Jump to content

Intel processors not looking so brilliant anymore. Plus AMD's debt problems get better with each passing quarter

9 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Except they haven't implemented any general hardware security checks at all. Instead they're implementing hardware checks that only block those very specific security holes. AMD has significantly more general hardware security checks that made them immune to those shenanigans in the first place. Closing the side barn door after the horses have left is far inferior to keeping the door closed in the first place.

 

Quote

MDS is addressed in hardware 

 Which is what im saying. MDS, which this thread is about, HAS had hardware changes to mitigate it. Regardless if AMD has more security check, MDS specifically has been addressed at a hardware level.

🌲🌲🌲

 

 

 

◒ ◒ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dunno, my shiny, brand new, state of the art 2600k is looking pretty brilliant right now. :D

i7 2600k @ 5GHz 1.49v - EVGA GTX 1070 ACX 3.0 - 16GB DDR3 2000MHz Corsair Vengence

Asus p8z77-v lk - 480GB Samsung 870 EVO w/ W10 LTSC - 2x1TB HDD storage - 240GB SATA SSD w/ W7 - EVGA 650w 80+G G2

3x 1080p 60hz Viewsonic LCDs, 1 glorious Dell CRT running at anywhere from 60hz to 120hz

Model M w/ Soarer's adapter - Logitch g502 - Audio-Techinca M20X - Cambridge SoundWorks speakers w/ woofer

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Arika S said:

 Which is what im saying. MDS, which this thread is about, HAS had hardware changes to mitigate it. Regardless if AMD has more security check, MDS specifically has been addressed at a hardware level. 

Which means pretty much jack all to anyone who hasn't bought a 9th gen processor made in the last 2 months. So now if you want hardware mitigation you have to double check the stepping on the processor you buy. Nobody said that Intel was incapable of creating hardware checks, just that their carelessness and greed led to them needing to create those checks after the fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Which means pretty much jack all to anyone who hasn't bought a 9th gen processor made in the last 2 months.

i was replying to someone who said that Intel had NO hardware checks in place, which was false MDS (specifically) has been addressed in hardware, that's all i'm saying i'm not referring to any other vulnerabilities. you can argue semantics all you like, but it's not relevant to the point I was making.

 

EDIT: For the record, yes i do believe Intel fucked up big time, they should not have let something like this occur, but it did and technology is complicated, now consumers have to deal with the fallout. going forward this vulnerability is going to be addressed. if people want to switch because of it, more power to them, people buy what they want. but dont use things like this for a Holier-than-thou AMD vs Intel shit flinging contest.

 

🌲🌲🌲

 

 

 

◒ ◒ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, ravenshrike said:

Which means pretty much jack all to anyone who hasn't bought a 9th gen processor made in the last 2 months. So now if you want hardware mitigation you have to double check the stepping on the processor you buy. Nobody said that Intel was incapable of creating hardware checks, just that their carelessness and greed led to them needing to create those checks after the fact.

That's beside the point, the claim was Intel hadn't applied any hardware mitigation and they clearly have.

 

Feel free to argue how much that means for yourself, but claiming it didn't happen is just a lie.  

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's beside the point, the claim was Intel hadn't applied any hardware mitigation and they clearly have.

Correct, that was the claim, in the context of AMD hardware checks that existed YEARS before the exploit was known. He sure as hell wasn't talking about things created after Intel knew about the specific exploit. That Stefan hadn't kept up with the brand spanking new stepping that required a bios update to work without constantly crashing Windows 10 created after the problem was discovered is largely irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ravenshrike said:

Correct, that was the claim, in the context of AMD hardware checks that existed YEARS before the exploit was known. He sure as hell wasn't talking about things created after Intel knew about the specific exploit. That Stefan hadn't kept up with the brand spanking new stepping that required a bios update to work without constantly crashing Windows 10 created after the problem was discovered is largely irrelevant.

 

What are you trying to say?  Are you trying to say it's ok to lie about something if we ignore reality and only accept the discussion in a limited context?

 

 

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/20/2019 at 11:20 PM, Mr. horse said:


Yeah I was thinking of getting a system built around one of these. But It would be cool if such a CPU was on something like x299.

There are people out there like me that need faster CPUs for single threaded apps.

I think a Z390 will suffice.

