Microsoft Kernel Patch CPU Before and After Benchmarks Thread


Recommended Posts

Just now, Mockingbird said:

Which processor?

 

On Intel processors, Kernel VA shadowing is disabled if incompatible Anti-Virus is detected.

 

On AMD processors, Kernel VA shadowing is disabled.

Ryzen 1700.

2 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

I don't even know what you are talking about.

Clearly.

 

Otherwise you wouldn't have argued with me about the AMD user claiming performance loss when there was none, and would have also corrected yourself after seeing @Yogurth's link included post microcode update, which tends to clash with your posted post-microcode update screenshot,. Of which it seems to be a rather odd one-off, like the AMD user. Hence I posted what I did.

Just now, adrynalyne said:

Clearly.

 

Otherwise you wouldn't have argued with me about the AMD user claiming performance loss when there was none, and would have also corrected yourself after seeing @Yogurth's link included post microcode update, which tends to clash with your posted post-microcode update screenshot,. Of which it seems to be a rather odd one-off, like the AMD user. Hence I posted what I did.

I don't thing there were many AMD users claiming performance because I have said, Kernel VA shadowing is disabled.

Just now, Mockingbird said:

I don't thing there were many AMD users claiming performance because I have said, Kernel VA shadowing is disabled.

Just like there aren't many showing a 21% performance hit after microcode update. I'm glad we are now on the same page.

Just now, Mockingbird said:

There hasn't been any microcode update from AMD (for these issues).

I didn't say there was. Go back and look at what I typed.

The AMD user was an example of a one-off, and most likely incorrect conclusion.

Your microcode update results are likely the same, which is why we need more microcode testing results.

Which @Yogurth supplied and confirmed my suspicions.

1 minute ago, adrynalyne said:

I didn't say there was. Go back and look at what I typed.

The AMD user was an example of a one-off, and most likely incorrect conclusion.

Your microcode update results are likely the same, which is why we need more microcode testing results.

Which @Yogurth supplied and confirmed my suspicions.

The "AMD user"?

 

Which "AMD user"?

7 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

The "AMD user"?

 

What "AMD user"?

Really? I linked the reddit url in this thread if you want to go look. Specifically, this is what I said:

1 hour ago, adrynalyne said:

There hasn’t been enough testing with the microcode update to verify it. There is also a screenshot out there showing a massive performance hit after the meltdown patch on an AMD cpu. Just one that I saw. 

One-offs never tell the whole story.

 

Edit: I posted it to a similar but different thread that spawned this one. Let me go find it.

Edited by adrynalyne
1 minute ago, adrynalyne said:

Really? I linked the reddit url in this thread if you want to go look. Specifically, this is what I said:

One-offs never tell the whole story.

Why would someone with an Intel Core i7-8700K be called the "AMD user"?   Facepalm.

 

I think you mean the "Intel user".

Just now, Mockingbird said:

Why would someone with an Intel Core i7-8700K be called the "AMD user"?   Facepalm.

 

I think you mean the "Intel user".

No, you just don't understand what you are reading.

 

 

@Yogurthposted this.

Of which contains, this:

USPdAEX.png

 

3 minutes ago, Mockingbird said:

 

"I found one on Russian forum. Can be fake"

 

There you have it.

OMG, stop being so obtuse.

 

"Can be fake" --yeah, so can yours.

Thats why...wait for it...wait for it...we need more microcode testing. Your argument for performance loss increase from microcode update after the OS patch is based upon a single microcode update-enabled test you posted.

 

1 minute ago, adrynalyne said:

OMG, stop being so obtuse.

 

"Can be fake" --yeah, so can yours.

Thats why...wait for it...wait for it...we need more microcode testing. Your argument for performance loss increase from the OS patch is based upon a single microcode update-enabled test you posted.

 

Someone with a Core i7-8700K and a ASUS PRIME Z370-A can easily run update his//her BIOS and run Realbench 2.56.

 

What you have posted has no context

Just now, Mockingbird said:

Someone with a Core i7-8700K and a ASUS PRIME Z370-A can easily run update his//her BIOS and run Realbench 2.56.

