Live data from Hacker News

Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

perens.com

201–210 of 499 posts

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#201

Phoronix already tested this: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=l1tf-ear... and https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=l1tf-for... . The performance loss isn't that bad in most cases.

These seems to be linux's own mitigations against L1TF. There's no mention about microcode being updated here, which I assume isn't the case.

I assume the microcode update could be either equal o slightly worse in terms of performance, as the CPU might need to flush more frequently.

Which is pretty sad, as the status of kernel+microcode updates is quite confusing already. Some mitigations can take advantage of new microcode updates, if the kernel is recent enough. How does the pure soft-workaround compare in terms of performance to the microcode-assisted one?

Note that, combining all workarounds for meltdown+spectre-v1/v2+l1tf can have a significant performance hit for some workloads which are not purely cpu-bound. On top of that HT is now looking like a bad idea to start with.

I'm pretty sure that for a server where there's a lot of I/O and virtualization going on, enabling all the patches and workarounds + disabling HT can take a massive cut in overall throughput.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#202

Phoronix already tested this: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=l1tf-ear... and https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=l1tf-for... . The performance loss isn't that bad in most cases.

The linked articles state the testing was done with the mitigations provided in the latest kernel enabled. It does not say that the microcode updates were applied during the testing.

Also there was significant reduced performance when hyperthreading was disabled as required to fully mitigate the threat of the vulnerabilities. If the microcode update changes the behavoir of hyperthreading in order to fully mitigate the vulnerabilities without having to completely disable it then there is a chance these changes effect the performance benefit of hyperthreading.

Given Intel's anti-benchmark license clause without evidence otherwise I assume it is not just a chance but a strong likelihood that the performance benefits are significantly impacted.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#203
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Clearly, they don't have an answer to AMD at all They still have a huge opportunity for CPU+FPGA, they bought Altera for the purpose.

It's remarkable how little we've seen from that acquisition. It's perfectly possible that Intel has butchered the acquisition the same way they have with many others.

The two huge companies being merged is more often considered fail than otherwise.

> a 2004 study by Bain & Company found that 70 percent of mergers failed to increase shareholder value. More recently, a 2007 study by Hay Group and the Sorbonne found that more than 90 percent of mergers in Europe fail to reach financial goals.

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/BUSINESS/05/21/merger.marriage/

Especially when the merge should be deep and involve engineering teams with different cultures to join and work together on the product. So I'd consider the release of first Xeon+FPGA after 3 years past acquisition as a somewhat success.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#204

Before Zen, we all kind of assumed they were so far ahead that AMD were more likely to be out of business before they would ever be a credible threat again. I actually thought Intel must have had some tricks up their sleeves in terms of performance gains that we hadn't seen yet, simply because there was no market need to roll them out and they had so many years of coasting on marginal gains. Seeing them taking this s…

>Before Zen, we all kind of assumed they were so far ahead that AMD were more likely to be out of business before they would ever be a credible threat again.

It depends where about on the timeline. AMD's hired of Lisa Su and Jim Keller in 2012, we all thought it was too little too late. Look back at the Roadmap Intel were giving at the time, I used to joke about Tick Tock were like the sound of AMD's death clock. In 2012 we were looking at 10nm in 2016, 7nm in 2018, and 5nm in 2020. We just had Sandy Bridge, but that was the last big IPC improvement we have had.

Fast forward to 2018 / 2019, No 10nm, and I would have been happy if they were selling me 14nm++++++ Quad Core Sandy Bridge. Broadwell and Skylake brings nothing much substantial. Intel were suppose to break the ARM Mobile Market with tour de force, and that didn't happen.

We all assumed Intel had many other tricks up its sleeves, new uArch or 10nm waiting in the wings when things are needed. Turns out they have nothing. Why did they buy McAfee?( Which has been sold off already ) And Infineon? Nearly eight years after the acquisition they are just about to ship their first Mobile Baseband made by their own Fabs, Eight Years! What an achievement! Nearly three years after their acquisition of Altera, which itself has been previously working with Intel Custom Fab before that. What do they have to show?

During that time, the Smartphone revolution scale has helped Pure Play Fab like TSMC to made enough profits and fund their R&D rivalling Intel. And in a few more weeks time we will have an TSMC / Apple 7nm node shipping in millions of units per week. In terms of HVM and leading node, making TSMC over taking Intel for the first time in history. AMD has been executing well following their Roadmap, and Lisa Su did not disappoint. Nothing on those slides were marketing speaks or tricks that Intel used. No over hyped performance improvement, but promise of incremental progress. She reminds me of Pat Gelsinger from Intel, Down to Earth, and telling the truth.