Specs: Motherboard: Asus X470-PLUS TUF gaming (Yes I know it's poor but I wasn't informed) RAM: Corsair VENGEANCE® LPX DDR4 3200Mhz CL16-18-18-36 2x8GB

            CPU: Ryzen 9 5900X          Case: Antec P8     PSU: Corsair RM850x                        Cooler: Antec K240 with two Noctura Industrial PPC 3000 PWM

            Drives: Samsung 970 EVO plus 250GB, Micron 1100 2TB, Seagate ST4000DM000/1F2168 GPU: EVGA RTX 2080 ti Black edition

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I used to buy HEDT platform because of the huge disparity between that and mainstream one. But now, mainstream parts are good enough even for that and you don't need to buy stupid expensive platform just to have high end CPU. Now you can buy a 120€ mobo and stick a 500€ Ryzen 3800 whatever it'll be called and have gazillion cores and threads at 4+ GHz clock. That used to be just a wet dream for mainstream just few years ago and it's Ryzen that did this huge shift. Not to mention CPU's these days clock really high out of the box all by themselves if they have good enough cooling, meaning you don't even have to overclock. Same for graphic cards. My GTX 1080Ti clocks to 1950MHz on core. With some extra convincing I could get it to magical 2GHz, but I frankly just can't be bothered anymore. It just boosts so high all by itself it's hardly worth dealing with overclocking. That's also something we didn't have in the past.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Arika S said:

False. Intel implemented hardware fixes in their 8ths gen and 9th gen CPUs 

Yeah, that's why we got Zombieload/MDS.


And remember that some people said around a Year ago that Hyper Threadding is a Problem?

Yeah, so much for that.

 

And here what the 3 people from Level 1 Tech say:

 

 

And still: WHY do people have to play down the severety of the Security Problems Intel has??

"Hell is full of good meanings, but Heaven is full of good works"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Stefan Payne said:

Did you do the same for the TLB Bug in Bulldozer??

No, because I wasn’t as into tech back then. I had no idea about anything until like 2 years ago. I still don’t even know what TLB is.

 

But if something bad like this came out about AMD that was actually true, not like Ryzenfall, then yes I would tell intel fans to calm the hell down and not jump to conclusions and give them the same warning. I may post a lot of “pro-intel” stuff but the honest truth is that I have no allegiance to any side, I try to stay neutral/un-bias but this forum is forever going against intel and praising AMD so it’s inevitable that I keep popping up in these threads posting what I do.

 

my posts aren’t trying to downplay anything, they are more to remind people that no one is perfect and just because something good or bad happens to one side, doesn’t mean the other side won’t experience the same thing.

 

have I sometimes strayed too far into fanboy(girl)ism? Sure, but I’m also not perfect.

🌲🌲🌲

 

 

 

◒ ◒ 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

And still: WHY do people have to play down the severety of the Security Problems Intel has??

They don't need to be played up either, a topic about an Intel security flaw as WAY too much chest banging about Ryzen CPUs being more secure. The way security works is your only as secure as what you know about, anything you are not you are at risk to. We were at risk to these MDS attacks before we knew they existed, now we know about them and have steps to mitigate them.

 

Many of the recent Intel security flaws have been wildly exaggerated for the risk to general consumers. Some of them require literal hours to days of pre-warming the target system to be able to execute the attack and then the data rates for pulling information out is so tiny you need to do it for weeks or months. You might get a hit on something really important in only minutes to hours or it might take a year. These types of risks are much more severe for servers because they are always online so can be pre-warmed and exploited for as long as the attacker likes unless noticed. If the target computer gets rebooted, shutdown, slept or hibernated you have to start back at square one and start pre-warming again, always.

 

The people that look the most foolish are the ones praising AMD CPUs for being more secure when flaws are found in those products, because you can never say there are no flaws in them. There are ones we know about and ones we do not know about. The do not know about list could actually be zero, that's an impossible task to prove there are zero flaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Arika S said:

But if something bad like this came out about AMD that was actually true, not like Ryzenfall, then yes I would tell intel fans to calm the hell down and not jump to conclusions and give them the same warning.

The difference is that many people would rip AMD apart for that for no reason.

You see that in other areas all the time. An AMD Card died -> this is my last AMD Card, I won't buy AMD ever again.

Even if its the cheapest of that kind, the rest of the System (=PSU) is crap as well...

 

6 minutes ago, Arika S said:

I may post a lot of “pro-intel” stuff but the honest truth is that I have no allegiance to any side, I try to stay neutral/un-bias but this forum is forever going against intel and praising AMD so it’s inevitable that I keep popping up in these threads posting what I do.

