5 ms·
For the lazy: "If looking at the geometric mean for the tests run today, the Intel systems all saw about 16% lower performance out-of-the-box now with these def
by nullwasamistake 7y ago
For the lazy: "If looking at the geometric mean for the tests run today, the Intel systems all saw about 16% lower performance out-of-the-box now with these default mitigations and obviously even lower if disabling Hyper Threading for maximum security. The two AMD systems tested saw a 3% performance hit with the default mitigations. While there are minor differences between the systems to consider, the mitigation impact is enough to draw the Core i7 8700K much closer to the Ryzen 7 2700X and the Core i9 7980XE to the Threadripper 2990WX."
Not looking good for Intel at the moment. It should also be noted that there's believable rumors that the mitigations are not fully effective unless hyperthreading is disabled.
- makomk 7y agoI don't think it's just rumours. Microsoft, Apple and Red Hat have said that full mitigation requires disabling hyperthreading. While Intel don't recommend doing so, their justification for this is that most people don't actually need process protection anyway. They also note that "it’s important to understand that doing so does not alone provide protection against MDS", which is true - you need to disable hyperthreading and apply additional performance-sapping mitigations which require both microcode updates and operating system support. The hyperthreading-based variants seem to be a lot more powerful than the ones fixed by the other mitigations though.
- nullwasamistake 7y agoWow that's bad. With the mitigations + HT off were looking at more than 40% performance penalty for the average benchmark based on their stats