9 ms·

I recall a few months ago they released a marketing pack benchmarking themselves against AMD with a small print disclaimer that they hadn't applied the spectre/

by Jonnax 7y ago

I recall a few months ago they released a marketing pack benchmarking themselves against AMD with a small print disclaimer that they hadn't applied the spectre/meltdown fixes.

eganist 7y ago
That's the thing - they keep doing it, which means regardless of people coming out with stories like this, it must be effective.
- me_me_me 7y ago
  Hehe you'd be doing it if you were in a boiling pot with gun to your head, desperately trying to find an upside buying intel chips. They are really trying, much harder then making better chips :)
- Uehreka 7y ago
  It may be effective, but I don’t buy that reasoning. Corporations are just as capable as people when it comes to developing bad habits and self-sabotaging.
- thaumaturgy 7y ago
  They can't fake public PassMark results though. They currently hold four of the top five results for high end processors there (https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html) and a lot of the top price/performance results (https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html). A lot of folks use charts like these to guide buying decisions or make recommendations to others.
  - londons_explore 7y ago
    If I were Intel I'd have whole teams of people trying to invent new benchmarking tools and apps. And all those apps would be compiled with options that favor Intel and include only tests where Intel looks good...
    - mcdevilkiller 7y ago
      Nah, they prefer having all the reviewers and online press in the pocket, you just need money for that, and if there is one thing Intel has, is money.
  - Someone1234 7y ago
    Why can't you fake a PassMark? I'm legitimately asking. Seems like an aggregated public data set would be particularly prone to intentional cheating.
    - thaumaturgy 7y ago
      You're right, they could, but they don't seem to be, and it would be easily discovered (since anybody can run the same software on their system and compare the results for their specific CPU), and probably make quite a splash in the tech media.
  - throwaway2048 7y ago
    Unless I'm reading incorrectly, it looks very much like AMD holds 4/5 top spots, not Intel.
  - majormjr 7y ago
    Are we looking at the same charts? Both show AMD with a majority in the top 5.
    - dwild 7y ago
      I believe that when he said "They currently hold four of the top five results", he was talking about AMD, which does hold four of the top five results in both charts.
      - thaumaturgy 7y ago
        Yes, thanks. I really shouldn't type anything before coffee.
sp332 7y ago
Many applications don't need Spectre or Meltdown mitigations, but they should at least put the test parameters up front and not in the fine print.
- Tepix 7y ago
  Many users won't know how to disable Spectre and Meltdown mitigations. They will be active by default if the user installs all the latest updates.
  - stagger87 7y ago
    For some reason, I doubt people in the server/workstation space don't know how to do this, especially if they are leaving double digit percentage gains on the table if they don't.
    - computerex 7y ago
      You are not supposed to disable the mitigations... Especially on servers and workstations... And keep in mind that the usual mitigations aren't even holistic. The only truly 100% secure fix for Spectre/Meltdown is to disable hyperthreading altogether.
      - lonelappde 7y ago
        No. Spectre does not depend on hyperthreading, only speculative execution.
        computerex 7y ago
        I was lumping them all into MDS class of vulnerabilities. It was misleading. https://linuxreviews.org/Microarchitectural_Data_Sampling:_The_Latest_Side-Channel_Vulnerability_In_Intel_CPUs#Full_protection_requires_SMT.2FHyperThreading_to_be_disabled https://linuxreviews.org/Microarchitectural_Data_Sampling:_T...
      - 7y ago

by Jonnax 7y ago

I recall a few months ago they released a marketing pack benchmarking themselves against AMD with a small print disclaimer that they hadn't applied the spectre/meltdown fixes.

eganist 7y ago

That's the thing - they keep doing it, which means regardless of people coming out with stories like this, it must be effective.

me_me_me 7y ago
Hehe you'd be doing it if you were in a boiling pot with gun to your head, desperately trying to find an upside buying intel chips. They are really trying, much harder then making better chips :)
Uehreka 7y ago
It may be effective, but I don’t buy that reasoning. Corporations are just as capable as people when it comes to developing bad habits and self-sabotaging.
thaumaturgy 7y ago
They can't fake public PassMark results though. They currently hold four of the top five results for high end processors there (https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html) and a lot of the top price/performance results (https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html). A lot of folks use charts like these to guide buying decisions or make recommendations to others.
- londons_explore 7y ago
  If I were Intel I'd have whole teams of people trying to invent new benchmarking tools and apps. And all those apps would be compiled with options that favor Intel and include only tests where Intel looks good...
  - mcdevilkiller 7y ago
    Nah, they prefer having all the reviewers and online press in the pocket, you just need money for that, and if there is one thing Intel has, is money.
- Someone1234 7y ago
  Why can't you fake a PassMark? I'm legitimately asking. Seems like an aggregated public data set would be particularly prone to intentional cheating.
  - thaumaturgy 7y ago
    You're right, they could, but they don't seem to be, and it would be easily discovered (since anybody can run the same software on their system and compare the results for their specific CPU), and probably make quite a splash in the tech media.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  Unless I'm reading incorrectly, it looks very much like AMD holds 4/5 top spots, not Intel.
- majormjr 7y ago
  Are we looking at the same charts? Both show AMD with a majority in the top 5.
  - dwild 7y ago
    I believe that when he said "They currently hold four of the top five results", he was talking about AMD, which does hold four of the top five results in both charts.
    - thaumaturgy 7y ago
      Yes, thanks. I really shouldn't type anything before coffee.

sp332 7y ago

Many applications don't need Spectre or Meltdown mitigations, but they should at least put the test parameters up front and not in the fine print.

Tepix 7y ago
Many users won't know how to disable Spectre and Meltdown mitigations. They will be active by default if the user installs all the latest updates.
- stagger87 7y ago
  For some reason, I doubt people in the server/workstation space don't know how to do this, especially if they are leaving double digit percentage gains on the table if they don't.
  - computerex 7y ago
    You are not supposed to disable the mitigations... Especially on servers and workstations... And keep in mind that the usual mitigations aren't even holistic. The only truly 100% secure fix for Spectre/Meltdown is to disable hyperthreading altogether.
    - lonelappde 7y ago
      No. Spectre does not depend on hyperthreading, only speculative execution.
      - computerex 7y ago
        I was lumping them all into MDS class of vulnerabilities. It was misleading. https://linuxreviews.org/Microarchitectural_Data_Sampling:_The_Latest_Side-Channel_Vulnerability_In_Intel_CPUs#Full_protection_requires_SMT.2FHyperThreading_to_be_disabled https://linuxreviews.org/Microarchitectural_Data_Sampling:_T...
    - 7y ago