The thing is that this stuff only pops up for Intel, even the Security Researchers say that they couldn't find an issue with AMD. And AMD states that they have Access Checks.

Intel does not.

And to me it looks more and more like "Dieselgate"; that either the higher ups didn't care about security at all or the people who mentioned that were ignored...

 

And I've found this Interview:

https://www.spiegel.de/netzwelt/gadgets/spectre-und-meltdown-die-wichtigsten-antworten-zu-den-schwachstellen-in-prozessoren-a-1186193.html

 

That is in German. The important part is below the first BOLD thingy.They said that they looked into it, because Intel had enormous Interest in one of the things they were working on - the KAISER Patch. Because Intel was so interested, they looked into it further, why they were so interested - and found Spectre/Meltdown.


So Intel someone at Intel KNEW about the issues - and did nothing. So yeah, they deserve way more than they are getting and not beeing defended by anyone, because

 

So at least for Skylake they could have done more. Especially for Coffeelake...

6 minutes ago, Arika S said:

my posts aren’t trying to downplay anything, they are more to remind people that no one is perfect and just because something good or bad happens to one side, doesn’t mean the other side won’t experience the same thing.

It looks like that.

 

And its not something to take lightly and just wait and see what Security Researchers say about that.

 

 

"Hell is full of good meanings, but Heaven is full of good works"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

The thing is that this stuff only pops up for Intel, even the Security Researchers say that they couldn't find an issue with AMD. And AMD states that they have Access Checks.

Why does this remind me of people back in the day telling others that Mac OS X couldn't have any viruses or malware of any kind. Each hardware could have it's own vulnerability. Doesn't matter what brand you choose whether it's Intel, Nvidia or AMD. If there really aren't any vulnerabilities, then that's good, but there's no way of knowing it unless proper research has been done. In Intel's case, these things are now finally coming to the light. 

 

The more we discover potential exploits and what not, the better. As long as the fixes that are applicable don't compromise too much of the performance. 

Desktops

 

- The specifications of my almighty machine:

MB: MSI Z370-A Pro || CPU: Intel Core i3 8350K 4.00 GHz || RAM: 20GB DDR4  || GPU: Nvidia GeForce GTX1070 || Storage: 1TB HDD & 250GB HDD  & 128GB x2 SSD || OS: Windows 10 Pro & Ubuntu 21.04

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, leadeater said:

They don't need to be played up either

If you have an "old" Xeon Gold the mitigations cost around 11% Performance:

https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-mds-xeon&num=1

 

With the more modern its still 4%, while EPYC avereges at around 1%.

That means that AMD gets closer to Intel and Intel loses Performance.

 

That means that all the Benchmarks we've known so far are useless.

And even if there is no problem for the user in theory, the mitigations cost a lot of performance.


But that's not the worst part. The worst part is that this desaster is far from over. There is something based on Spectre/Meltdwon or the spirit of that popping up every other month or so.

 

And the patches of that are not for free either.

For example here, Phoronix mentionss about 16% lower Performance on an i7-8700K, wich draws it much closer to Ryzen 7/2700X. 

 

 

So lets just assume that there will be 5 other things to be found. And that the Mitigations cost around 5% on average per mitigation on Intel, while its only 2% on AMD.

That makes 25% hit on Intel and 10% on AMD, but the difference between those two are also getting much closer.

 

That means that all, who bought Intel "for the Performance" got messed with, as they might end up slower than the AMD Processors...

 

So yeah, its no small feat. And in the Spiegel Interview it looks like Intel could have done much more. And maybe there will be a Class Action Lawsuit in the end... 

 

 

"Hell is full of good meanings, but Heaven is full of good works"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

If you have an "old" Xeon Gold the mitigations cost around 11% Performance:

So? Does it make it useless? Does it make it now slower than EPYC in the cases where it was faster? Nope.

 

22 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

the mitigations cost a lot of performance.

If you need to apply all of them, depending on how you apply them.

 

The worst part is you are over playing it, there is no doom and gloom performance wise. That's the actual worst thing here not that there are flaws but exaggeration and removal of impact to real world. What exactly stopped working due to performance since Spectre and MDS? Who's services went down? Who can or could no longer deliver their services?

 

We've got a couple of badly implemented fixes in the first days as the only real life examples of impact, situations since rectified.

 

Edit:

And your made up example is wildly disingenuous. You have no idea of any impacts of flaws that could be found. What about one found on AMD that has 100000000000000% performance impact?

