Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

servethehome.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 209 posts

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#61

Post by gpm »

jolmg wrote: post #58
gpm wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many? Anything running a browser needs it because of js. Anything running connected to the internet at all would be well advised to have them because you can take advantage of the exploits via the network stack. Anything running on a vm has to have them since microcode is set by the hypervisor. So, we're talking about desktops not used to browse the internet, and bare metal servers whose network stacks aren't exposed…

> So, we're talking about desktops not used to browse the internet You can browse the internet without JS. Many people here seem to do so.

Technically true.

The number of people who do isn't statistically interesting though. If you are I still wouldn't advise doing so while turning off the mitigations since you're still parsing and displaying hostile ip/tcp/http/(html/CSS/image/video/...).

For example, http://www.misc0110.net/web/files/netspectre.pdf

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#62

Post by londons_explore »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #59
eganist wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's the thing - they keep doing it, which means regardless of people coming out with stories like this, it must be effective.

They can't fake public PassMark results though. They currently hold four of the top five results for high end processors there ( https://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html ) and a lot of the top price/performance results ( https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_value_available.html ). A lot of folks use charts like these to guide buying decisions or make recommendations to others.

If I were Intel I'd have whole teams of people trying to invent new benchmarking tools and apps. And all those apps would be compiled with options that favor Intel and include only tests where Intel looks good...

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#63

Post by pkaye »

computerex wrote: post #48
sp332 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many applications don't need Spectre or Meltdown mitigations, but they should at least put the test parameters up front and not in the fine print.

You absolutely need Spectre/Meltdown mitigation otherwise someone could attack you with JavaScript running in your web browser. https://linuxreviews.org/HOWTO_make_Linux_run_blazing_fast_(... noibrs - We don't need no restricted indirect branch speculation noibpb - We don't need no indirect branch prediction barrier either nospectre_v1 and nospectre_v2: Don't care if some program can get data from some other program…

Is there a working JavaScript exploit for Spectre/Meltdown? I though it was just hypothetical.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#64

Post by emmelaich »

Tepix wrote: post #27
stephencanon wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All benchmarks are misleading.

Not if you designed a benchmark for your special requirements.

It still is misleading, because your special requirements will not perfectly match your benchmark.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#65

Post by NicoJuicy »

And if anyone from AMD is reading this. I'm truelly awaiting AMD's NUC in multiple price ranges of 150-700€, if possible :)! I'm currently building a DIY RPi 4 cluster for microservices/kubernetes setup and would like to replace my DIY home streaming setup.

http://www.fanlesstech.com/2019/10/exclusive-amds-nuc-is-com...

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#66

Post by vkou »

jolmg wrote: post #58
gpm wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many? Anything running a browser needs it because of js. Anything running connected to the internet at all would be well advised to have them because you can take advantage of the exploits via the network stack. Anything running on a vm has to have them since microcode is set by the hypervisor. So, we're talking about desktops not used to browse the internet, and bare metal servers whose network stacks aren't exposed…

> So, we're talking about desktops not used to browse the internet You can browse the internet without JS. Many people here seem to do so.

If you're browsing the internet without JS, you don't need a CPU that was built this decade to do so.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#67

Post by gpm »

sp332 wrote: post #60
gpm wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many? Anything running a browser needs it because of js. Anything running connected to the internet at all would be well advised to have them because you can take advantage of the exploits via the network stack. Anything running on a vm has to have them since microcode is set by the hypervisor. So, we're talking about desktops not used to browse the internet, and bare metal servers whose network stacks aren't exposed…

I'm not clear what your point was about the VMs. Why do hypervisors need Meltdown mitigated? I think you're underestimating the % of HPC networks with properly-configured firewalls and only running code from trusted sources.

If you trust all the code (and other inputs, or outputs) on all the VMs, and you are running it in a secure environment, you don't. I admit, it's possible I'm underestimating how common this is.

Why you generally do need it is the above isn't true, and microcode has to be loaded at the hypervisor level for everyone or for no one

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#68

Post by jolmg »

vkou wrote: post #66
jolmg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, we're talking about desktops not used to browse the internet You can browse the internet without JS. Many people here seem to do so.

If you're browsing the internet without JS, you don't need a CPU that was built this decade to do so.

Yet, Meltdown is said to probably effect every processor since 25 years ago[1], so I doubt people would have one from before then by chance or be willing to use it.

[1] https://meltdownattack.com/#faq-systems-meltdown

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#69

Post by enriquto »

vkou wrote: post #66
jolmg wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, we're talking about desktops not used to browse the internet You can browse the internet without JS. Many people here seem to do so.

If you're browsing the internet without JS, you don't need a CPU that was built this decade to do so.

Indeed, I need my CPU for other things that browsing the web.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#70

Post by chaosbutters314 »

NicoJuicy wrote: post #65

And if anyone from AMD is reading this. I'm truelly awaiting AMD's NUC in multiple price ranges of 150-700€, if possible :)! I'm currently building a DIY RPi 4 cluster for microservices/kubernetes setup and would like to replace my DIY home streaming setup. http://www.fanlesstech.com/2019/10/exclusive-amds-nuc-is-com...

Can I ask for anyone from AMD to sell a 4 socket, epyc mobo. Im looking for 256 (4*64) core desktop PC.
Post reply on HN