Jump to content

Intel gives up on patching Spectre variant 2

56 minutes ago, AncientNerd said:

Okay except that 10 years in computer terms is more like 50-70 years in automotive terms as far as changes go. So look at it more like could you expect to get free repairs for your 1948-1968 GM vehicle? Not third party parts or used parts mind you but fresh from the factory real GM parts? Reasonable? I don't think so, think about it the same way. There is probably just about as much difference between a 1968 GM and a 2018 GM and a first gen Intel Core and a 8th gen Intel Core part - maybe less.

1st gen Intel Core and 8th gen Intel Core both share the same basic architecture, in the same way that a Radeon HD 7000 series and Vega are both GCN. The basic details hasn't changed in Intel Core series since Nehalem came out in 2008, almost 10 years ago.

 

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have 64kb L1 Cache per core

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have 256kb L2 Cache per core

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have 2MB L3 Cache per core

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have more or less the same Hyperthreading technology

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have base clocks in the 3 Ghz range (although boost clock has improved dramatically)

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have 5-way Decode

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have around 20 pipeline stages (24 vs 19)

 

The only changes have been clockspeed optimizations, slapping on some extra cores, better power efficiency & manufacturing node, and IPC developments. This sounds like a lot, because it is from the user's perspective, but consider none of these changes make the Coffee Lake fundamentally different from Nehalem. 

I am conducting some polls regarding your opinion of large technology companies. I would appreciate your response. 

Microsoft Apple Valve Google Facebook Oculus HTC AMD Intel Nvidia

I'm using this data to judge this site's biases so people can post in a more objective way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

Well these 20 year expectations are honestly stupid for consumer products. Commercial products I can see on certain levels, but in the tech industry is make little to no sense. 

 

With most consumer products you build the product and if something fails, replace the part. However, this is about bugs and vulnerabilities which there will 100% always be. Typical support or replacing a part cost nothing other than the part and the employee replacing it at that time. While in the tech world a few employees are working year round fixing bugs that WILL happen. 

 

The tech world vs normal consumer world are two different things. 

Xeons are not consumer products, neither are ATMs.

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Xeons are not consumer products, neither are ATMs.

My point still stands. It cost a business $100,000+ just to keep software and bugs up to date. If its been 10 years and a bug suddenly shows up, sorry I have no sympathy for your $300 xeon that MIGHT be vulnerable to a bug being patch by the OS as well. Neither should intel. 

 

Grow up and replace it. Have a entire cluster of them? Well better get the budget started if you are that worried. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

My point still stands. It cost a business $100,000+ just to keep software and bugs up to date. If its been 10 years and a bug suddenly shows up, sorry I have no sympathy for your $300 xeon that MIGHT be vulnerable to a bug being patch by the OS as well. Neither should intel. 

 

Grow up and replace it. Have a entire cluster of them? Well better get the budget started if you are that worried. 

"MIGHT" my butt, everyone who's not in a deep state of denial agrees that spectre is a massive problem and that it affects every intel cpu since the 90s. Businesses still use old xeons, hell, some use products from before the xeon brand existed. Just because YOU don't use it doesn't mean nobody does and it doesn't mean businesses should spend millions to replace hardware that could be fixed through software if intel wasn't too incompetent or lazy to do it.

 

None of my computers (that are used for any sort of web browsing) have a vulnerable chip in it by the way, once again, just because it doesn't affect me personally doesn't mean it's a non-issue. I would classify that realization as "growing up" for you. Besides, if you use ATMs this very much DOES affect you directly.

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, CommandMan7 said:

1st gen Intel Core and 8th gen Intel Core both share the same basic architecture, in the same way that a Radeon HD 7000 series and Vega are both GCN. The basic details hasn't changed in Intel Core series since Nehalem came out in 2008, almost 10 years ago.

