Microsoft Kernel Patch CPU Before and After Benchmarks Thread


Recommended Posts

The performance drop does not look as bad as I have feared but it seems that the Windows patch is only a part of the equation as Intel started releasing Firmware upgrades. It would be interesting what is the penalty of the patch if any, in conjunction with the new Firmware.

HP has just pushed BIOS update.

 

TITLE: HP NoteBook System BIOS Update
VERSION: 01.12 REV: A PASS: 1

 

Spoiler

TITLE: HP NoteBook System BIOS Update

VERSION: 01.12 REV: A PASS: 1
DESCRIPTION:
This package creates files that contain an image of the System BIOS (ROM) for
the supported notebook models with a P80 family ROM. This package is used to
flash the System ROM on a supported notebook.

This package includes several methods for updating the BIOS version as follows:

- Use the HPBIOSUPDREC Utility to update the BIOS directly in a Microsoft
Windows Operating System environment.
- Use System Software Manager (SSM) to update the system BIOS on PCs in a
network.

NOTE: To determine the ROM family and ROM date, press F10 on the notebook/laptop
during startup to run the Setup Utility, and then view File/System Information.

PURPOSE: Critical
SOFTPAQ FILE NAME: SP84329.exe
SOFTPAQ MD5: ca35a50549e6fc4205d61bd52fc5ad67
SUPERSEDES: SP82334
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 04, 2018
CATEGORY: BIOS
SSM SUPPORTED: Yes

PRODUCT TYPE(S):
Notebooks

HARDWARE PRODUCT MODEL(S):
HP EliteBook x360 1030 Notebook PC

OPERATING SYSTEM(S):
Microsoft Windows 10 All Editions (64-bit)

LANGUAGE(S): Global

ENHANCEMENTS:
- Provides the updated Realtek UEFI drivers.
- Provides improved security on systems using the Kaby Lake processor.
- Provides improved security on systems using the Skylake processor.
- Adds a feature to disable all integrated audio devices on the system.
- Adds a feature to disable all integrated microphones devices on the system.
- Provides support for HP Thunderbolt Dock 120W/230W G2.
- Provides the keyboard self-test feature.
- Provides a feature to allow the IT administrator to use the BIOS Configuration
Utility or the F10 BIOS menu to control HP Sure View on the system.
- Provides improved security of UEFI code and variables in an Intel system. HP
strongly recommends transitioning promptly to this updated BIOS version which
supersedes all previous releases.

NOTE: Due to the security changes in this release, attempts to install older
BIOS versions require the user to be physically present to accept the older
version.

FIXES:
- Fixes an issue on a system with an Intel processor where the CPU usage is
unexpectedly high when Wake On LAN is used.
- Fixes an issue where the response of the cursor is unexpectedly slow after the
lid is closed and then reopened.
- Fixes an issue where the Save/Restore GPT feature does not function properly.
- Fixes an issue where the Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) Physical
Presence Interface setting does not function properly after the setup password
is configured.
- Fixes an issue which causes the system to stop functioning (hang) after Intel
Active Management Technology (AMT) is disabled and then the BIOS is updated in
Non-Delay Mode.
- Fixes an issue where the system exits the F10 BIOS menu unintentionally when
the Fn+F3 key combination is used in the setup menu.
- Fixes an issue where the system exits the F10 BIOS menu unintentionally when
the Fn+F4 key combination is used in the setup menu.
- Fixes an issue where the system unexpectedly wakes from Sleep (S3) or
Hibernate (S4) modes after the system is reconnected to a USB-C Dock.
- Fixes an issue where a system that is powered off while connected to a USB-C
Dock and then disconnected from the dock wakes unexpectedly after the system is
reconnected to the USB-C Dock.
- Fixes an issue where the Fast Charge option is no longer available in the F10
BIOS setup menu after a BIOS update is run.
- Fixes an issue where the response of a device connected to the system using
the Thunderbolt port is unexpectedly slow after a BIOS update is run.
- Fixes an issue where the battery in a USB device connected to the system
continues to recharge from the system when the device is connected to a system
that has the Charging Port disabled when the battery is below a level that is
set in the F10 BIOS menu.