 

The situation is simple, people with the product apply mitigations as required. People looking to buy now have adjusted performance valuations and will get what is adequate and most cost effective for their needs but more importantly something that is supported by the software and vendor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, leadeater said:

The worst part is you are over playing it, there is no doom and gloom performance wise.

The worst part is that its far from over and similar exploits pop up every other month. When was the last time an Exploit based on Spectre/Meltdown or its spirit popped up??

 

People always seem to downplay the and try to make it look like its the same on all platforms, when its not...

 

18 hours ago, leadeater said:

That's the actual worst thing here not that there are flaws but exaggeration and removal of impact to real world. What exactly stopped working due to performance since Spectre and MDS? Who's services went down? Who can or could no longer deliver their services?

You paid for the Performance you had before Spectre, now the Performance you got is less than it was then or you take the risk that someone might steal your data.

Now you get far less performance.

 

In Europe with the consumer protection laws it might be interesting if there is a drastical performance hit in your application..

18 hours ago, leadeater said:

We've got a couple of badly implemented fixes in the first days as the only real life examples of impact, situations since rectified.

In the end they still cost performance, in some instances more, in some a bit less.

But there is a performance hit...

18 hours ago, leadeater said:

And your made up example is wildly disingenuous.

No, exagarated. It shows you what might or might not happen. 

In a couple of years we might know more though.


But until then I'd be cautious about that...

18 hours ago, leadeater said:

You have no idea of any impacts of flaws that could be found.

Exactly, nobody does.

 

 

But is it wrong to assume that it's going to affect Intel more?

Probably not...

"Hell is full of good meanings, but Heaven is full of good works"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

The worst part is that its far from over and similar exploits pop up every other month. When was the last time an Exploit based on Spectre/Meltdown or its spirit popped up??

You know it was 16 months between Spectre and MDS right?

 

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

People always seem to downplay the and try to make it look like its the same on all platforms, when its not...

*Overplay

 

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, exagarated. It shows you what might or might not happen. 

In a couple of years we might know more though.

Flaws and fixes do not have to cause performance loss, current mitigation in the most recent architecture revisions may or may not have closed all branch cache flaws. Any "per mitigation" theorizing is useless.

 

1 hour ago, Stefan Payne said:

But is it wrong to assume that it's going to affect Intel more?

Probably not...

Yes because you want to see a trend, of two instances and blow that out. There is no more likelihood that any CPU has more flaws than any other or more easily found. Literally all it takes is one flaw to be found in Ryzen that is of serious nature and you are no better off, just takes one. You willing to bet your life on that not happening? No? Didn't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

 Literally all it takes is one flaw to be found in Ryzen that is of serious nature and you are no better off, just takes one. You willing to bet your life on that not happening? No? Didn't think so.

I would be willing to bet his life that he would continue glorifying AMD regardless of how many exploits they discovered in ryzen.

Grammar and spelling is not indicative of intelligence/knowledge.  Not having the same opinion does not always mean lack of understanding.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 5/23/2019 at 9:17 AM, leadeater said:

You know it was 16 months between Spectre and MDS right?

 

There were other things based on Speculative Execution exploitation between Spectre/Meltdown and MDS.

For example second round of Spectre/Meltdown or an extension of that and Spoiler is also something that is related to Spectre/Meltdown.

Spectre/Meltdown V2 was somewhere in November, Spoiler a couple of Months ago. 

 

 

Quote

Flaws and fixes do not have to cause performance loss, current mitigation in the most recent architecture revisions may or may not have closed all branch cache flaws. Any "per mitigation" theorizing is useless.

That was a bit exagerate, but this Toms Hardware Article shows what I mean:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-amd-mitigations-performance-impact,39381.html

 

Its a bit clickbaity "5 times as much"; but its 3% vs 15% impact due to Mitigations.


And that is the Problem I see, though you don't seem to agree with it, that there will be more Flaws based on the Spectre/Meltdown spirit that have to be mitigated as well and, from what we know, Intel is more affected than AMD is.

 

That said, its possible that AMD either inadvertendly hardened their architecture or they seen that there might be problems and did it that way. 

While Intel didn't, either because their Architecture is old or because of "Corporate Structures"...

Either way, Intel is more affected by those flaws than others are.

Quote

Yes because you want to see a trend, of two instances and blow that out.

No, I'm saying taht the Spectre/Meltdown Situation isn't over.

