Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More Benchmarks Of The Initial Performance Hit From CVE-2019-14615 On Intel Gen7 Graphics

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More Benchmarks Of The Initial Performance Hit From CVE-2019-14615 On Intel Gen7 Graphics

    Phoronix: More Benchmarks Of The Initial Performance Hit From CVE-2019-14615 On Intel Gen7 Graphics

    On Wednesday I shined the light on the initial performance hit from Intel's CVE-2019-14615 graphics vulnerability particularly striking their "Gen7" graphics hard. That initial testing was done with Core i7 hardware while here are results looking at the equally disturbing performance hits from Core i3 and i5 affected processors too...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...fx-Initial-Hit

  • #2
    Benchmarks doesn't matter

    Comment


    • #3
      Jesus at this rate my old AMD FX 6100 will beat the living crap out of a 9900ks in the near future

      Comment


      • #4
        When they're saying the final version should have no performance impact I suspect they've already achieved as much in the windows drivers so there's really no cause for concern.

        Comment


        • #5
          Would be most interested whether apollolake/geminilake is affected.

          Comment


          • #6
            There are several reasons to become a fanboi of AMD.
            First, they never had any of the flaws, such as Intel produces on a serial basis.
            Second, AMD invented 64-bit computing. I took Intel and M$ several years to catch up.
            Third, if you want to build iGPU, you should have good dGPU's and the knowledge to integrate them. Intel never had any decent GPU.
            Fourth, squeezing every penny out of marketshare will backfire. High prices for flawed products forces you out of the market.
            Fifth, personal taste. Colors on AMD-ATI always have been warmer as on nVidia.

            Just my 2c

            Cheers

            PS My first and only Intel was a 2nd hand i5-2500. It lasted for about 5 months before returning "home" to AMD.
            Last edited by DL9220; 01-18-2020, 05:14 AM. Reason: Added another 2c

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by DL9220 View Post
              Second, AMD invented 64-bit computing.
              Which is untrue; 64-bit CPUs existed since the 1970s (Cray), and showed up more prominently already in the 1990s (Alpha/sparc64/ppc64).

              Comment


              • #8
                Ok. So it's a security fix. Why release this crap and take all the flak for it?
                If you have 0 performance hit mitigation already in the lab, why not be very clear with that message from the get-go?

                I just don't get this. It's like they're aiming for bad press?
                Afaik there were no publicly demonstrated exploits for this either?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by uxmkt View Post
                  Which is untrue; 64-bit CPUs existed since the 1970s (Cray), and showed up more prominently already in the 1990s (Alpha/sparc64/ppc64).
                  Yeah, right. I never had room to setup a factory-size computer. AMD brought it to the masses. The others did a good job for the industry, not for you or me at home.

                  Cheers

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The person who discovered this vulnerability contacted me and is sending over their academic whitepaper on it -- can't wait to read it!
                    Michael Larabel
                    http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X