Microsoft Kernel Patch CPU Before and After Benchmarks Thread


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, adrynalyne said:

Maybe? This isn't my forte. As it was explained to me, it matters if it is x86 code instructions being called with sys calls. The GPU isn't x86 as far as I know.

This certainly is not a problem how processor executes x86 code. It is a problem here how user mode app communicates with the OS kernel and how processor handles that matter. All requests for hardware (graphics, disk, memory access) must be passed to the OS which then executes them. Apps do not write directly to GPU . They use OS to handle these calls which then calls graphics driver (at the OS kernel level) which then writes data and commands to the GPU. Therefore I think there is a great chances that these fixes affect 2D graphics as well as other data intensive tasks.

 

Here is the security problem (as far as I understand): cpu allowed user mode app to gain access to OS kernel data, which it should never do. CPU does not handle OS and user mode isolation securely enough.

 

Intel (and others) have used a "shortcut" to speed up things and created a security flaw which is severe.

 

But I must say I was amazed that the effect of this fix was so huge at my Lenovo Thinkpad T440s laptop. Did not expect that much. Maybe Lenovo will provide fixes to the drivers which will help here.

58 minutes ago, Jampe said:

Here are my results. FIrst test was right before update. After update I ran tests 3 times since I could not believe my eyes. Results are consistent. PC is Lenovo thinkpad t440s model 20ARS04W00

PerfRes1.gif

Disk and 2D Graphics really suffer. I hope neither Microsoft nor Intel will stop optimising their patches. As they are now, I won't be updating. In fact, I will try to find updated Windows 10 ISOs with December patches and archive them if I ever need to reinstall Windows.

On the Azure front we're seeing slowdowns on our legacy Azure VM's running SQL Server. We're having to scale up the VM's to cope with the slowdowns.

 

Obviously this is all being logged and the extra costs will be argued.

 

Not seeing the same impact on Azure SQL Servers, there is an impact but probably only 10% extra as opposed to the ~25% on the VM's.

 

To make matters worse, MS scheduled production VM's for updates then threw the date out the window and upgraded when they felt like it. We're talking multiple end clients productions systems going down for anywhere from 30 mins to 5 hours without warning. A cluster###### if ever there was one.

 

Read some of the comments on this Azure status. I won't say which is my real life account...

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/securing-azure-customers-from-cpu-vulnerability/

 

Don't forget that these patches are only part of the fix. According to the articles I've read, a BIOS update will also be required to fully patch the fix. I presume this is where a lot of the slowdowns will come from.

4 minutes ago, Daedroth said:

Don't forget that these patches are only part of the fix. According to the articles I've read, a BIOS update will also be required to fully patch the fix. I presume this is where a lot of the slowdowns will come from.

the bulk of dell systems should get a bios fix today.

guys the following CERT advisory has links to lots of affected platforms and products, including timescales for fixes from vendors.

 

https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA18-004A

 

we are currently assessing the entire global enterprise (20k endpoints, 8k+ servers) and we have reached out to NetApp, Cisco and other suppliers of enterprise kit.

 

Were using the tack, if it has a CPU, its potentially susceptible until we are told otherwise (called due diligence).

 

NetApp have confirmed their SAN arrays are  not affected. They dont permit execution of 3rd party code. Awaiting confirmation about Cisco kit.

 

*UPDATE** Cisco have responded. A mixed bad, some products immune but the bulk are affected.

 

https://tools.cisco.com/security/center/content/CiscoSecurityAdvisory/cisco-sa-20180104-cpusidechannel

 

 

Asus have released the microcode fix/BIOS update for my S270 Strix H. 

 

https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-STRIX-Z270H-GAMING/HelpDesk_BIOS/

 

STRIX Z270H GAMING BIOS 1203
Improved DRAM compatibility.
Fixed SAMSUNG M.2 device issue.
Fixed SanDisk M.2 device issue.
Fixed AMD SSD device issue.
Fixed SteelSeries Keyboard issue.
Update CPU MicroCode.

 

Cinebench 4D BEFORE Win patch

CPU Benchmark = 966CB

OpenGL Bench = 140 FPS

AFTER

CPU Benchmark = 975CB ???

OpenGl Bench = 149.95 FPS ???

NVidia Driver update

CPU Benchmark = 962CB

OpenGL Bench =147.64FPS

Post Bios UPD

CPU Benchmark=942CB

OpenGL Bench=147.36

 

3D Mark timespy extreme BEFORE

3998

AFTER

3997 ????

NVidia Driver Update

3971

Post Bios UPD

3955

 

Novabench 

2713

After

2703

NVidia Driver update

2677

Post Bios UPD

2618

 

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

Post NVidia 

Image Editing 108,788/ Time 48.9757

Encoding 84,939/time 62.7273

OpenCL 113,529/ Ksamples per sec 20948

Heavy Multitasking 99,848

Time 76.4357

System Score 101,776 

Post Bios UPD

Image Editing 91,665/ Time 58.1242

Encoding 80,259/time 66.3843

OpenCL 112,996/ Ksamples per sec 20798

Heavy Multitasking 94,712

Time 80.5809

System Score 94,908

 

Hmm taking it with a pinch of salt, as i noticed post BIOS upd i left the OC as auto, so its at 4.37Ghz, not 4.5Ghz I benched with before...DOH

 

ill redo it tomorrow and update.

14 hours ago, Mando said:

Asus have released the microcode fix/BIOS update for my S270 Strix H. 

 

https://www.asus.com/Motherboards/ROG-STRIX-Z270H-GAMING/HelpDesk_BIOS/

 

STRIX Z270H GAMING BIOS 1203
Improved DRAM compatibility.
Fixed SAMSUNG M.2 device issue.
Fixed SanDisk M.2 device issue.
Fixed AMD SSD device issue.
Fixed SteelSeries Keyboard issue.
Update CPU MicroCode.

 

Cinebench 4D BEFORE Win patch

CPU Benchmark = 966CB

OpenGL Bench = 140 FPS

AFTER

CPU Benchmark = 975CB ???

OpenGl Bench = 149.95 FPS ???

NVidia Driver update

CPU Benchmark = 962CB

OpenGL Bench =147.64FPS

Post Bios UPD

CPU Benchmark=942CB

OpenGL Bench=147.36

 

3D Mark timespy extreme BEFORE

3998

AFTER

3997 ????

NVidia Driver Update

3971

Post Bios UPD

3955

 

Novabench 

2713

After

2703

NVidia Driver update

2677

Post Bios UPD

2618

 

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

Post NVidia 

Image Editing 108,788/ Time 48.9757

Encoding 84,939/time 62.7273

OpenCL 113,529/ Ksamples per sec 20948

Heavy Multitasking 99,848

Time 76.4357

System Score 101,776 

Post Bios UPD

Image Editing 91,665/ Time 58.1242

Encoding 80,259/time 66.3843

OpenCL 112,996/ Ksamples per sec 20798

Heavy Multitasking 94,712

Time 80.5809

System Score 94,908

 

Hmm taking it with a pinch of salt, as i noticed post BIOS upd i left the OC as auto, so its at 4.37Ghz, not 4.5Ghz I benched with before...DOH

 

ill redo it tomorrow and update.

Mando, is RealBench only for ASUS gaming boards bench utility? Thx for the update, btw :)

38 minutes ago, Yogurth said:

Mando, is RealBench only for ASUS gaming boards bench utility? Thx for the update, btw :)

not 100% its via ROG aspect.

 

give it a whirl, it may work

http://dlcdnmkt.asus.com/rog/RealBench_v2.56.zip?_ga=2.161564219.660284626.1515594169-1054940240.1499777541

 

 

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!