 

What you have posted has no context

I'm done here because you are clearly trolling now.

 

I gave plenty of context for those who choose to see it. I'll try one last time and you can decide to be obtuse, or not. I don't care.

 

You posted a huge performance hit after microcode update. Just one. I believe it showed in the upwards of 21% performance loss?

Its not conclusive until the results can be verified and reproduced. That is just good investigation.

We've not seen enough evidence in bulk to verify how much a hit the microcode updates will actually have on performance.

@Yogurth posted results, upon which you said were without the microcode update. These conflicted with your 21% loss.

I explained, we need more microcode testing to verify the results of the performance hit (implying to what you posted). I gave an example of why more verification is needed because there was even an AMD user who claimed performance loss from the meltdown patch. No verification means its not really useful. Could it be fake? Yeah, it could. Could yours? Yeah they could. That iss why we need more testing.

@Yogurth later explained it was indeed was with microcode updates, also invalidating your claim, not by any fault of yours, but through the power of verification and further testing.

Then you invented this idiotic argument, of which I am done with.

 

I forgot to mention, there is an important bit of information in Techspot article for those who only checked results. Nvidia GPUs are most likely susceptible to meltdown attack and they are planning to issue a statement over this soon.

Just now, Yogurth said:

I forgot to mention, there is an important bit of information in Techspot article for those who only checked results. Nvidia GPUs are most likely susceptible to meltdown attack and they are planning to issue a statement over this soon.

Interesting. Nvidia GPUs aren't x86 or ARM, are they? Honest question, I don't know.

 

Just now, adrynalyne said:

Interesting. Nvidia GPUs aren't x86 or ARM, are they? Honest question, I don't know.

 

No idea either, but here is the quote from the article, if it helps... "On the GPU front, Nvidia is reportedly also affected, so there will be loads of additional tests to be done when "time comes. Our interpretation from Nvidia's blog is that they rely on CPU-like aggressive branch prediction on their GPU architectures. It's part of their performance gains over consecutive generations. The flaw appears to be the same as Intel CPUs, in that speculative operations occur without security checks first, as a secure design should be done."

So, I'm not sure if this has been covered (apologies if it has), but the Windows 10 Kernel patch is only half the story. We all need to apply BIOS updates to the various intel boards that we are using.

If you are worried about the performance hit on your intel PC, you need to re-test with the Windows 10 patch along side your motherboard manufacturers BIOS update that has the Intel CPU microcode update.

For those using Asus boards, they have annouced if your board has one of the following chipsets X299, Z370, Z270, Z170, B150, B250, H270, H170, H110, Q170, Q270 and finally X99 there should be an incoming BIOS update that contains the Microcode update (if its not already live).

Please see the following link for a full table of Motherboards, and the BIOS version containing the Microcode update: https://www.asus.com/News/V5urzYAT6myCC1o2

Hardware unboxed has done a benchmark video of a Z370 board with and without the latest Bios - all in all only a very small performance difference noticed in general. NVMe SSD performance does seem to be hit however:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbhKUjPRk5Q

Hope this helps.

2 minutes ago, Yogurth said:

I forgot to mention, there is an important bit of information in Techspot article for those who only checked results. Nvidia GPUs are most likely susceptible to meltdown attack and they are planning to issue a statement over this soon.

Are you sure?:

Quote

NVIDIA’s core business is GPU computing. We believe our GPU hardware is immune to the reported security issue and are updating our GPU drivers to help mitigate the CPU security issue. As for our SoCs with ARM CPUs, we have analyzed them to determine which are affected and are preparing appropriate mitigations. 

https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/1033210/nvidias-response-to-speculative-side-channels-cve-2017-5753-cve-2017-5715-and-cve-2017-5754/

  • Like 2
3 minutes ago, LimeMaster said:

Like I said I do not know, I hope Techspot info is wrong, though Nvidia statement is already a few days older than the Techspot findings. Anything goes I guess.

Just now, Yogurth said:

Like I said I do not know, I hope Techspot info is wrong, though Nvidia statement is already a few days older than the Techspot findings. Anything goes I guess.

I'm just worried we'll see more performance drops if it turns out their GPUs are affected.

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!