The Thing About Spectre and Meltdown

[Sober2ndThought]

So here is the thing, I am getting deeply suspicious about the Spectre and Meltdown security fixes. 

 

It just seem way to convenient that the fixes for these essentially cripple someone’s computer if its running Older Haswell CPUs or Windows 7 or both. I have read reports that the performance drop could be anywhere between 30-50 percent once all the fixes are applied. 

 

Don’t get me wrong, this problem needs to be fixed but did it need to happen with these kinds of performance hits?

 

Knowing Intel in 6 months they will release a new CPU, which apparently has none of the above issues, but requires a new LGA socket. Unhappy about the performance hits cause by the Spectre and Meltdown fixes, don't worry we have a totally new CPU with none of the above problems, and it preforms just as quick as your old CPU did before we crippled it. 

[seon123]

Next gen Intel CPUs will have the issue. The reason it comes with a performance hit is because it's a software fix. 

The performance hit doesn't affect normal users, it's the servers that lose significant amounts of performance.

 

Also, wrong section

[bleedblue]

Wrong section bud

[AresKrieger]

16 minutes ago, Sober2ndThought said:

30-50

30% is an absolute max, it's not going to be higher and the worst hit I've seen was 17-22%, this also does not apply to consumer software with the sole exception of NVME SSD 4k random read speeds

[leadeater]

Moved to General Discussion

[Arika]

46 minutes ago, Sober2ndThought said:

I have read reports that the performance drop could be anywhere between 30-50 percent once all the fixes are applied. 

if you're one of those people that believes this without knowing what those numbers apply to, then you are one of those people that will not be affected by any performance loss

[Cookybiscuit]

All part of the CIA's plan to get everyone using Botnet 10.

[AshleyAshes]

2 hours ago, Sober2ndThought said:

Don’t get me wrong, this problem needs to be fixed but did it need to happen with these kinds of performance hits?

 

Knowing Intel in 6 months they will release a new CPU, which apparently has none of the above issues, but requires a new LGA socket. Unhappy about the performance hits cause by the Spectre and Meltdown fixes, don't worry we have a totally new CPU with none of the above problems, and it preforms just as quick as your old CPU did before we crippled it. 

So, what you are saying is, that with the MASSIVE amount of scrutiny on Intel and other CPU manufacturers right now, that their microcode and firmware updates, plus software updates for open source platforms such as Linux, as well as corporate third parties like Apple and Microsoft, are ALL part of a conspiracy to artificially cripple older CPUs, but no one is ever going to look at the code and point that out?

 

That's a pretty stupid and illogical conspiracy theory, don't you think about it?

Like... Let's just imagine this for a second...

 

Intel: "Hello Amazon/Google/Everyone Else, you know those bajillion Intel CPUs you run for AWS, YouTube and the rest of the universe?  Looks like they suck now due to our fix which we super need you to not look at.  Oopsie doodle.  How many new CPUs can we put you down for? "

Amazon/Google/Everyone Else: "...Yeah... Just a second.  We're going to get a thousand highly skilled engineers to examine your fixes..."

 

Intel: "What!?  THERE'S NO WAY THAT WE COULD HAVE FORESEEN YOU DOING THAT!  THAT IS SUPER NOT FAIR!  WE PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THIS POORLY THOUGHT OUT CONSPIRACY!!!"

 

...Yup, that sounds pretty stupid to me.  ...SO IT MUST BE WHAT'S HAPPENING!

[Sober2ndThought]

I just find it a bit convinent that the only fix they could have come up with came with a massive performance drop. It just feels to convinent. 

[NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle]

8 minutes ago, Sober2ndThought said:

I just find it a bit convinent that the only fix they could have come up with came with a massive performance drop. It just feels to convinent. 

As much as I want to go in the conspiracy territory, the truth is most people won't notice a difference at all when applying the fix. Yes, you can benchmark it and see that you've lost a bit of performance, but it's not like you'll would've noticed that performance loss if you didn't knew about it.

Everyone is just freaking out over that first assessment that you will instantly notice a decrease of performance up to 30% or higher, switch in some case is true, but for the most part it's not. The loss is just in some specific operations.

So it's not that somehow Intel magically found out about this problem just right now when they're going to release a new series of processors later on this year. Besides, the most obvious proof of this is that it's not limited to Intel processors.

