More Intel leaks.. this one is not good though

[NumLock21]

2 minutes ago, luigi90210 said:

ya i just rechecked your scores and they are up, idk what the issue is then

as far as i understand how nvidia drivers and amd drivers work the nvidia draw calls use your cpu to perform them so CPU performance is 100% linked to how well your GPU will perform 

have you tried rerunning the tests? 

For the gpu only and it got even worse.

Now at 43FPS.

 

Now to be fair, i went back to check my old CB15 score and they were,

single core: 146

multicore: 547

So that means the cpu did degrade in performance after the update, even though those new runs says otherwise.

 

Original CB15 score

single: 146

multi: 547

gpu: n/a

 

New CB15 score (before meltdown and sceptre update)

single: 66

multi: 527

 

New CB15 score (after meltdown and sceptre update)

single: 103

multi: 531

[NumLock21]

1 minute ago, porina said:

Did you try multiple runs to make sure?

Doing that this very moment. Will update with them results.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, Hellion said:

Read your post. You continue to regurgitate the same nonsense that unless you have an engineering degree you have no place to criticize a company as a customer. 

 

You also continue to assume that a CEO with tons of money on the line is completely innocent and this is all a misunderstanding.

 

Both point to the only reasonable conclusion that you are so blinded by brand loyalty that you're willing to go to great lengths of ignorance to defend a corporation you have no real stake in.

 

In short you are the perfectly molded gold standard for what is a sheep.

 

Intel could shit a brick in your bed, rub your nose in it and you'd turn around and ask for more.

Please for the love of god read my posts. I am not saying you cant criticize Intel or any company for what has happened, I am saying you can't level an accusation of intention without proof, in this case you'd need to have the same knowledge of processor design as Intel to have that proof.

[luigi90210]

4 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

For the gpu only and it got even worse.

Now at 43FPS.

 

Now to be fair, i went back to check my old CB15 score and they were,

single core: 146

multicore: 547

So that means the cpu did degrade in performance after the update, even though those new runs says otherwise.

 

Original CB15 score

single: 146

multi: 547

gpu: n/a

 

New CB15 score (before meltdown and sceptre update)

single: 66

multi: 527

 

New CB15 score (after meltdown and sceptre update)

single: 103

multi: 531

ya if your CB scores are down to 103 from 146 than im not surprised that your graphics performance is suffering, it looks like your new CB score before the patch might have been ran when something else was running as thats an unusually low score(either that or it is on battery) 

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Please for the love of god read my posts. I am not saying you cant criticize Intel or any company for what has happened, I am saying you can't level an accusation of intention without proof, in this case you'd need to have the same knowledge of processor design as Intel to have that proof.

Well the real issue is a lot of people are criticizing Intel specifically for not knowing something that the entire industry did not know about. Computer science is just like any other science, you can't know what you don't know. There were a group of researchers who had a theory and worked on it for a long time and came up with a result, this one happened to be true.

 

Everyone was unaware and completely different architectures (ARM and IBM Power) designed by different people following different methodology about CPU design still made the same design flaw because that's what everyone in computer science knew at the time.

 

We're essentially proclaiming scientists are  incompetent after discovering a new element or new species, how could we not know it's been there for hundreds/thousands of years for all to see yet everyone missed it.

 

There are elements of Intel's design we can criticize but they were by no means incompetent but they should have put more protection in to their design even if in theory it's not required because breaking out of memory areas in this way should not be possible.  

[NumLock21]

12 minutes ago, luigi90210 said:

ya if your CB scores are down to 103 from 146 than im not surprised that your graphics performance is suffering, it looks like your new CB score before the patch might have been ran when something else was running as thats an unusually low score(either that or it is on battery) 

the 146 score was from around 3 months ago.

[luigi90210]

Just now, NumLock21 said:

the 146 score was from around 3 months ago.

ya but to drop from 146 to 66 is well outside of margin of error, there might have been a factor that was at play that you were not aware of(like a virus scan running or being on battery when you thought you were plugged in, ect.) and unless you want to uninstall the update to retest id say your score from 3 months ago is valid still

5 months ago i ran a 835 on CB with my R5 1400 @3.9ghz but now when i run it i get 824, only difference is that when i did the initial run it was on a fresh install while this new run i did isnt 

[Taf the Ghost]

1 hour ago, NumLock21 said:

Here are my results for the 8th Gen Core i5 8250U.

 

Before update

 

After update

 

Performance actually increase for my cpu, but gpu took a major hit.

Rest in Pepperoni @ Nvidia

F....

That looks more like a massive driver update issue.

