AMD seems to fare better with the patches. Its good for AMD. I remember when AMD64 came out and AMD had a lead on intel. Its good to have have some competition.
Except Intel + mitigations still much faster on most workloads than AMD without mitigations.
The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux
11–20 of 33 posts
Re: The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux
#12For example 90% of the JavaScript I run is for advertizing purposes. The pragmatic solution would be that either everybody moves to self-hosting ads, or that the neccessary telemetry for third parties is moved into a browser function. Web pages (that are not applications) should not need a "turing complete" language (in the vulgar sense of the term).
If you have real applications - like GMail or Facebook - you should run them in a sandbox, but they should not be treated differently from native apps. Yes, a native app could use Meltdown etc. to attack other apps, but usually it can compromize you even simpler since most desktop apps are not sandboxed. It can just open the memory of other apps or abuse accessibility functions. My point is, I don't expect MS Word or Photoshop to be perfectly sandboxed. I explicity trust the vendor when I install their app. If we would really trust what we trust, and really distrust what whe don't, a lot would be won.
Of course, I know that the world is not set up rationally and we'll continue to be compelled to trust untrustworthy code on our PCs, so for the time being it looks like we're stuck with the mitigations.
Re: The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except Intel + mitigations still much faster on most workloads than AMD without mitigations.
Yeah I don’t see what AMD has to be glad about here. Their new CPUs are not remotely competitive with Intel on realistic workloads, mainly because their cache and TLB architecture is already poor. Intel had to introduce more TLB misses to fix this, AMD starts with that.
I assert that AMD is competitive [1] [2] and is definitely cutting into Intel sales [3] [4]. Even Intel's CEO thinks so [5].
Care to back up your claims with well known, respected, repeatable benchmarks?
[1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd...
[2] https://www.anandtech.com/show/12084/epyc-benchmarks-by-inte...
[3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoorhead/2018/06/20/how-...
[4] https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/05/29/amd-keeps-chipping...
[5] https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/11/amd-will-create-stiff-compet...
Even Greg-KH warns about Intel's performance due to these exploits: http://www.eweek.com/security/linux-kernel-developer-critici...
Re: The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah I don’t see what AMD has to be glad about here. Their new CPUs are not remotely competitive with Intel on realistic workloads, mainly because their cache and TLB architecture is already poor. Intel had to introduce more TLB misses to fix this, AMD starts with that.
That's a pretty bold claim to make. I assert that AMD is competitive [1] [2] and is definitely cutting into Intel sales [3] [4]. Even Intel's CEO thinks so [5]. Care to back up your claims with well known, respected, repeatable benchmarks? [1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd... [2] https://www.anandtech.com/show/12084/epyc-benchmarks-by-inte... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoor…
Ex-CEO.
Re: The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux
#15AMD seems to fare better with the patches. Its good for AMD. I remember when AMD64 came out and AMD had a lead on intel. Its good to have have some competition.
Except Intel + mitigations still much faster on most workloads than AMD without mitigations.
Re: The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux
#16Re: The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux
#17AMD seems to fare better with the patches. Its good for AMD. I remember when AMD64 came out and AMD had a lead on intel. Its good to have have some competition.
Except Intel + mitigations still much faster on most workloads than AMD without mitigations.
Re: The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux
#18What is the best way to disable the mitigations if you don't care about security but care about performance?
Re: The Performance Cost Of Spectre/Meltdown/Foreshadow Mitigations On Linux
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a pretty bold claim to make. I assert that AMD is competitive [1] [2] and is definitely cutting into Intel sales [3] [4]. Even Intel's CEO thinks so [5]. Care to back up your claims with well known, respected, repeatable benchmarks? [1] https://www.anandtech.com/show/11544/intel-skylake-ep-vs-amd... [2] https://www.anandtech.com/show/12084/epyc-benchmarks-by-inte... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmoor…
> Even Intel's CEO thinks so Ex-CEO.