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

121–130 of 209 posts

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#121

Post by eyegor »

gpm wrote: post #67
sp332 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> it's possible I'm underestimating how common this is

This is quite common in the engineering/research sectors, which love clusters. Think Sandia, oak ridge, etc. I also personally know of several private companies with research clusters. I'm curious how common hpcs are outside of the research community, because honestly I'm struggling to think of a practical need for one.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#122

Post by kmlx »

NicoJuicy wrote: post #39

They wouldn't have an answer to AMD untill 2021: https://newsroom.intel.com/news/2019-intel-investor-meeting/... Ps. Long AMD, perfect execution the last two years. It's crazy, even their late firmware fixes improve performance as it had bad press for a moment for false benchmarks advertisement ( it was not false so it seems, the firmware was just not ok yet. Not everything is fully ok now, it's the only minor nitpic…

"Long AMD"

are you expecting a higher stock price? because their 90 PE TTM doesn't look like it's in line with the rest of the industry.

don't get me wrong, i was also long AMD, and still partly am, but i don't think the stock can go higher than 36-37, or even maintain that level long term, without some some mega quarters. which according to their own estimates will not be the case.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#123

Post by lonelappde »

jolmg wrote: post #68
vkou wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Every Intel processor.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#124

Post by stagger87 »

GhettoMaestro wrote: post #85
sp332 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

HPC is not the real use case (target). The percentage of HPC compared to the rest of the target market (public cloud) is insignificantly small. The real question is do you trust any potential co-tenants in a public cloud that share a hypervisor with you, when said hypervisor does NOT have Spectre/Meltdown fixes applied? (There is only one correct answer...) Also you can fairly easily mitigate this in a public cloud s…

HPC is the use case in this thread, considering the topic is revolving around HPC benchmarks.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#125

Post by CamperBob2 »

pkaye wrote: post #63
computerex wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. It's almost unexploitable in the real world. An insanely stupid overreaction that we're all being forced to pay for. Security theatre for the post-Web 2.0 age.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#126

Post by imtringued »

mattmar96 wrote: post #73
chaosbutters314 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What will you use that many cores for?

Encoding multiple video streams in real time simultaneously.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#127

Post by jammygit »

jmull wrote: post #53

The article is more or less BS. For one, the claim is that Intel misleads intentionally . Given the timeline there's no particular reason to think there is something intentional here. The AMD-optimized version of GROMACS just came out ~5 weeks ago. Second, while this is misleading in a sense, it's in the way that benchmarks are all generally misleading. By their intrinsic nature they don't tell the whole story. (And…

They are publishing statements of fact about a competitor. The onus is on them to check those facts, and companies should be held accountable for the things they say - even in advertising

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#129

Post by lonelappde »

computerex wrote: post #52
stagger87 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For some reason, I doubt people in the server/workstation space don't know how to do this, especially if they are leaving double digit percentage gains on the table if they don't.

You are not supposed to disable the mitigations... Especially on servers and workstations... And keep in mind that the usual mitigations aren't even holistic. The only truly 100% secure fix for Spectre/Meltdown is to disable hyperthreading altogether.

No. Spectre does not depend on hyperthreading, only speculative execution.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#130

Post by computerex »

lonelappde wrote: post #129
computerex wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not supposed to disable the mitigations... Especially on servers and workstations... And keep in mind that the usual mitigations aren't even holistic. The only truly 100% secure fix for Spectre/Meltdown is to disable hyperthreading altogether.

No. Spectre does not depend on hyperthreading, only speculative execution.

I was lumping them all into MDS class of vulnerabilities. It was misleading.

https://linuxreviews.org/Microarchitectural_Data_Sampling:_T...

Post reply on HN