Soldato
Apple are affected also : https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208394
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Yes, I saw someone post a screenshot on reddit of that power shell scrip that verifies whether the fixes are applied and kernel VA shadowing was disabled on Ryzen and marked as not necessary.
I guess this more lethal to the average home user than i first thought.
Not entirely true. The minimums of one user has tanked
https://np.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrac...nce_impact_of_windows_patch_and_bios/ds88idv/
Edit: I'll leave this here but just realised that with out a graph or the removal of outliers my statement is not entirely accurate.
Seen as the averages were all exactly the same, and the mins vary wildly between unpatched, patched and patched with bios patch, i doubt that the brief lowest minimum has anything to do with anything other than some sort of brief hitch or mem cache type thing.
User also said they didn't notice it drop below 85, so lows could have been loading stutter.
https://np.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrac...nce_impact_of_windows_patch_and_bios/ds8qy3e/
Probably best to wait for more gaming benchmarks.
Hope haswell-e gets a microcode update, Intel can jog on if they think I'll replace a 2 year old system with another Intel based one if they don't make it right.
So sort of related, has intel's ipc advantage been because they have been cheating and not fussed about security?
Some are server OS but we have some Win 10 Pro workstations as well. I'll take a look at that article thanks.
Unless the testing is purely functional, it should really be run in an environment that's representative of production - i.e. with the patch enabled. It'll be no good proving performance in test only for it to be slower when released to live.
I realise I've made a lot of assumptions above
Yeah we have a testing environment in the cloud which replicates the production environment, but we do a lot of dev work in house where we often just want to test functionality.
We develop websites so the production data is just fabricated input.
Last edited:
That could be pretty damn painful for me in the future. I'll have to wait and see what happens over the coming weeks with all the patches and fixes that are going to come out.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
The problem isn't trust, it's need. If your company requires 500 more computers, or if a server farm needs upgrading you can't simply not buy and if AMD computers aren't available you only have one other choice. That is the big issue, computers run the world, the choice to not buy doesn't exist for business. If Amazon require expanding their cloud capacity they can't just wait, they lose business doing that to someone else who would buy computers to expand their capacity instead. So Amazon have to buy and again they can only buy what is available. I fully expect companies to think heavily about buying AMD and many will, but AMD will run out of chips and given no other option trust or no trust, they'll buy Intel.
Now if GloFo had the same manufacturing capacity as AMD and it wasn't already assigned (which itself is a situation that wouldn't happen, you don't keep 20billion+ worth of fabs sitting there idle waiting for this kind of situation) then I think trust could massively massively hurt Intel, but in the current situation it will likely make much less difference than it should.
I literally use my gaming pc to game, nothing else (I have other devices for that). The only services I log into are gaming services, which I have different passwords to the services with which I'd care if they were hacked. Nothing personal stored on it whatsoever. My other devices - I will definitely apply the fix.
To be honest, the fact that such a vast amount of hardware has got the flaw gives a certain sense of safety in numbers. If almost all computers are potential targets, I don't feel particularly threatened as all computers have always been able to be hacked in one way or another anyway.
Obviously I know very little about computer security, but I know about probability. It sounds like it would be a freak occurance for an individual to get targeted given the hundreds of millions of affected devices. I probably have a higher chance of dying during one of my skydives tomorrow, or getting run over by car in the next few weeks. Putting things into perspective, I just don't care if someone hacks the password to my Steam account...
Its inexcusable how intel handled it though in my opinion. I think I'll go with AMD for my next build.
Soldato
Damn, thats a hell of a lot more than 30%
Associate
Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's not what safety in numbers means though - it means that most get away unscathed as a minority pay the price.
Abundant technology exists to enable scale and automation - it's very little cost to attack millions vs attacking a few. If you're a victim alongside many others, you're still a victim
Of course you have your own pain thresholds and unique circumstances, but don't let scary headlines put you off patching.
Caporegime
Associate
AMD has it's own protection built in to its cpu, and so only if you can actualy get access of the computer can you use the exploit. So AMD are almost bomb proof, so why the need for a patch.
Intel on the other hand, well you should have used 2 glued togeather deasktop cpu's to save all bother. LOL!!!
Intel on the other hand, well you should have used 2 glued togeather deasktop cpu's to save all bother. LOL!!!
Associate
Any one want to swap a 6600k for a 1600X? No reason just feel like a change from the blue team!
For meltdown yes. However, from what i have read Spectre affects AMD stuff as well.
Also from what i have read meltdown is fixed with the OS update but it is Spectre that needs the microcode update.
Good hygiene should avoid him downlaoding any compromised/injected code though, plus two factor authorisation on the critical applications means passwords are of limted use (unless the attacker is waiting ready to control your system immediately you provide the second password) ?