4 ms·
It sounds to me like it was too small to make any real difference except in very specific scenarios and a larger one would have been too expensive to implement
by eek2121 2y ago
It sounds to me like it was too small to make any real difference except in very specific scenarios and a larger one would have been too expensive to implement compared to the benefit.
That being said, some workloads will see a small regression, however AMD has made some
small performance improvements since launch.
They should have just made it a BIOS option for Zen 4. The fact they do not appear to have done so does indicate the possibility of a bug or security issue.
- crest 2y agoThem *quietly* disabling a feature that few users will notice yet complicates the frontend suggests they pulled this chicken bit because they wanted to avoid or delay disclosing a hardware bug to the general public, but already push the mitigation. Fucking vendors! Will they ever learn? sigh
- whaleofatw2022 2y agoDevils advocate... if this is being actively exploited or is easily exploitable, the delay in announcement can prevent other actions.
- dannyw 2y agoEvery modern CPU has dozens of hardware bugs that aren’t disclosed and quietly patched away or not mentioned.
- BartjeD 2y agoQuitely disabling it is also a big risk. Because you're signalling that in all probablity you were aware of the severity of the issue; Enough so that you took steps to patch it. If you don't disclose the vulnerability then affected parties cannot start taking countermeasures, except out of sheer paranoia. Disclosing a vulnerability is a way shift liability onto the end user. You didn't update? Then don't complain. Only rarely do disclosures lead to product liability. I don't remember this (liability) happening with Meltdown and Spectre either. So wouldn't assume this is AMD being secretive.