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

131–140 of 209 posts

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#131

Post by axaxs »

rhizome wrote: post #119
axaxs wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. In an effort to minimalize, my work PC is a monitor with a NUC sitting under it. No bulky case, wires everywhere, etc. I've been trying for two years to find an AMD equivalent to no avail.

You can get a VESA mount Mini-ITX[1] case with a current-chipset (X570, etc.) motherboard, as well as all the other Mini-ITX options like monitor-mount base cases[2]. 1. https://www.amazon.com/Antec-ISK110-VESA-U3-Mini-ITX-Compati... 2. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn%3AANd9GcQQB9...

Thanks for the links. This is significantly larger than a NUC, but still manageable. That said, part of what I appreciate about the NUC is that it's all built together...no weird hardware/compat issues, etc.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#132

Post by spamizbad »

seminatl wrote: post #55
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…

You just leaped to the unfounded conclusion that every computer needs to run untrusted JavaScript. The vast majority of computers have no such need. Especially in a performance-sensitive contest like buying CPU for your database server that lives in a datacenter and never runs a web browser you will certainly disable these security things.

The only applications that will disable these mitigations are maybe home power users or certain niches where access to the system is always trusted. For everyone else, there's performance stealing mitigations.

If you or your employer doesn't apply mitigations I certainly wouldn't go around bragging about it. Let it be a deep, dark secret until the next hw upgrade cycle. Otherwise you'll get pilloried and/or sued for any data breach.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#133

Post by loeg »

eyegor wrote: post #117
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.

Desktop? Not only will that be huge, but I doubt such a system would work within the typical 1500-2000w power budget of a household electrical run.

Rome is nominally 225W/socket on the very high end of the price range; a 4P config puts you at 900W for the CPUs. Depending on other peripherals you might be at 1200-1500W total but I don't think you necessarily go much past that unless you're loading it up with power hungry graphics cards or something. You'd definitely want an efficient power supply!

You're right to express some concern -- practical residential limit for continuous load on a perfect incarnation of the typical residential circuit is something like 1440W total (80% of nominal 15A breaker on 120VAC).

Maybe more realistic mid-range products are 155-180W/socket, and that drops the CPU draw down to 620-720W.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#135

Post by loeg »

cesarb wrote: post #115
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.

> 4 socket, epyc mobo AFAIK, there aren't any, Epyc only has 1 socket (with 129 PCIe lanes) or 2 socket (using 64 or 48 of the 129 lanes to connect to the other socket) options.

Yeah, it's architecturally infeasible on the current platform, nevermind that a single rando on HN's Tesla-priced "desktop" isn't a market segment worth pursuing.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#136

Post by dwild »

majormjr wrote: post #103
thaumaturgy wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I believe that when he said "They currently hold four of the top five results", he was talking about AMD, which does hold four of the top five results in both charts.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#137

Post by loeg »

sp332 wrote: post #16
Jonnax wrote: post #4

I recall a few months ago they released a marketing pack benchmarking themselves against AMD with a small print disclaimer that they hadn't applied the spectre/meltdown fixes.

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.

Appliances might be a better word than applications. If you've got a single privilege level (and that itself isn't a security design flaw), yeah, the info leak isn't a problem. HPCish environments are the obvious example.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#138

Post by loeg »

seminatl wrote: post #55
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…

You just leaped to the unfounded conclusion that every computer needs to run untrusted JavaScript. The vast majority of computers have no such need. Especially in a performance-sensitive contest like buying CPU for your database server that lives in a datacenter and never runs a web browser you will certainly disable these security things.

> You just leaped to the unfounded conclusion that every computer needs to run untrusted JavaScript.

You're right about that...

> The vast majority of computers have no such need.

You're probably wrong about that. Every, no. Majority or substantial minority? Yes. There are a ton of consumer computer devices that act as web browsers, and smartphones absolutely count here.

Re: Intel publishes misleading benchmarks against AMD

#140

Post by loeg »

Darkphibre wrote: post #107
reacharavindh wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

It's basically the historical approach to enterprise security: secure the perimeter, and don't worry about the intranet. It's still hugely popular in enterprise IT. Cryptolocker/Wannacry bit these IT departments hard and they've sort of slowly learned some lessons, but there's huge inertia, low budget, and these things are changing glacially.
Post reply on HN