 

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have 64kb L1 Cache per core

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have 256kb L2 Cache per core

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have 2MB L3 Cache per core

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have more or less the same Hyperthreading technology

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have base clocks in the 3 Ghz range (although boost clock has improved dramatically)

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have 5-way Decode

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have around 20 pipeline stages (24 vs 19)

 

The only changes have been clockspeed optimizations, slapping on some extra cores, better power efficiency & manufacturing node, and IPC developments. This sounds like a lot, because it is from the user's perspective, but consider none of these changes make the Coffee Lake fundamentally different from Nehalem. 

Sigh so a 1968 Mustang (picked because I know it is still in production) has the same 4 wheels, runs on the same fuel, uses the same lubricant, has the same controls and basically the same performance as a 2018 Mustang. Does this mean that Ford should update all of the 1968 Mustangs to have the same safety features as a 2018 model? Or even do the same age how about a 2008 model? Yea they have to have recalls but they don't have to bring them up to the same safety level right? Its exactly the same with "business" vehicles, I worked for a heavy truck manufacturer for a while and they supported back about 10 years of their product, any older than that and you were out of luck from the OEM. But there are still Heavy trucks from the '60s and '70s on the road they are just not supported by the manufacturer anymore. 

 

You can say "the CPU's are the same" all you want...but they obviously aren't or the same patch would work on the older processors that worked on the newer processors. You are comparing the 65,000 foot view of the processor not the actual details of how it gets to all of those things and it's that how that makes the difference in microcode and BIOS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Besides, if you use ATMs this very much DOES affect you directly.

Really, it's a LOT of technology.  People often think of 'Technology in their lives' as their computers, phones, game consoles and stuff.  But they forget that it's also the dispatch system for your 911 services.  It's the communications and tracking system for your transit system.  It's the back end routing to your internet connection.  It's the POS system at your grocery store which also manages stock consumption and the reordering of goods from the warehouse.  It's the monitoring and management systems for your electrical grid that is reading power consumption and spinning up or spinning down power plants to meet demand.  'Technology' is literally everywhere in our lives and our 'toys' are really the least significant part of it despite being the part we look at every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a school still using 10+ yr old hardware then it is time to budget and upgrade your labs. We are in a tech era and we need to make sure are kids are getting exposure to relevant hardware as early as possible.

 

They are doing studies now on revamping how the schools teach. They are saying moving forward they will probably start focusing on only Math and English, then changing out the other classes for things like How to manage your mental health, how to manage your money, and how to communicate/interact with others.

 

The reason for this is that information is now so readily available that the days of memorizing stuff is becoming obsolete. You can literally pull out your phone and google pretty much anything you need to know in seconds. Now does this dumb down our children? Probably, but with the way the world is changing who knows.

 

That being said. These older CPUS are all pretty much EOL. So there is little to no reason to make a huge time investment to patch them up. Intel is making the right decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

"MIGHT" my butt, everyone who's not in a deep state of denial agrees that spectre is a massive problem and that it affects every intel cpu since the 90s. Businesses still use old xeons, hell, some use products from before the xeon brand existed. Just because YOU don't use it doesn't mean nobody does and it doesn't mean businesses should spend millions to replace hardware that could be fixed through software if intel wasn't too incompetent or lazy to do it.

 

None of my computers (that are used for any sort of web browsing) have a vulnerable chip in it by the way, once again, just because it doesn't affect me personally doesn't mean it's a non-issue. I would classify that realization as "growing up" for you. Besides, if you use ATMs this very much DOES affect you directly.

Were do you get off that I dont care because it doesnt affect me? Has nothing to do with me or you or bob. My argument is that 10 years + support in the tech world is bullshit. Especially when bugs will happen and develop over time, because we are not as smart as you cant predict and prevent every bug possible. 

 

I use ATM and kiosks and bankers type my information in their PCs. But you really think before this vulnerability they were secure. ATMs are not always fully up to date and often are attacked remotely, Kiosks have full public access to them and employees just dont give a fuck and will click on what the fuck they want and even locked down, you can still get infected. 

