Microsoft Kernel Patch CPU Before and After Benchmarks Thread

[adrynalyne]

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.

[Mockingbird]

Just now, adrynalyne said:

Ryzen 1700.

As you can see, Kernel VA shadowing is off.

 

Everything is working as intended.

[adrynalyne]

Just now, Mockingbird said:

As you can see, Kernel VA shadowing is off.

 

Everything is working as intended.

Go read what I said again. You even quoted it.

[Mockingbird]

1 minute ago, adrynalyne said:

Go read what I said again. You even quoted it.

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

[adrynalyne]

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.

[Mockingbird]

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.

[adrynalyne]

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.

[Mockingbird]

Just now, adrynalyne said:

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

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

[adrynalyne]

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.

[Mockingbird]

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"?

[adrynalyne]

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 January 7, 2018 by adrynalyne

[Mockingbird]

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".

[adrynalyne]

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:

 

[Mockingbird]

3 minutes ago, adrynalyne said:

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

 

 

@Yogurthposted this.

Of which contains, this:

 

 

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

 

There you have it.

[adrynalyne]

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.

 

[Mockingbird]

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. 

[adrynalyne]

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.

 

[Yogurth]

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.

[adrynalyne]

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.

[Yogurth]

 

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."

[ReAnimation]

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.

[LimeMaster]

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/

[Yogurth]

3 minutes ago, LimeMaster said:

Are you sure?:

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

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.

[LimeMaster]

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.

[Yogurth]

2 minutes ago, LimeMaster said:

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

Yeah, both of my systems are Intel+Nvidia.