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

  • #11
    Sweet jesus. Michael, how about Gen6? I'm sure a lot of people still use their trusty i7-2600k to this date like me.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by royce View Post
      Sweet jesus. Michael, how about Gen6? I'm sure a lot of people still use their trusty i7-2600k to this date like me.
      Intel has not provided any Gen6 mitigation. It's not entirely clear if that's because it's not affected or just not supported anymore / minimal priority.
      Michael Larabel
      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

      Comment


      • #13
        Roger that, thank you.

        Comment


        • #14
          What about Gen 8 (Broadwell)? I just bought a Core-M, and I hope there won't be a performance hit.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by DL9220 View Post
            There are several reasons to become a fanboi of AMD.

            Just my 2c
            AMD is still behind battery life wise though aren't they? Intels had support for various technologies(PSR, FBC, DRRS) for such for many years, while AMD at least on Linux is only getting support for PSR(not PSR2?) in the 5.5 kernel afaik, not sure if they have FBC(FrameBuffer Compression) support or the DRRS(Dynamic Refresh Rate Switching, different from VRR that AMD/Nvidia support afaik).

            The 4000 Renoir series looks promising however with the power improvements there, especially the 80% reduced latency for entering/exiting idle states, looking forward to how it stacks up in this area where AMD typically tends to lose a fair bit on against Intel.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by DL9220 View Post

              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
              That's also wrong. Intel released their first 64-bit chip in 2001 based on IA-64 (which had been in development for several years). 2002 Intel released the second 64-bit chip.
              The first AMD64 chip, the Opteron, was released in 2003.

              The reason AMD64 prevailed is because it is an "addon" to the old x86 instruction set, providing backwards compatibility.


              PS: I recently upgraded from an Intel system (with unfixable security defects) to Zen 2 and it's awesome.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by xnor View Post

                That's also wrong. Intel released their first 64-bit chip in 2001 based on IA-64 (which had been in development for several years). 2002 Intel released the second 64-bit chip.
                The first AMD64 chip, the Opteron, was released in 2003.

                The reason AMD64 prevailed is because it is an "addon" to the old x86 instruction set, providing backwards compatibility.
                As wrong as DL9220 is in most of what they said, they did put in the qualifier "AMD brough tit to the masses". That does rule out IA64 completely.

                Comment


                • #18
                  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).
                  What he meant is that AMD invented the 64-bit version of x86, while Intel took a different path with Itanium. They later realized Itanium was a failure and had to adopt the AMD-devised standard.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post

                    What he meant is that AMD invented the 64-bit version of x86, while Intel took a different path with Itanium. They later realized Itanium was a failure and had to adopt the AMD-devised standard.
                    Reality is even stranger. Intel developed a 64-bit extension to x86 but didn't release it because they wanted to direct customers to the Itanium.

                    Once AMD released the 64-bit chips, I heard that Microsoft said to Intel and AMD that Microsoft would only support one 64-bit x86 architecture and that AMD and Intel must play nice. So we have the good luck of not having two of these things and that licensing is free for members of the club.

                    One reason for Itanium was that it was proprietary -- anyone other than Intel would have to pay royalties to Intel. (Perhaps not HP: they were part of the project and actually initiated it, as I understand.) (A small number of companies have a license to use the x86 architecture.)

                    BTW, DEC made personal-computer Alpha boxes (Multia) long before the AMD released 64-bit x86 processors. But they hobbled them with bad performance and bad expandability. DEC appeared to fear that those boxes would compete with their higher-end offerings. In fact, all DEC personal computers were market failures.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by polarathene View Post

                      AMD is still behind battery life wise though aren't they? Intels had support for various technologies(PSR, FBC, DRRS) for such for many years, while AMD at least on Linux is only getting support for PSR(not PSR2?) in the 5.5 kernel afaik, not sure if they have FBC(FrameBuffer Compression) support or the DRRS(Dynamic Refresh Rate Switching, different from VRR that AMD/Nvidia support afaik).
                      Having used a Ryzen based laptop for a couple of years now, I think overall build quality is the biggest factor in battery life on the laptop platforms. Or to put it another way crappy batteries, and poor subsystems really add up.
                      The 4000 Renoir series looks promising however with the power improvements there, especially the 80% reduced latency for entering/exiting idle states, looking forward to how it stacks up in this area where AMD typically tends to lose a fair bit on against Intel.
                      Renoir looks like a fantastic upgrade. More so it looks like Renoir is going into quality laptops and with manufactures realizing that it is the best processor available at the moment. Of course time will tell with hardware shipping real soon now.

                      One point of fact here is that AMD hasn't been the watt leader for some time on the desktop. AMD currently runs more cores on their desktop chips than Intel does. So performance per watt is at times light years ahead of Intels offerings. Frankly it is a beautiful thing to see Intel sweat a bit, AMD is coming on line with the best hardware possible right when Intel has driven itself into the gutter.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X