 

9 hours ago, jamester64 said:

Strange that AsusFanControlService is still running in the background so at least I got that :-) I just cant get the GUI to open :-(

yep same here.  suspect its the bios side of things in AISuite. if you try to rerun it, UAC prompt pops up but it never opens its ui, but you can see it in task mgr.

Benchmark Comparison Between:
After OS Patched, Before BIOS Patched
&
After OS Patched, After BIOS Patched

 

 

Computer:  HP HP EliteBook x360 1030 G2
Processor: Intel Core i7-7600U (GenuineIntel Family 6 Model 142 Stepping 9)

 

PassMark PerformanceTest (CPU)
==============================
Before: 6054, 6106, 6033 (Average: 6064)
After : 6166, 5957, 5738 (Average: 5954)
Result: -1.81%

 

Geekbench 4 (CPU)
=================
Before (Single-Core): 4715, 4701, 4707 (Average: 4708)
After  (Single-Core): 4629, 4657, 4667 (Average: 4651)
Result: -1.21%

 

Before (Multi-Core): 9254, 9301, 9294 (Average: 9283)
After  (Multi-Core): 9111, 9142, 9165 (Average: 9139)
Result: -1.55%

 

Score link for before BIOS patched:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/6136429
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/6136510
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/6136562

 

Score link for after BIOS patched:
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/6137171
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/6137243
https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/6137313

 

CPU-Z
=====
Before (Single-Core): 407.4, 414.7, 414.3 (Average: 412.1)
After  (Single-Core): 269.2, 253.2, 248.2 (Average: 256.9)
Result: -37.66%

 

Before (Multi-Core): 1164.0, 1169.4, 1171.8 (Average: 1168.4)
After  (Multi-Core): 1140.7, 1144.2, 1138.2 (Average: 1141.0)
Result: -2.35%

 

17 hours ago, Elliot B. said:

So, no difference.

 

The whole thing was overblown.

Not really, on newer CPUs the difference is nominal, on older models, especially those with less cores (dual core) or no hyperthreading, it'll be a lot more damaging to performance.

22 hours ago, Mando said:

Great idea Warwagon:)

 

here is the start of mine 

 

Benchtools used on sig rig @1080p

 

  • Cinebench 4D
  • 3D Mark (Timespy Extreme)
  • Novabench
  • Rog RealBench
  • Passmark

Before Patch 

 

Passmark CPU test BEFORE

image.thumb.png.2a0caaf441a5705f451f4729244e8af9.png

 

Passmark CPU AFTER

image.thumb.png.22faf2114646503b195c9f2f77df1aae.png

 

Cinebench 4D BEFORE

  • CPU Benchmark = 966CB
  • OpenGL Bench = 140 FPS

AFTER

  • CPU Benchmark = 975CB ???
  • OpenGl Bench = 149.95 FPS ???
     

3D Mark timespy extreme BEFORE

  • 3998

AFTER

  • 3997 ????

Novabench 

  • 2713

After

  • 2703
     

RealBench BEFORE

  • Image Editing 212,486/ Time 25.0745
  • Encoding 93,501/time 56.9829
  • OpenCL 113,529/ Ksamples per sec 20877
  • Heavy Multitasking 110,647
  • Time 68.9761
  • System Score 132,540

RealBench AFTER

  • Image Editing 208.830/Time 25.5135
  • Encoding 92,841/time 57.3881
  • OpenCL 113,529/ Ksamples/sec 20922
  • Heavy Multitasking 103,867/Time 73.4779
  • System Score 129,766

 

Overall slightly slower with some benches, Cinema 4D benches.....anyones guess! :p

 

before and after had all the same processes running and apps, what i have noticed however, Asus AI Suite 3 wont run :p

 

btw Webroot Secure anywhere working no problem at all post patch,

Cinema 4D doesn't give a crap about kernel patches apparently. Thanks for the laugh lol

2 minutes ago, satukoro said:

Cinema 4D doesn't give a crap about kernel patches apparently. Thanks for the laugh lol

lol so it seems, but tbh outside of work, i dont give a crap about kernel patches either :p lol 

1 hour ago, adrynalyne said:

What motherboard?

