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

101–110 of 209 posts

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#101

Post by throwaway2048 »

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.

Unless I'm reading incorrectly, it looks very much like AMD holds 4/5 top spots, not Intel.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#102

Post by kllrnohj »

paulmd wrote: post #45
pinewurst wrote: post #30

There's often a long lead time between writing up benchmarks/white papers and publication. At my last employer it could take well over a month to let everyone have their 2 cents and get through Legal for approval. This is a long enough interval to explain the old/new GROMACS usage. As the saying goes, don't attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity (including corporate bureaucracy).

Also, the difference in sub-NUMA configuration actually favors AMD as well. NPS=4 is optimal for AMD, as shown by ServeTheHome's own work earlier. Both systems are tested in their proper (fastest) configuration. Despite ServeTheHome's own previous work showing this, they're whining about it being different. But if Intel hadn't tested AMD in the proper configuration they would have complained about that too. Yeah, you…

> Both systems are tested in their proper (fastest) configuration.

AMD is running at half the threads it can. I'm pretty sure that's not its proper nor fastest configuration.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#103

Post by majormjr »

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.

Are we looking at the same charts? Both show AMD with a majority in the top 5.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#104

Post by twobat »

There are small and middle corporations that don't have people brave enough to choose AMD. I know, I worked at two of them. In there, nobody has the time to think about AMD and to swallow and explain eventual issues that might arise.

And frankly I've never seen AMD trying to reach those people.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#105

Post by icedchai »

deaddodo wrote: post #74
pkaye wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There was a proof-of-concept included in the whitepaper: https://spectreattack.com/spectre.pdf That's a working exploit, not a hypothetical.

A proof-of-concept is not a real world exploit. The PoC operates under perfect conditions.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#107

Post by Darkphibre »

reacharavindh wrote: post #72
computerex wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disabling Spectre/Meltdown mitigations on a server especially would be the dumbest thing imaginable. These attacks are not restricted to JavaScript, they are side-channel attacks and have a huge exploitable surface. Just look at the number of patches for the MS SQL server needed to mitigate: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4073225/guidance-pr...

No, it is NOT the dumbest thing imaginable! If your server is not reachable from untrusted sources, and you are running only what you trust, it is prudent to disable mitigation’s and make use of the extra performance. Example, I run many compute nodes (only private network) in my HPC cluster with mitigation’s off. If an attacker could reach the compute nodes over the network to push the attack payload, I’ve already b…

That's a fascinating take on internal security.

Naturally, everyone must determine their level of risk aversion and take the steps they feel most prudent. I've not heard this perspective before. Thank you for sharing!

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#108

Post by acquacow »

chaosbutters314 wrote: post #70
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.

How do you plan to optimize for the increased NUMA overhead?

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#110

Post by jacquesm »

reacharavindh wrote: post #11

Yes, synthetic benchmark results in general are to be taken with a grain of salt, leaving a lot of potential for things like these that can easily produce the result you desire than what really is.. there is a big question of how this translates to what your workload needs/does. We just bought our first AMD Epyc server for our HPC cluster. I cant wait until next week to test it against our Skylake nodes. 1 socket EPY…

Really curious as well, will you please do a write-up if you can make the results public?
Post reply on HN