4 ms·
It's very unclear to me how much of a performance hit there is for most desktop use-cases. My most recent CPU I use is a desktop i5-8500 which doesn't feel fas
by vladvasiliu 5y ago
It's very unclear to me how much of a performance hit there is for most desktop use-cases.
My most recent CPU I use is a desktop i5-8500 which doesn't feel faster than my older i7-3930k aside from disk access [0], both of which are impacted by the vulnerabilities. I practically never use the i5.
Until recently my daily driver was a MacBook Pro that came out in 2013, and I don't really remember a before / after change in perceived performance or responsiveness – I haven't done any scientific benchmarks, but that computer never felt slow, and still doesn't.
There's also this Phoronix benchmark [1] that compares performance with and without `mitigations=off` on linux. There are some tests where there's a very big difference, but mostly, to me, it doesn't look that crazy.
In the Firefox benchmarks they do say that there's a big hit, but then I probably don't read the graphs correctly, nothing looks particularly worrisome to me.
---
[0] The i5 has some NVME as opposed to an older, regular SATA drive in the i7. Still, I run a lightweight Linux install on both, so drive speed is never an issue for me, everything can fit in RAM.
[1] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=spectre-meltdown-2 https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=spectre-...
- tehbeard 5y ago> I use is a desktop i5-8500 which doesn't feel faster than my older i7-3930k I mean, looking at the specs on Intel ark that's to be expected, a newer generation mid-range CPU is typically the same speed as a high tier CPU of old. Faster bus speeds, higher turbo, some newer under the hood instruction sets for SIMD, and if the datasheet is correct, for roughly half the thermal output thanks to a process shrink.