 

You are focusing around this vulnerability and how now we are soooooo screwed. You need to open your eyes and release, dude, we were already fucked.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

My point still stands. It cost a business $100,000+ just to keep software and bugs up to date. If its been 10 years and a bug suddenly shows up, sorry I have no sympathy for your $300 xeon that MIGHT be vulnerable to a bug being patch by the OS as well. Neither should intel. 

 

Grow up and replace it. Have a entire cluster of them? Well better get the budget started if you are that worried. 

$1500 for a datacenter processor should get updates.

https://ark.intel.com/products/35430/Intel-Xeon-Processor-X5470-12M-Cache-3_33-GHz-1333-MHz-FSB

PSU Nerd | PC Parts Flipper | Cable Management Guru

Helpful Links: PSU Tier List | Why not group reg? | Avoid the EVGA G3

Helios EVO (Main Desktop) Intel Core™ i9-10900KF | 32GB DDR4-3000 | GIGABYTE Z590 AORUS ELITE | GeForce RTX 3060 Ti | NZXT H510 | EVGA G5 650W

 

Delta (Laptop) | Galaxy S21 Ultra | Pacific Spirit XT (Server)

Full Specs

Spoiler

 

Helios EVO (Main):

Intel Core™ i9-10900KF | 32GB G.Skill Ripjaws V / Team T-Force DDR4-3000 | GIGABYTE Z590 AORUS ELITE | MSI GAMING X GeForce RTX 3060 Ti 8GB GPU | NZXT H510 | EVGA G5 650W | MasterLiquid ML240L | 2x 2TB HDD | 256GB SX6000 Pro SSD | 3x Corsair SP120 RGB | Fractal Design Venturi HF-14

 

Pacific Spirit XT - Server

Intel Core™ i7-8700K (Won at LTX, signed by Dennis) | GIGABYTE Z370 AORUS GAMING 5 | 16GB Team Vulcan DDR4-3000 | Intel UrfpsgonHD 630 | Define C TG | Corsair CX450M

 

Delta - Laptop

ASUS TUF Dash F15 - Intel Core™ i7-11370H | 16GB DDR4 | RTX 3060 | 500GB NVMe SSD | 200W Brick | 65W USB-PD Charger

 


 

Intel is bringing DDR4 to the mainstream with the Intel® Core™ i5 6600K and i7 6700K processors. Learn more by clicking the link in the description below.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JDE said:

intel's replacing those for free or at a heavy discount. Big companies are supposedly getting that deal (amazon, google, etc).

 

so the datacenters running those old outdated cpus are most likely getting some kind of replacement or loyalty discount from intel to avoid them jumping ship to amd epyc

 

how true is this? no clue, there were a few rumours months ago but since then nothing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Notional said:

The entire point of the bios updates are to give back some of the performance decrease brought on by the windows security patches

Ehm, no? At least not from what I've heard.

The Windows security patches are not the be all and end all solution. Spectre has to be fixed at all levels, including recompiling programs too, in order to be fully protected. The BIOS updates are just one in a long line of things that needs to be changed.

At least that's my understanding of it, but if you have heard differently then I'd like to read about it.

 

1 hour ago, Notional said:

I lost at least 20% performance in my example due to greedumb Intel.

I find that hard to believe, because all benchmarks I can find shows that there is no performance impact in the vast majority of games. Here is GTA 5 as an example:

image.png.82445737ee633a5dfaf6118b87bfce25.png

 

 

And before you ask, yes this is without the BIOS update (because the BIOS update Intel released was pulled, since it caused system instability, and Tom's explains this on page 1 of the article).

My guess is that your performance regression is caused by something else, if not entirely made up or incorrectly measured.

 

 

1 hour ago, CommandMan7 said:

The only changes have been clockspeed optimizations, slapping on some extra cores, better power efficiency & manufacturing node, and IPC developments. This sounds like a lot, because it is from the user's perspective, but consider none of these changes make the Coffee Lake fundamentally different from Nehalem. 

Way to oversimplify things. Like I said earlier, there has been over 50% increase in IPC since Nehalem. Not to mention all the extra instruction support that has also been added.