ASUS PRIME Z370-A

 

It doesn't have to do with that specific motherboard though.

 

It's the microcode update from Intel (in the BIOS) that's causing additional performance drop.

9 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

ASUS PRIME Z370-A

 

It doesn't have to do with that specific motherboard though.

 

It's the microcode update from Intel (in the BIOS) that's causing additional performance drop.

Duh. Thats not why I was asking. I was curious who had released an update so soon.

 

How do you know this isn't the Intel ME microcode update? It doesn't specify and getting the BIOS out the same day as Intel released the update to OEMs sounds kinda crazy. You'd think at least it would be a beta BIOS.

Edited by adrynalyne
2 minutes ago, nekrosoft13 said:

Threadripper here i come, FU intel

And then they patch Spectre and you wish you hadn’t switched ;) There are also rumors of more CPU vulnerabilites out there too. Might want to wait and see how this all plays out. 

10 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

And then they patch Spectre and you wish you hadn’t switched ;) There are also rumors of more CPU vulnerabilites out there too. Might want to wait and see how this all plays out. 

1% or 2% hit per patch. Now that's a scary thought. 

1 minute ago, LimeMaster said:

1% or 2% hit per patch. Now that's a scary thought. 

Maybe, or we could instead see optimization.

 

I am tempted to switch to AMD, but I am watching first. I don't want to walk into a new mess and be out of pocket for it.

22 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

And then they patch Spectre and you wish you hadn’t switched ;) There are also rumors of more CPU vulnerabilites out there too. Might want to wait and see how this all plays out. 

Threadripper is already faster in type of task that I care about, and now intel is 12-20% slower than before, so benefit of running Intel is less and less.

1 minute ago, nekrosoft13 said:

Threadripper is already faster in type of task that I care about, and now intel is 12-20% slower than before, so benefit of running Intel is less and less.

*shrug* Its your money. I am just saying that we don't know how much a hit Spectre will be.

  • Like 1
1 minute ago, adrynalyne said:

Maybe, or we could instead see optimization.

 

I am tempted to switch to AMD, but I am watching first. I don't want to walk into a new mess and be out of pocket for it.

Honestly, I would have preferred if they had went with optimization first. I get that security is important, but so is usability & performance.  Especially when you consider the fact that most people don't have top of the line CPUs.

1 minute ago, LimeMaster said:

Honestly, I would have preferred if they had went with optimization first. I get that security is important, but so is usability & performance.  Especially when you consider the fact that most people don't have top of the line CPUs.

I've a feeling that maybe they would have, had a certain company not blabbed sooner than they expected.

Just now, adrynalyne said:

I've a feeling that maybe they would have, had a certain company not blabbed sooner than they expected.

Yeah I suppose. They are kinda screwing themselves over a bit, since they have less time to create their own patch.

42 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

Duh. Thats not why I was asking. I was curious who had released an update so soon.

 

How do you know this isn't the Intel ME microcode update? It doesn't specify and getting the BIOS out the same day as Intel released the update to OEMs sounds kinda crazy. You'd think at least it would be a beta BIOS.

Disregard the question--I saw how they checked it.

Edit: Seems like there are conflicting reports.

 

10 minutes ago, LimeMaster said:

Yeah I suppose. They are kinda screwing themselves over a bit, since they have less time to create their own patch.

True that.

Edited by adrynalyne
6 hours ago, adrynalyne said:

Disregard the question--I saw how they checked it.

Edit: Seems like there are conflicting reports.

 

True that.

