensing dispute with Dolby has to do with parts of their older versions of software not being up to snuff. So they need to push the newer versions that do not contain Dolby IP. They are just covering their asses legally, so Adobe don't get sued by people who are getting sued by Dolby for using old versions of Adobe Creative Cloud. Y'all need to learn how to read, instead of reading the thread topic and jumping to conclusions.

Yeah it just depends on your usage. Obviously if you are talking about more than 8 cores, there is no competition. But people are comparing the 1900X (8C/16T) to the Ryzen 2700X (8C/16T), which is a good question to ask. Ryzen 2700X will have higher Boost clocks, so will beat it in productivity tasks as well. How many people really need the extra RAM / PCI-e lanes / ECC memmory? Most people who get threadripper would be for high end video editing, CAD work, rendering, etc. etc. So apart from more cores, I don't know why you would need those extra features. Same at my office: we have these expensive workstations with XEONS and Quadro's in them for CAD use. But in my opinion it would be better and cheaper to just get a consumer CPU and a GTX 1080Ti or something.. If they didnt cost $5000 each, you'd be able to upgrade more frequently, and everyone would have a faster workstation because of it.

As others have said, they are just made for different CPU's. It doesn't make sense to compare them! The X-series chipsets / motherboards are for the HEDT (high end desktop) CPU's, the Intel X-series CPU's, such as a 7980XE for example. You cannot run a regular core i5 or core i7 in these boards. This is comparable to Threadripper vs Ryzen CPU's/

Yes, the QVL list just means they tested the motherboard with that memory, but it does not mean other RAM won't work. As long as it meets the motherboard spec, it should work fine. QVL list is useful if you want to run OC memory, as in consumer boards like AM4, they often list the speed they were tested at to work. But even then, actual performance varies by RAM and CPU...

Who says you need 64GB? Literally nobody I have seen so far. RAM is one of the easiest things to upgrade later on anyway. So save your money now. And 10 years from now, when people MAYBE use 64GB of RAM, upgrade then. But by then you probably have two new computers already.. so yeah... If you really have money burning a hole in your pocket (which you clearly do, with that system and these questions) get a second 2080Ti.

No reason AT ALL to get 64GB. Super overkill, unless you are doing 4K video editing, or working on extremely large files. For your usage: 32GB is already overkill.

Well that is embarrassing, Intel must be paying him a LOT of money to basically say: "Yeah, you know all that stuff I used to make decisions on / be in charge of? That was all trash!!"

Wait do these companies still pay IBM for a license on that x86 stuff? I had no idea...

This is true but at the same time, 2gb of vram will crush performance in modern games as well. Op, post full laptop specs and we can advise better.

I was tempted to get a Biostar motherboard when they were the first to come out with an AM4 ITX board. Glad I waited for an ASrock board. I don't know... I hate to cheap out on a motherboard, and I just don't trust the Biostar brand. Support / BIOS updates are very important for a motherboard, and I just don't know about the track record of these "budget" companies. (hell even MSI and the like are not great in terms of support sometimes).

Pointless upgrade. You will be spending money on a dead platform, and all those CPU's are still 4-core, which will still bottleneck in recent games such as Battlefield V. This is a good suggestion. Perhaps wait for Zen 2 to come out, and prices on Ryzen 2000 series to drop. 2600/2600X would be the best "budget" choice.

HW Unboxed review shows the H100i reaching 100C at 5.0Ghz, so NO, it is not good enough. That is not a sustainable temp. OC It cannot reach 5.1Ghz. A custom loop with 360mm rad keeps it at 89C at 5.0Ghz. It could also reach 5.1Ghz with that setup. You should probably get an AIO with 360mm rad to keep it cool enough: if your case can fit it, that is: like a Corsair H150i? https://www.corsair.com/us/en/Categories/Products/Liquid-Cooling/Hydro-Series™-H150i-PRO-RGB-360mm-Liquid-CPU-Cooler/p/CW-9060031-WW

In that case, that other ram slot might be broken... If I am not mistaken, the system should boot regardless of which slot you put 1 stick into. This manual, page 16, seems to indicate you can put the RAM into any slot, but you need to pair slots 1 /3 or 2/4 for Dual Channel mode: http://download1.gigabyte.us/Files/Manual/mb_manual_ga-ma785g-ud3h_e.pdf Does it detect all 4 ram sticks when you put 4 sticks in? Glad you got it working!

Hmmm that is dissappointing. I think the only thing left is the motherboard and/or CPU, but mostly the motherboard. I cannot think of anything else that would be the problem. Storage device being faulty would still allow you to boot into bios. I guess swapping out the motherboard is not really an easy thing to try. When the motherboard is faulty, you might as well upgrade the whole system, since it is that old. Sorry, I am out of ideas.

It is better to wait for Zen 2 to release in any case, so you can pick up Ryzen 2600 or 2700 on a discount. Although Ryzen 2700 is $220 USD right now, which is already an amazing deal. Ryzen 2600 is already a great deal as well right now. Get Ryzen, not an old i7. Old i7 is a dead platform, not worth wasting money on, and it will not solve your problem. 4-core CPU's are just not good enough for intense gaming nowadays. Old i7 is still a 4-core CPU. I upgraded from a i5 6600 to Ryzen 2700X, best money I ever spent. Good luck! Also: why are you saying Ryzen system upgrade would be 400 pounds? I can easily get a Mobo, RAM and Ryzen 2600 together for 270 pounds: PCPartPicker Part List CPU: AMD - Ryzen 5 2600 3.4 GHz 6-Core Processor (£133.14 @ Amazon UK) Motherboard: ASRock - B450M PRO4 Micro ATX AM4 Motherboard (£68.97 @ CCL Computers) Memory: Patriot - Viper Elite 16 GB (2 x 8 GB) DDR4-2666 Memory (£69.50 @ Amazon UK) Total: £271.61 Prices include shipping, taxes, and discounts when available Generated by PCPartPicker 2019-05-10 19:56 BST+0100