There is a very big difference between Nehalem and Coffee Lake. Both performance wise and architecture wise (on top of process node improvements).

You can't just look at the amount of cache and go "oh, it's the same amount so therefore they are the same".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Ehm, no? At least not from what I've heard.

The Windows security patches are not the be all and end all solution. Spectre has to be fixed at all levels, including recompiling programs too, in order to be fully protected. The BIOS updates are just one in a long line of things that needs to be changed.

At least that's my understanding of it, but if you have heard differently then I'd like to read about it.

 

I find that hard to believe, because all benchmarks I can find shows that there is no performance impact in the vast majority of games. Here is GTA 5 as an example:

Depends on the game and the CPU. Obviously older CPU's will be hit harder. A Coffee Lake CPU will of course not be CPU limited in GTAV, even if it gets a 10-20% performance decrease. An older CPU like mine does, however. Here you can see that Witcher 3 is hit pretty bad by it:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-does-patching-cpu-security-flaws-impact-gaming-performance (and that is on an i5 8400 (6 core).

 

Open world games are hit harder due to IO streaming + lots of physics and AI. If your older CPU is already a limit, then the patch makes it much worse.

 

Also that Tomshardware test, is that just the ordinary built in bench, or is it actual GTA online inner city playing? Because that is not the same.

 

This is an interesting read: https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/microsoftsecure/2018/01/09/understanding-the-performance-impact-of-spectre-and-meltdown-mitigations-on-windows-systems/

Here is the important part:

Quote
  • Windows 10 running on Skylake, Kaby Lake or newer CPU show benchmarks show “single-digit slowdowns”, but most users shouldn’t expect to see noticeable slowdowns
  • Windows 10 running on Haswell or older CPUs “show more significant slowdowns” and “some users will notice a decrease in system performance”

Now, I can't find the source stating the bios updates should improve the performance a little, and since there is none for my motherboard yet, I can't test myself, so I can't prove it. However, doesn't make my point worse that the performance will be even worse then, lol.

Watching Intel have competition is like watching a headless chicken trying to get out of a mine field

CPU: Intel I7 4790K@4.6 with NZXT X31 AIO; MOTHERBOARD: ASUS Z97 Maximus VII Ranger; RAM: 8 GB Kingston HyperX 1600 DDR3; GFX: ASUS R9 290 4GB; CASE: Lian Li v700wx; STORAGE: Corsair Force 3 120GB SSD; Samsung 850 500GB SSD; Various old Seagates; PSU: Corsair RM650; MONITOR: 2x 20" Dell IPS; KEYBOARD/MOUSE: Logitech K810/ MX Master; OS: Windows 10 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I get that in the short term they make more money by not bothering to patch it but I’ve seen sooo many posts (wrong btw) about how you should buy intel just because people think it’s more secure. They’ve built a brand around the i-series of reliability and efficiency. Especially around the mobile business market

 

They’re making AMD chips seem an awful nice prospect right now, even if it’s all psychological your brand image plays a huge role in your market performance. EVGA is a great example of what I’m talking about 

 

 

 

That's an F in the profile pic

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Notional said:

Depends on the game and the CPU. Obviously older CPU's will be hit harder. A Coffee Lake CPU will of course not be CPU limited in GTAV, even if it gets a 10-20% performance decrease. An older CPU like mine does, however. Here you can see that Witcher 3 is hit pretty bad by it:

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-does-patching-cpu-security-flaws-impact-gaming-performance (and that is on an i5 8400 (6 core).

 

Open world games are hit harder due to IO streaming + lots of physics and AI. If your older CPU is already a limit, then the patch makes it much worse.

 

Also that Tomshardware test, is that just the ordinary built in bench, or is it actual GTA online inner city playing? Because that is not the same.

 

This is an interesting read: https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/microsoftsecure/2018/01/09/understanding-the-performance-impact-of-spectre-and-meltdown-mitigations-on-windows-systems/

Here is the important part:

I don't get where you are getting this 10-20% number from.