dang, jjust checked for my 270 mobo no bios update yet :( (Strix H) 7700k

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The quantum search for Time's origin had an equally mind-boggling conclusion by Sayan Sen Image by Steve Johnson via Pexels A theoretical study from researchers at the University of Surrey suggested that the direction of time may not be fundamentally fixed in certain quantum systems. The work, published in Scientific Reports, examined how the “arrow of time” could emerge from microscopic physics and found that time-reversal symmetry can remain intact even in models used to describe processes such as energy loss and thermalisation. The arrow of time refers to the observed one-way direction from past to future in everyday life. In macroscopic processes, this is easy to see. Spilled milk spreads across a table and does not gather back into a glass, and heat flows from hotter objects to colder ones. These processes shape the common sense idea that time moves in a single direction. However, at the level of fundamental physics, many equations do not prefer a direction of time. Time-reversal symmetry means that the same physical laws can describe a system whether time moves forward or backward. This has made it difficult to explain why irreversible behaviour appears in the large-scale world even when the underlying rules do not require it. Dr Andrea Rocco, Associate Professor in Physics and Mathematical Biology at the University of Surrey, described this contrast: "One way to explain this is when you look at a process like spilt milk spreading across a table, it's clear that time is moving forward. But if you were to play that in reverse, like a movie, you'd immediately know something was wrong – it would be hard to believe milk could just gather back into a glass. However, there are processes, such as the motion of a pendulum, that look just as believable in reverse. The puzzle is that, at the most fundamental level, the laws of physics resemble the pendulum; they do not account for irreversible processes. Our findings suggest that while our common experience tells us that time only moves one way, we are just unaware that the opposite direction would have been equally possible." The study focused on open quantum systems, which are quantum systems that interact with a surrounding environment. This environment, often described as a heat bath, can exchange energy and information with the system. The researchers used this framework to study how a direction of time might appear even when the underlying physics does not enforce one. A key part of the analysis involved the Markov approximation. This is a simplification used in many models where the system is assumed not to retain memory of its past states. The idea is that changes depend only on the current state, not on earlier history. This is commonly used when studying thermalisation, which is the process where a system settles into equilibrium with its environment. The study also used concepts such as master equations, including the Lindblad and Pauli equations, which describe how probabilities of different quantum states change over time. Another related model discussed was quantum Brownian motion, which describes the random-like movement of a quantum particle interacting continuously with its environment. In these descriptions, a “memory kernel” can appear, which is a mathematical term that accounts for how past states influence current behaviour. The researchers found that applying the Markov approximation did not break time-reversal symmetry. Even when the system interacted with an effectively infinite heat bath, the resulting equations of motion remained symmetric in time. This meant that the same mathematical description could, in principle, run forward or backward in time without contradiction. The study further showed that standard frameworks used in open quantum systems, including quantum Brownian motion and master equations like the Lindblad and Pauli forms, could be written in a time-symmetric way. These equations are typically used to describe processes that look irreversible, such as dissipation and thermalisation, but the results suggested they can also be interpreted as allowing evolution in both time directions. Thomas Guff, Research Fellow in Quantum Thermodynamics, said: "The surprising part of this project was that even after making the standard simplifying assumption to our equations describing open quantum systems, the equations still behaved the same way whether the system was moving forwards or backwards in time. When we carefully worked through the maths, we found that this behaviour had to be the case because a key part of the equation, the "memory kernel," is symmetrical in time. We also found a small but important detail which is usually overlooked – a time discontinuous factor emerged that kept the time-symmetry property intact. It’s unusual to see such a mathematical mechanism in a physics equation because it's not continuous, and it was very surprising to see it appear so naturally." The researchers also noted that deriving a one-way arrow of time from time-reversal symmetric microscopic dynamics remains an open problem across fields such as thermodynamics, statistical mechanics, particle physics, and cosmology. Their results suggested that some standard descriptions of irreversible behaviour in open quantum systems may be better understood using a time-symmetric formulation of Markovianity. According to the study, processes such as thermalisation, which are usually treated as irreversible, could in theory be described in a way that allows evolution in either time direction under the same rules. This does not imply that time reversal occurs in everyday life, but rather that the underlying equations do not strictly enforce a single direction. Overall, the findings suggested that the perceived direction of time may emerge from how physical systems are modelled and approximated, rather than from a fundamental asymmetry in the laws themselves. The researchers noted that this perspective could have implications for ongoing work in quantum mechanics, thermodynamics, and cosmology on the origin of time’s arrow. Source: University of Surrey, Nature This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing
    • A bit premature... 100% Marketing. Bizarre.
    • A $300 price hike is insane! No one is going to want to pay that much!
    • Since the 1st one flopped, there is really no reason to make another one. It's just losing money left and right.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      eurospharma62 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      581
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      182
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      75
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      neufuse
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!