[NumLock21]

Ran it 5 times and here they are. The results is after applying the update

1st run

 

2nd

 

3rd

 

4th

 

5th

 

[mr moose]

31 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Well the real issue is a lot of people are criticizing Intel specifically for not knowing something that the entire industry did not know about. Computer science is just like any other science, you can't know what you don't know. There were a group of researchers who had a theory and worked on it for a long time and came up with a result, this one happened to be true.

 

Everyone was unaware and completely different architectures (ARM and IBM Power) designed by different people following different methodology about CPU design still made the same design flaw because that's what everyone in computer science knew at the time.

 

We're essentially proclaiming scientists are  incompetent after discovering a new element or new species, how could we not know it's been there for hundreds/thousands of years for all to see yet everyone missed it.

 

There are elements of Intel's design we can criticize but they were by no means incompetent but they should have put more protection in to their design even if in theory it's not required because breaking out of memory areas in this way should not be possible.  

 

It really boggles my mind as to why so many enthusiasts on this forum (who think they know a lot about CPU's) can't see the inherent difference between a security bug and any other bug (E.G memory controller). And why that makes it inherently hard for engineers to be aware or mitigate against bugs that are essentially invisible and have no immediate (or even long term) effects.

 

 

 

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Ran it 5 times and here they are. The results is after applying the update

1st run

 

2nd

 

3rd

 

4th

 

5th

 

 Are all those results within margin of error?  Including the before?  It is going to make a lot of people breath easier if it turns out the performance hit is barely noticeable.

[NumLock21]

3 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 Are all those results within margin of error?  Including the before?  It is going to make a lot of people breath easier if it turns out the performance hit is barely noticeable.

These runs are after applying the update.

 

 

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, NumLock21 said:

These runs are after applying the update.

 

 

What I mean is, could the variations between runs be just as big/small regardless of the update due to natural variation in the machine?

[Zodiark1593]

Any idea what vulnerabilities Qualcomm's custom CPUs are liable to experience. I'd expect both of the Spectre examples at least, though as the original Kryo core is fairly large, I'm concerned it might also be affected by Meltdown as well (like Cortex A75 and literally every Intel CPU in the past decade).

[LAwLz]

On 1/4/2018 at 6:56 PM, AresKrieger said:

Well then AMD's reddit is useless, and should not be on here as if it were factual it is clearly incorrect

Welcome to /r/AMD...

I am amazed that people still browse that subreddit. It's full of misinformation.

If you ever read something positive about AMD or negative about Intel on /r/AMD, there is a 50% chance that it's either completely false or misleading (by for example leaving out details).

 

On 1/4/2018 at 8:42 PM, JTLSound said:

Also read: It's not just us! Spread the bad PR across our rivals too!

I read that statement as more of a warning.

"Hey there are a lot of news about our processors being vulnerable to these exploits, but please don't assume that you're safe just because you have an AMD processor".

AMD and other vendors are vulnerable to similar attacks, so I think it is important to do what Intel did there and point out that patches will need to be applied to essentially all systems, not just Intel ones.

 

On 1/4/2018 at 8:42 PM, JTLSound said:

Also read: Just keep updating and everything will be fine. We promise. Just keep buying our products and everything will be fine. Pay no mind to the Spectre behind the curtain....

Where are you getting that from? They are clearly encouraging people to update their OS. Nowhere does it say "keep buying our products and everything will be fine!".

[NumLock21]

9 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What I mean is, could the variations between runs be just as big/small regardless of the update due to natural variation in the machine?

Don't really know, but I'm not going to uninstall that update just to find out. I will however run the test again on my desktop, where it does not have the update applied yet.

One thing I've notice is the following:

Windows 10 Fall Creator Creators Update Build 1709 gets patch number KB4056892.

KB4056892 has 2 updates from Microsoft's Update Catalog, and they are Delta Update and Cumulative Update. Delta update comes in at  315.5MB and Cumulative Update is at 601.8MB.

I had downloaded both updates and was about to install them, but not first without running some initial benchmarks first, apply updates, and then run those benchmarks again to see if they are any performance difference. Well Microsoft has ruined my plan by automatically download that update and installed it, before I can get started on it. The odd part was a few minutes before Windows automatically download and installed KB4056892, I went to "Check for Windows Update",  and it says my PC is fully up to date.

 

The single core score of 66CB was when windows notified KB4056892 was installed and requires a restart, but I didn't restart yet. The single core score of 103CB was after I restarted my system. I've went to check on my listed of installed updates and there is only one KB4056892, the Cumulative one. I've tried to installed the Delta one and it says, "this patch does not apply to your computer". I know that cumulative update is basically a bunch of updates all bundles into one package.

I'm speculating that it could be a possibility that KB4056892 Delta update is the one that cause a degrade in performance and Microsoft released another one with additional fixes that degrade in performance by releasing it as KB4056892  Cumulative update.

[mr moose]

15 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

Don't really know, but I'm not going to uninstall that update just to find out. I will however run the test again on my desktop, where it does not have the update applied yet.