Even the Witcher benchmark you posted (which I should point out is something you cherry picked, the other benchmarks are all within margin of error), which is the biggest decrease I have seen so far, is 8%. That's quite far from the -20% you are saying you got in GTA5.

 

I am fairly sure physics and AI won't get impacted by the patches, since as far as I know those are not system calls (which is what is being affected by both Meltdown and Spectre patches). For IO there will be a performance hit though, but game FPS is usually not that IO dependent (hence why you don't typically don't see FPS increases from getting a faster SSD).

 

21 minutes ago, Notional said:

Now, I can't find the source stating the bios updates should improve the performance a little, and since there is none for my motherboard yet, I can't test myself, so I can't prove it. However, doesn't make my point worse that the performance will be even worse then, lol.

Even worse than what? Yes, the patches has a higher impact on older systems, and yes there is a performance penalty for certain kinds of operations.

What I asked was for a source on the BIOS updates restoring performance, which I have no been able to find and it goes against what I have heard. In fact, the link you posted shows that there won't be any performance increase from the BIOS updates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Even the Witcher benchmark you posted (which I should point out is something you cherry picked, the other benchmarks are all within margin of error), which is the biggest decrease I have seen so far, is 8%. That's quite far from the -20% you are saying you got in GTA5.

It's also a 3 generation newer cpu with 50% more cores. And as my sources showed, older cpu's are hit harder.

 

Open world games stream data, so they are hit harder by meltdown, which is why Witcher 3 shows such a large difference.

 

I can't find any Haswell benchmarks because the reviewers are giving intel a full pass apparently.

 

As for the bios stuff, I didn't mean it would make performance better than initially, but rather negate some of the performance penalty from the software patches, but since they have been pulled by Intel, who knows. Again very little benching done by the tech youtubers on this.

Watching Intel have competition is like watching a headless chicken trying to get out of a mine field

CPU: Intel I7 4790K@4.6 with NZXT X31 AIO; MOTHERBOARD: ASUS Z97 Maximus VII Ranger; RAM: 8 GB Kingston HyperX 1600 DDR3; GFX: ASUS R9 290 4GB; CASE: Lian Li v700wx; STORAGE: Corsair Force 3 120GB SSD; Samsung 850 500GB SSD; Various old Seagates; PSU: Corsair RM650; MONITOR: 2x 20" Dell IPS; KEYBOARD/MOUSE: Logitech K810/ MX Master; OS: Windows 10 Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, CommandMan7 said:

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have 64kb L1 Cache per core

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have 256kb L2 Cache per core

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have 2MB L3 Cache per core

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have more or less the same Hyperthreading technology

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have base clocks in the 3 Ghz range (although boost clock has improved dramatically)

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have 5-way Decode

Both Nehalem and Coffee lake have around 20 pipeline stages (24 vs 19)

 

None of this is how you compare CPUs.

You may want to do a computer engineering or computer science degree to understand how the logic inside a CPU works, and why the things you listed have almost nothing to do with the fundamental design and architecture of a processor.

NEW PC build: Blank Heaven   minimalist white and black PC     Old S340 build log "White Heaven"        The "LIGHTCANON" flashlight build log        Project AntiRoll (prototype)        Custom speaker project

Spoiler

Ryzen 3950X | AMD Vega Frontier Edition | ASUS X570 Pro WS | Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB | NZXT H500 | Seasonic Prime Fanless TX-700 | Custom loop | Coolermaster SK630 White | Logitech MX Master 2S | Samsung 980 Pro 1TB + 970 Pro 512GB | Samsung 58" 4k TV | Scarlett 2i4 | 2x AT2020

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of a shame as I've got a i7 950 (Nehalem) -- the 950 is still a reasonably beefy CPU and I've used it to run long-running compilation-jobs, for example. Oh well, I didn't expect it to be receiving any sort of support anymore anyways, so I'm not exactly caught with my panties down here.

Hand, n. A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody’s pocket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mynameisjuan said:

Ok so how long do you expect them to keep this up? Just because it was $1500 it should be updated forever?