If there is nothing in the next year or two, you can say that. But I doubt that will happen.

Becuase the Security Researchers jumped on the Spectre/Meltdown stuff just recently, with that taking a long long time, its possible that they will find a lot more.

 

Though it might be possible that there won't be anything more but I really doubt it. Especially since the time between the vulnerabilitys seem to decrease rather than increase.

Quote

There is no more likelihood that any CPU has more flaws than any other or more easily found.

With the things we know right now, I disagree.

 

Because we know that Intel are more affected to speculative execution vulnerabilitys than AMD is. 

 

Quote

Literally all it takes is one flaw to be found in Ryzen that is of serious nature and you are no better off, just takes one. You willing to bet your life on that not happening? No? Didn't think so.

Well, that's what certain people right now wish for, to find something as severe or more severe on AMD. But they didn't find anything (yet). That doesn't mean that its impossible, it just means that there are reasons why we didn't hear anything about AMD.

 

And I bet that Intel is investing a ton of money to find something on AMD, as did those RYZENFALL people but until now, they didn't.

 

Maybe the reason AMD is not as much affected is that their Architecture is not 10 years old and they did two completely new, from the ground up (well, more or less) designs in the time where Intel just optimized their Nehalem design and continuesly improved it.

 

If Intel did start anew and made a completely, from the ground up architecture, I'm pretty sure that wouldn't have been affected by Spectre/Meltdown as much as it is the case with their Core i-Series.

 

That said: I don't doubt that you'll find the same vulnerabilitys on older AMD K8 and K10 processors, due to age.

Its the same reason why Windows XP was far less secure than Vista was. Because it was developed in a time where security wasn't as big of an issue as it is today (or rather this decade).

"Hell is full of good meanings, but Heaven is full of good works"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

Because we know that Intel are more affected to speculative execution vulnerabilitys than AMD is. 

Who says the flaw found in Ryzen has to be to do with speculative execution, ANY flaw could be found.

 

41 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

No, I'm saying taht the Spectre/Meltdown Situation isn't over.

You can't know that, you can think that but an opinion isn't fact. The current mitigation in the latest architecture revision could have closed all possible speculative execution flaws, it might not have either. There's no saying one or the other without actually putting in the effort to find any flaws.

 

41 minutes ago, Stefan Payne said:

That was a bit exagerate, but this Toms Hardware Article shows what I mean:

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-amd-mitigations-performance-impact,39381.html

 

Its a bit clickbaity "5 times as much"; but its 3% vs 15% impact due to Mitigations.


And that is the Problem I see, though you don't seem to agree with it, that there will be more Flaws based on the Spectre/Meltdown spirit that have to be mitigated as well and, from what we know, Intel is more affected than AMD is.

For this forum user base, gaming majority, the patches have next to no performance impact at all. I think the biggest one that anyone would encounter is compressing/decompressing thousands of files and how many actually do that, or enough to care about it taking 25 minutes instead of 20.

 

For example exactly zero people will be running memcached on their Windows gaming PC.

 

Edit:

Not to mention the latest arch revision reduces performance impact to 4%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these cpu security vulnerability really that big of a deal where it impacts performance like it's night and day, or are some people making seem like it is, when in reality it isn't.

The only patches i ever got was for spectre and meltdown. The rest of the patches aren't even available for my platform. If there is, then they are not making it any easier for me to find it, so i can download and patch my system. 

Who is responsible for releasing the patch. microsoft, intel, amd, or the board makers, asus, msi, & gigabyte. If it's the board makers, asus isn't doing a good job at it. The last bios they have for my board is from 2018 and it's a beta that probably took care of meltdown and spectre. After that they abandoned it. So are they saying want "patch" go buy a new board and cpu?!

Intel Xeon E5 1650 v3 @ 3.5GHz 6C:12T / CM212 Evo / Asus X99 Deluxe / 16GB (4x4GB) DDR4 3000 Trident-Z / Samsung 850 Pro 256GB / Intel 335 240GB / WD Red 2 & 3TB / Antec 850w / RTX 2070 / Win10 Pro x64

HP Envy X360 15: Intel Core i5 8250U @ 1.6GHz 4C:8T / 8GB DDR4 / Intel UHD620 + Nvidia GeForce MX150 4GB / Intel 120GB SSD / Win10 Pro x64

 

HP Envy x360 BP series Intel 8th gen

AMD ThreadRipper 2!

5820K & 6800K 3-way SLI mobo support list

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×