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

Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

perens.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 499 posts

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#371

Post by tolmasky »

tomaskafka wrote: post #362
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel are still ahead in low power mobile (laptop) CPU race, and the clear leader in the laptop market. Who knows for how long, though?

I think Apple laptop CPUs will be like USB-C. First 'what's the point, nothing is compatible', year later 'everyone is doing it and it's actually pretty cool to attach everything including power with a single cheap dongle'.

I wasn't aware we were there with USB-C. I still need a dongle every time I use anything. But more importantly, I was in the camp of "I barely connect anything to my computer other than power, and MagSafe worked so well I forgot it was ever an issue, but then "USB-C charging" regressed things to the point where I thought I was charging but nope, turns out the connector was slightly out and my battery is at 5%".

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#372

Post by carlmr »

js8 wrote: post #282
gray_-_wolf wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but it's not necessarily related to competion, size is primary factor. At least I believe that was his point.

I think it is related to competition. Lack of competition brings complacency of executives, who think they can get free money for shareholders without having to reinvest into innovation. (And I think that was carlmr's point.) Of course, if you are bigger, the more likely it is that there is no competition at certain times.

Yeah, my point was that a big company can coast without innovating. They usually have a lot of stuff to sell that they have done in the past. The pressure to rejuvenate comes from outside, rarely from the inside (surely there are exceptions as with every good rule).

If you can survive without investing, a lot of companies choose not to.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#373

Post by gaia »

Let the benchmarks roll in...

https://access.redhat.com/security/vulnerabilities/L1TF-perf

An estimation of man hours spent on this issue outside Intel

https://www.servethehome.com/intel-publishes-l1tf-and-foresh...

Thought frequently mentioned, Phoronix did not run a benchmark comparing before and after application of the microcode update. Excerpt: To note, no microcode changes/updates were made to the systems under test for this article, just testing/comparing the kernel patches (https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=l1tf-for...)

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#374

Post by duxup »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #277
duxup wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't know anything about this... now I'm really curious what the benchmarks are. Now that it is news they're pretty much begging for someone to do the benchmarks. This reminds me of the oracle license that was so broad it prevented users from talking to other users about their experience with the product... any experience.

Perhaps they're not complete imbeciles and this is a marketing stunt, turns out the benchmarks are fantastic??

I would very much enjoy that.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#375

Post by GrumpyNl »

gsich wrote: post #358
lordlimecat wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen how many messaging apps theyve made in the last few years?

And it's still a mess that nobody wants to use.

Took over 500 lightbulbs before there was a usable one. Just dont give up.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#376

Post by charleslmunger »

phire wrote: post #228
pmjordan wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Broadwell and Skylake brings nothing much substantial. Ironically, Broadwell's 128MB L4 cache did bring a substantial performance boost to a whole range of real-world applications, but it seems it's so expensive to manufacture that they've subsequently dropped the feature except for Apple's iMacs and expensive laptops.

Haswell massively improved the branch predictor, which gave a significant IPC boost to many real-world workloads (especially emulation and interpreters).

How much of that boost remains after patches to Spectre and meltdown?

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#377

Post by shakna »

mcv wrote: post #266
shakna wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (v) publish or provide any Software benchmark or comparison test results. This seems to exclude any benchmark that may be affected by the Software's performance... Which means any CPU benchmark. There is some play in the wording... And I'm taking the least favourable interpretation. But yeah... Seems like Intel have said no benchmarking, full stop.

> Seems like Intel have said no benchmarking, full stop. That doesn't mean it's enforceable. Companies say silly things all the time.

Absolutely.

If they tried to uphold that least-favourable interpretation, then I would be reaching for anti-competitive laws, and other consumer protections, and perhaps even contract law as they say downloading the software, so you can see the license, is binding.

It seems difficult to have a legal argument that it should be binding at all.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#378

Post by f055 »

naasking wrote: post #323

I wish lawmakers would tackle these kind of ridiculous provisions in EULAs. When you purchase something, you own it, and you should be able to do what you want with it. You shouldn't have to jump through absurd legal hurdles to use and talk about something you legally purchased. These aren't national security secrets for god's sake.

They do. The same EULA will have different binding in the US and in Europe, for example. In many EU countries companies cannot draw arbitrary EULAs. If some sections infringe on consumer rights, then these sections simply don't apply and cannot be enforced. In essence, Intel can write whatever they wish in the EULA, but the consumer can do whatever they want as well. Depending on consumer's jurisdiction, it can create problems or not. US judiciary system is particularly unpleasant to the regular Joe, but the rest of the world is not. Go figure.

Re: Intel Publishes Microcode Patches, No Benchmarking or Comparison Allowed

#379

Post by pcnix »

yohann305 wrote: post #235
carlmr wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>they've nothing significant to show for all that time and money spent when they were raking it in without a serious competitor. Big companies rarely innovate without competition around.

This is certainly a myth. Everyone knows, including big companies, that as you grow in size you have a harder time innovating. The classic "lean startup" book mentions this issue and gives the example of Intuit's in-house accelerator/incubator. No way Intel doesn't know about it too. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbestechcouncil/2018/04/19/in...

This is also the topic of the book "The Innovator's Dilemma" by Clayton Christensen.
Post reply on HN