[Sober2ndThought]

Just now, NvidiaIntelAMDLoveTriangle said:

As much as I want to go in the conspiracy territory, the truth is most people won't notice a difference at all when applying the fix. Yes, you can benchmark it and see that you've lost a bit of performance, but it's not like you'll would've noticed that performance loss if you didn't knew about it.

Everyone is just freaking out over that first assessment that you will instantly notice a decrease of performance up to 30% or higher, switch in some case is true, but for the most part it's not. The loss is just in some specific operations.

So it's not that somehow Intel magically found out about this problem just right now when they're going to release a new series of processors later on this year. Besides, the most obvious proof of this is that it's not limited to Intel processors.

See part of the reason I am going into it is that they have known since summer and there may have been insider trading which also makes me suspicious. I know the fix needs to be done, theres no question about it. 

 

I play mostly CPU intensive games so it will be effecting me more than othersu. Second is this the end? are we going to take the performance hit and not get a long term solution?

[Arika]

6 hours ago, Sober2ndThought said:

I just find it a bit convinent that the only fix they could have come up with came with a massive performance drop. It just feels to convinent. 

yeah, they have been planning this all to happen just before the next release of their next line of CPUs, multiple generations of CPUs were made under the guise of "one day this is going to be discovered, there will be a performance loss to fix it which will make people who own any of the past 10 years with of CPUs want to upgrade"

 

it's like the worst long con in history, Jesus christ man, listen to your self. the fix had to be rushed to patch the security issue, so they didn't have time to create a work around that wouldn't affect performance, but now that is it patched they have plenty of time to create work arounds to mitigate any performance loss

 

With that said...

Quote

I play mostly CPU intensive games so it will be effecting me more than othersu. Second is this the end? are we going to take the performance hit and not get a long term solution?

no it wont. the 30% performance loss does not effect games and if it does it's going to be so insignificant that it's not even worth mentioning , so i'm going to quote my self again

Quote

if you're one of those people that believes this without knowing what those numbers apply to, then you are one of those people that will not be affected by any performance loss

it is very specific works loads that will notice UP TO 30% loss. gaming and normal consumer activities is not in those specific workloads

[straight_stewie]

11 hours ago, Sober2ndThought said:

It just seem way to convenient that the fixes for these essentially cripple someone’s computer if its running Older Haswell CPUs or Windows 7 or both. I have read reports that the performance drop could be anywhere between 30-50 percent once all the fixes are applied. 

 

Look into the technical aspect of how the fix works, specifically for Meltdown.

[AshleyAshes]

1 hour ago, Sierra Fox said:

yeah, they have been planning this all to happen just before the next release of their next line of CPUs, multiple generations of CPUs were made under the guise of "one day this is going to be discovered, there will be a performance loss to fix it which will make people who own any of the past 10 years with of CPUs want to upgrade"

And think about all the money Intel can make from the many series of law suits they'll face!  ...Wait... That's the opposite of making money...

[Arika]

1 minute ago, AshleyAshes said:

And think about all the money Intel can make from the many series of law suits they'll face!  ...Wait... That's the opposite of making money...

lawsuits are the new profits, didn't you hear?

[AshleyAshes]

1 minute ago, Sierra Fox said:

lawsuits are the new profits, didn't you hear?

...Well, it is for -all- the lawyers involved...

 

Intel Execs: "What are you going to do!?"
Intel Lawyer: "This is going to be a bajillion billable hours.  I'm getting a boat, that's what. :3"

[Sober2ndThought]

4 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

Look into the technical aspect of how the fix works, specifically for Meltdown.

4 hours ago, Sierra Fox said:

yeah, they have been planning this all to happen just before the next release of their next line of CPUs, multiple generations of CPUs were made under the guise of "one day this is going to be discovered, there will be a performance loss to fix it which will make people who own any of the past 10 years with of CPUs want to upgrade"

 

it's like the worst long con in history, Jesus christ man, listen to your self. the fix had to be rushed to patch the security issue, so they didn't have time to create a work around that wouldn't affect performance, but now that is it patched they have plenty of time to create work arounds to mitigate any performance loss

 

With that said...

no it wont. the 30% performance loss does not effect games and if it does it's going to be so insignificant that it's not even worth mentioning , so i'm going to quote my self again

it is very specific works loads that will notice UP TO 30% loss. gaming and normal consumer activities is not in those specific workloads

 

Fair enough, I can see where you guys all thing I am being a conspiracy nut, but honestly even if there was no conspiracy there is negligence. 