 

Fuck you can by it on ebay for $58

 

The point here really is the level of vulnerability, i mean even microsoft released some security patches for windows xp AFTER the end of life / end of support happened, because it identified that people still use them, and that the security risks were high enough that they figured they should provide an update for them also.

 

I agree that you cannot support a product forever, but at the same time, the level of the vulnerability also has to be taken into account. 

There are lots of systems out there using really old hardware / cpus purely because there is not always a business case to replace every single CPU and Board every 5 years.

 

Alot of companies do replace hardware on a regular cycle, for there core infrastructure normally, and the growing requirement for more memory / cpu power with newer generations of software, however when the software you run doesnt require an 8th gen I7 and 16gb of memory, why should you upgrade it ? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, factorialandha said:

The point here really is the level of vulnerability, i mean even microsoft released some security patches for windows xp AFTER the end of life / end of support happened, because it identified that people still use them, and that the security risks were high enough that they figured they should provide an update for them also.

 

I agree that you cannot support a product forever, but at the same time, the level of the vulnerability also has to be taken into account. 

There are lots of systems out there using really old hardware / cpus purely because there is not always a business case to replace every single CPU and Board every 5 years.

 

Alot of companies do replace hardware on a regular cycle, for there core infrastructure normally, and the growing requirement for more memory / cpu power with newer generations of software, however when the software you run doesnt require an 8th gen I7 and 16gb of memory, why should you upgrade it ? 

 

I get that this vulnerability sucks, but no matter the severity it cant be supported forever. People still use XP and refuse to let go, Microsoft is trying but public outcry in that disgusting OS is keeping it alive slowly as banks and critical security systems either cant be updated or the IT is lazy. Mostly just to cover their own ass. Microsoft has literally no liability to do it. 

 

Im not saying its necessary to replace every 5 years, but there needs to be a point when support has its limits. 10 years in the tech world is a hell of a lot and improvement and design changes over the years can drastically change. 

 

But for the if software is working fine, why upgrade? 

Well true, but thats YOUR decision. Do you absolutely need the security? Do you ever browse the web or only use it for meme and never type any personal data? However, where this makes the most impact (businesses) security should be top priority and regular hardware upgrades not just for security but hardware should be upgraded for stability and the inevitable time it will die. 

 

Bugs will always exist in software and even hardware and 10 years down the line the 8700 and newer will have a specific bug and people will complain that it needs to be fixed and supported because its powerful enough and why should they upgrade and intel is ripping them off.  I have an LG OLED tv, it has limited life and will burn out, even though it was expensive, its still not LGs responsible for its death. Its the same case. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AncientNerd said:

Okay except that 10 years in computer terms is more like 50-70 years in automotive terms as far as changes go.

What?  hardly anything has changed in the last ten years. Technology doesn't obsolete itself the way it used to.  There are literally billions of people who could be running a 10 year old CPU in their computer and they wouldn't know bar for the fact they brought the machine.   I still use ten year old CPU's in my NAS and workshop computers. 

 

 

7 hours ago, AncientNerd said:

So look at it more like could you expect to get free repairs for your 1948-1968 GM vehicle? Not third party parts or used parts mind you but fresh from the factory real GM parts? Reasonable? I don't think so, think about it the same way. There is probably just about as much difference between a 1968 GM and a 2018 GM and a first gen Intel Core and a 8th gen Intel Core part - maybe less.

 

As I said, I don't how I feel about it, I don't expect free stuff for old products, but I do expect companies to support their products when the fault is theirs and not general wear and tear.    Hell there are even recalls here In Australia for cars with faulty airbags going back to 2001.  That's 17 year old product not covered by any warranty, but because it's a design fault with safety implications the manufacturer has to fix it free.  So yes, I do expect a certain degree of support when the issue is design related and not age or use or simple evolution of technology.

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

Fuck. Rip my spare parts family rig.

"We also blind small animals with cosmetics.
We do not sell cosmetics. We just blind animals."