One thing I've notice is the following:

Windows 10 Fall Creator Creators Update Build 1709 gets patch number KB4056892.

KB4056892 has 2 updates from Microsoft's Update Catalog, and they are Delta Update and Cumulative Update. Delta update comes in at  315.5MB and Cumulative Update is at 601.8MB.

I had downloaded both updates and was about to install them, but not first without running some initial benchmarks first, apply updates, and then run those benchmarks again to see if they are any performance difference. Well Microsoft has ruined my plan by automatically download that update and installed it, before I can get started on it. The odd part was a few minutes before Windows automatically download and installed KB4056892, I went to "Check for Windows Update",  and it says my PC is fully up to date.

 

The single core score of 66CB was when windows notified KB4056892 was installed and requires a restart, but I didn't restart yet. The single core score of 103CB was after I restarted my system. I've went to check on my listed of installed updates and there is only one KB4056892, the Cumulative one. I've tried to installed the Delta one and it says, "this patch does not apply to your computer". I know that cumulative update is basically a bunch of updates all bundles into one package.

I'm speculating that it could be a possibility that KB4056892 Delta update is the one that cause a degrade in performance and Microsoft released another one with additional fixes that degrade in performance by releasing it as KB4056892  Cumulative update.

Yes, when you use windows as the average user would the updates are seamless.  At the start of the day I had no updates installed by the end of it they were all done.

 

It doesn't matter too much, over the next few weeks will most likely see more in depth benchmarks anyway.   

 

On  side note, I am going to piss my self if this patch somehow improves gaming performance.   Especially given some of the comments made here. 

[NumLock21]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Yes, when you use windows as the average user would the updates are seamless.  At the start of the day I had no updates installed by the end of it they were all done.

 

It doesn;t matter too much, over the next few weeks will most likely see more in depoth benchmarks anyway.   

 

On  side note, I am going to piss my self if this patch somehow improves gaming performance.   Especially given some of the comments made here. 

I did force checked for updates and it still says your machine is fully up to date. Then MS decides to download and installed the update anyway.

This reminds of of something like that Norton antivirus back in the old days. You scan with Norton and it says no viruses found, but you know something is wrong, so you scan it again with something else. The other antivirus detected some infections and guess what, now Norton says it has detected some infections too.

[LAwLz]

52 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It really boggles my mind as to why so many enthusiasts on this forum (who think they know a lot about CPU's) can't see the inherent difference between a security bug and any other bug (E.G memory controller). And why that makes it inherently hard for engineers to be aware or mitigate against bugs that are essentially invisible and have no immediate (or even long term) effects.

That's because most "enthusiasts" on this forum has next to no knowledge about computers.

They put together a computer using parts that got recommended to them (a task roughly as difficult as building a Lego models, which my 4 year old nephew can do) and suddenly think they are computer experts.

Code is black magic and a processor is "the computer's brain".

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, NumLock21 said:

I did force checked for updates and it still says your machine is fully up to date. Then MS decides to download and installed the update anyway.

This reminds of of something like that Norton antivirus back in the old days. You scan with Norton and it says no viruses found, but you know something is wrong, so you scan it again with something else. The other antivirus detected some infections and guess what, now Norton says it has detected some infections too.

I remember those days,  same time when norton or mcafee wouldn't install properly because another antivirus was installed.  Then not that long ago sophos started detecting itself as a virus.

 

[2unlimited]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

 

It really boggles my mind as to why so many enthusiasts on this forum (who think they know a lot about CPU's) can't see the inherent difference between a security bug and any other bug (E.G memory controller). And why that makes it inherently hard for engineers to be aware or mitigate against bugs that are essentially invisible and have no immediate (or even long term) effects.

 

 

 

Everything can be invisible if you choose not to look 

https://cyber.wtf/2017/07/28/negative-result-reading-kernel-memory-from-user-mode/

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, 2unlimited said:

Everything can be invisible if you choose not to look 

https://cyber.wtf/2017/07/28/negative-result-reading-kernel-memory-from-user-mode/

Are you accusing people of intentionally not looking?

[MatsNorway]

LMG will release a CPU guide based on this in 3.. 2....1...

[2unlimited]

Accusation might be strong term. However, if some outsider like Anders Fogh could figure it out, It's a little hard to belive that nobody for 20 years at Intel didn't see this, or even pointed at. Maybe the scale of problem was just too big to deal with. 

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, 2unlimited said:

Accusation might be strong term. However, if some outsider like Anders Fogh could figure it out, It's a little hard to belive that nobody for 20 years at Intel didn't see this, or even pointed at. Maybe the scale of problem was just too big to deal with. 

If you find it hard to believe no one saw it before then you don't understand the nature of such bugs.