The consumer is getting hosed. End of story. Why is there not a product recall or some type of compensation being given to consumers? 

 

In any other industry this would have warranted response to the end consumer. When Volkswagon falsified emissions data they had to give compenstation to their consumers (6 years of extended warranty), and had to recall about half a million cars. 

 

To me it's all win-win for Intel and the other CPU manufactures (assuming they aren't successful sued). Hey we didn't have to replace the flawed product, we fixed it by reducing the product performance and to fix it the end consumer had to buy our new product. 

[Arika]

52 minutes ago, Sober2ndThought said:

Why is there not a product recall or some type of compensation being given to consumers?

you have to be trolling right?

 

recall EVERY SINGLE CPU created in the last 10 years?, and replace them with what? they have to completely re-architect how the CPUs work.

 

Quote

we fixed it by reducing the product performance

which will be mitigated over time since they now how the time to streamline the fix.

[JoostinOnline]

16 minutes ago, Sierra Fox said:

EVERY SINGLE CPU created in the last 10 years

Well there are a few CPU's that are immune.  I don't disagree with you, I just wanted to clarify.

[Sober2ndThought]

21 minutes ago, Sierra Fox said:

you have to be trolling right?

 

recall EVERY SINGLE CPU created in the last 10 years?, and replace them with what? they have to completely re-architect how the CPUs work.

 

which will be mitigated over time since they now how the time to streamline the fix.

No but offer compensation, hows this, the lost value between January 3rd and 4th for your CPU? I could have sold my Haswell CPU for singificantly more on January 3rd than I can today, just because of the stigma attached. 

 

It wouldn't even need to be 10 years, just any processor which was still usable on January 3, 2017 which suffered singificant performance drops is compenstated for. 

 

Although if this was a car, it would be recalled over this. 

[leadeater]

30 minutes ago, JoostinOnline said:

Well there are a few CPU's that are immune.  I don't disagree with you, I just wanted to clarify.

Intel recalls it's CPUs and gives everyone AMD processors as replacements .

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Sober2ndThought said:

In any other industry this would have warranted response to the end consumer. When Volkswagon falsified emissions data they had to give compenstation to their consumers (6 years of extended warranty), and had to recall about half a million cars. 

Issue here is Intel did not lie about performance or any aspect of the product.

 

What you are saying is that someone who got a car in 2003 with a current safety rating of 5 stars should have their car recalled and compensated when the safety rating criteria is improved and your car is no longer 5 stars.

 

What everyone is a victim of is the collective human limitation of information and knowledge, we as a collective improved our knowledge furthering our progress in science and technology however as a consequence of this flaws were identified in existing products.

[Damascus]

51 minutes ago, Sober2ndThought said:

Although if this was a car, it would be recalled over this. 

Not in a million years, bugs like these are relatively common - usually just get fixed before anyone knows about them.

[Arika]

2 hours ago, Sober2ndThought said:

No but offer compensation,

for what reason? you still have the same CPU, it didn't change

 

no CPU manufacturer guarantees a specific benchmark number when you buy it, you're buying a specific model running at a specific clock.

 

If your post history is still accurate, you have an i5-4690k meaning you bought a CPU with

• 4 Cores
• 4 threads
• base clock 3.5GHz
• Turbo 3.9Ghz
• 6MB SmartCache
• 5 GT/s Bus speed

when the patch was applied, what of this is no longer accurate?

 

Quote

the lost value between January 3rd and 4th for your CPU?

No one controls or guarantees the resale value of anything, so this point is invalid. 1 of a billion reasons can affect the resale value of something.

[straight_stewie]

11 hours ago, Sober2ndThought said:

Fair enough, I can see where you guys all thing I am being a conspiracy nut, but honestly even if there was no conspiracy there is negligence. 

To quote a very good series of movies: "Is it negligence if 100% of a companies work is not done without error? After being in the experimental aircraft business for 20 years I can tell you that that standard is just unachievable."

It's a thing that happened, it sucks, that's all there is to it. Playing the blame game aint gonna do anything for anyone.