 

"Please don't mistake us for Equifax. Those fuckers are evil"

 

This PSA brought to you by Equifacks.
PMSL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, AshleyAshes said:

But how exactly does an ATM go 'out of date'?  It was built to do one single purpose, run a display, interact with the user and their credentials, communicate with the network and dispense money.  It's job doesn't 'evolve'.  There's no 'high resolution money update'.  It's a money kiosks who's role in the universe is entirely static.  So why should it be 'upgraded' when it does it's job exactly as it did when it was new?  The vulnerability is a design flaw that was present since the day it was manufactured so  how is it unreasonable to want a patch rather than saying 'They shouldn't put it in a dumpster 5 years ago anyway!'

 

I think a lot of people on this forum get clouded by the CONSUMER electronic upgrade cycles and forget that in industrial and commercial applications, a lot of technology is turn-key.  You can install it and outside of maintenance, it'll perform it's job just fine for 20 years and that's not a 'failure to upgrade' it's 'it still does it's task perfectly'.

You'd be surprised at how may 386 systems are still operational because they just won't die.

"We also blind small animals with cosmetics.
We do not sell cosmetics. We just blind animals."

 

"Please don't mistake us for Equifax. Those fuckers are evil"

 

This PSA brought to you by Equifacks.
PMSL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Notional said:

It's also a 3 generation newer cpu with 50% more cores. And as my sources showed, older cpu's are hit harder.

I don't get your point. We're talking about percentages here. 10% is 10%, regardless of how many cores the processor got.

Each system call is now slower, so the more system calls a processor can handle, the more overhead there will be, which evens out to the same % everywhere.

 

If the game was CPU bound and you got 10 FPS for each core, you would get 60 FPS with a 6 core and 40 FPS with a quad core.

Change that to 9 FPS per core and you get 51 FPS with the 6 core and 46 FPS with the quad core. It's still the same percentages of performance change, even though the core count changed.

 

You're correct in that older processors got hit harder, but I find it hard to believe that there is such a massive difference as you say. Especially not since I have not found any evidence for it.

 

 

4 hours ago, Notional said:

Open world games stream data, so they are hit harder by meltdown, which is why Witcher 3 shows such a large difference.

GTA5 is also open world, and as you can see in Tom's benchmarks there was no difference. It's within margin of error.

You can not generalize it like "all open world games functions this way, so therefore they will all get hit hard by meltdown".

Also, I am starting to wonder why we are even talking about Meltdown when this is about Spectre.

 

And like I said earlier, I doubt it affects performance. If that was the case then getting a faster SSD would increase your FPS in The Witcher or other open world games, but as far as I know it will just reduce/remove pop-ins (not FPS).

 

 

4 hours ago, Notional said:

I can't find any Haswell benchmarks because the reviewers are giving intel a full pass apparently.

Here you go, Haswell-E benchmarks. First page on Google. Please note that he dropped the 1440p results because they showed no difference, and the 1080p and 720p results barely shows any difference either.

And yes, Ghost Recon Wildlands is an open world game.

 

4 hours ago, Notional said:

As for the bios stuff, I didn't mean it would make performance better than initially, but rather negate some of the performance penalty from the software patches, but since they have been pulled by Intel, who knows. Again very little benching done by the tech youtubers on this.

Again, I don't get where you got that idea from. I have never heard anyone say the BIOS updates would help negate the performance impact.

Are you sure you're not confusing the BIOS update with the switch from IBRS to retpoline? I am not sure if IBRS was ever implemented in Windows (or Linux for that matter), but it was an idea they had. However, they decided that retpoline was much faster so they went with that instead. That is not a BIOS update though. That was done by recompiling things with a retpoline aware compiler.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, ScratchCat said:

today a 6 year old system is fine if you are not gaming or using it for heavy productivity tasks.

Even gaming is okay, my 4670k only needs to be 300 MHz above the clock of a 7th gen CPU.... (8th gen is the same as 7th but with plus cores)

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

×