Judging from the Results though, AMD aren't making enough of dent in OEM and enterprise. Well I guess if you are not buying those CPU with your own money, why would you not buy Intel? The consumer market and Small Web Hosting market though seems to be doing better, where the owners are paying. I hope Zen 2 will make enough improvement and change those people's mind, better IPC, better memory controller.

If you loathe Intel after all the lies they have been telling and marketing speaks, you should buy AMD.

If you love Intel still after all, you should still buy AMD, teach them a painful lesson to wake them up.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#205
post #138

Here is one thing we can do about it: make public service announcement to our users that we no longer recommend Intel CPUs because of security holes, censorship and crippled performance. I am going to do that today. While we only have several thousand users they do CPU intensive work, buy a lot of new CPUs and rent a lot of servers. My small contribution will likely amount to low-mid 6 figures out of Intel pocket in…

This amounts to little more than making a statement at the expense of your users. It would've carried that much more weight if it were _your_ low-mid 6 figures that were redirected away from Intel.

It will likely benefit their users. AMD's EPYC processors are cheaper for the same performance as intel's, as well as allowing more memory per processor.

As they allow more cores per socket this can also often massively reduce per-socket licensing cost, if you have the misfortune of using software which requires that.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#206

Before Zen, we all kind of assumed they were so far ahead that AMD were more likely to be out of business before they would ever be a credible threat again. I actually thought Intel must have had some tricks up their sleeves in terms of performance gains that we hadn't seen yet, simply because there was no market need to roll them out and they had so many years of coasting on marginal gains. Seeing them taking this s…

> Clearly, they don't have an answer to AMD at all. If this is true, their shareholders should be asking serious questions about why they've nothing significant to show for all that time and money spent when they were raking it in without a serious competitor.

But they have lots to show for that money!

Brand change implementations such as "Gold" and "Platinum", which gouge the customers more than ever before.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#207

Phoronix already tested this: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=l1tf-ear... and https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=l1tf-for... . The performance loss isn't that bad in most cases.

You might be right in "most" cases but looking at the benchmarks, there is quite a few cases which are used a lot in everday computing where performance literally hits rock bottom. Video rendering went from 600 frames per second down to 200 frames per second. That is a 60% or more performance loss.

Look at the default mitigation; the full one disables HT. Unless you're a cloud provider, the default is probably enough.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#208
post #204

Before Zen, we all kind of assumed they were so far ahead that AMD were more likely to be out of business before they would ever be a credible threat again. I actually thought Intel must have had some tricks up their sleeves in terms of performance gains that we hadn't seen yet, simply because there was no market need to roll them out and they had so many years of coasting on marginal gains. Seeing them taking this s…

>Before Zen, we all kind of assumed they were so far ahead that AMD were more likely to be out of business before they would ever be a credible threat again. It depends where about on the timeline. AMD's hired of Lisa Su and Jim Keller in 2012, we all thought it was too little too late. Look back at the Roadmap Intel were giving at the time, I used to joke about Tick Tock were like the sound of AMD's death clock. In…

Dont forget Puma series of broadband modem chipsets bought from Texas Instruments in 2010. All defective, 3 generations and hardware is still not fixed, just this month Intel released some half assed software patches.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/09/intel_puma_modem_wo...

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#209

My thougt based on the HN headline "Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed" (after having read the article, of course): Doesn't this show that it is time for someone to set up some kind of "ScienceLeaks" website, where scientists can upload research (results, papers, ...) anonymously which they are are not allowed to do legally because of various such "research-restricting" laws. ---…

Sleazy marketers would be all over that. :/

If they show reproducible results, then I don't see a problem. If they don't, well then you know it is either dodgy or not rigorous enough to take seriously.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#210
post #204

Before Zen, we all kind of assumed they were so far ahead that AMD were more likely to be out of business before they would ever be a credible threat again. I actually thought Intel must have had some tricks up their sleeves in terms of performance gains that we hadn't seen yet, simply because there was no market need to roll them out and they had so many years of coasting on marginal gains. Seeing them taking this s…

>Before Zen, we all kind of assumed they were so far ahead that AMD were more likely to be out of business before they would ever be a credible threat again. It depends where about on the timeline. AMD's hired of Lisa Su and Jim Keller in 2012, we all thought it was too little too late. Look back at the Roadmap Intel were giving at the time, I used to joke about Tick Tock were like the sound of AMD's death clock. In…

Broadwell and Skylake brings nothing much substantial.

Ironically, Broadwell's 128MB L4 cache did bring a substantial performance boost to a whole range of real-world applications, but it seems it's so expensive to manufacture that they've subsequently dropped the feature except for Apple's iMacs and expensive laptops.

Post reply on HN