Intel bug incoming? Meltdown and Spectre exploits

[DragonQ]

So, patches slowed the 8400 down a bit. But still faster than a 1600. Most users will have nothing to worry about.

I dunno, that's a pretty big performance drop. 8% is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things but it's not dissimilar to the performance delta between X Lake and Ryzen to begin with in a lot of games. I mean the Phenom I bug caused that kind of slowdown in some tasks when it came out and AMD were rightfully slated for it. At least they fixed it pretty quickly though, this bug has been around for decades and known about for months (I think around a year actually)!

Obviously for datacentre it's a disaster but if it's actually going to affect open-world games that much it may actually tilt the scales in some cases for gamers.

I reckon hardware unboxed will be doing a monster cpu benchmark soon.

Probably. Right now the two main bang-for-buck CPUs for gamers are the R5 1600 and i5-8400 so I'm sure they will focus on those.

Looks to be for more than that!

https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/27431/Linux-Processor-Microcode-Data-File?product=52214

I'll try that again tonight but not expecting anything for X58. Also, wtf is up with the ordering of the CPUs in their list? Looks really random.

 

[gavinh87]

I dunno, that's a pretty big performance drop. 8% is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things but it's not dissimilar to the performance delta between X Lake and Ryzen to begin with in a lot of games. I mean the Phenom I bug caused that kind of slowdown in some tasks when it came out and AMD were rightfully slated for it. At least they fixed it pretty quickly though, this bug has been around for decades and known about for months (I think around a year actually)!

Obviously for datacentre it's a disaster but if it's actually going to affect open-world games that much it may actually tilt the scales in some cases for gamers.


I'll try that again tonight but not expecting anything for X58. Also, wtf is up with the ordering of the CPUs in their list? Looks really random.

Well the witcher is a bigger drop but others not so much. Don't forget this is a titan x with a 8400 at 1080P.
I don't think any users here will be putting that kind of load on their CPU. The realistic results for most will be <5%

No this is not defending intel, this is being realistic.
Nobody likes a performance drop.

 

[DragonQ]

Well the witcher is a bigger drop but others not so much. Don't forget this is a titan x with a 8400 at 1080P.
I don't think any users here will be putting that kind of load on their CPU. The realistic results for most will be <5%

No this is not defending intel, this is being realistic.
Nobody likes a performance drop.

Indeed. Which is also why the performance difference between the two CPUs has always been largely irrelevant to most gamers, let alone general users.

 

[gavinh87]

Indeed. Which is also why the performance difference between the two CPUs has always been largely irrelevant to most gamers, let alone general users.

For a lot of it yes, however there are certain games out there that just run much better on intel. Theres no getting away from that.

 

[humbug]

For a lot of it yes, however there are certain games out there that just run much better on intel. Theres no getting away from that.

Thats a blanket statement, The last time you said something like this, yesterday the "margin" tuned out to be 2% when both are overclocked and nothing when both are at stock.

So how are you defining "much better" this time?

 

[gavinh87]

Thats a blanket statement, The last time you said something like this, yesterday the "margin" tuned out to be 2% when both are overclocked and nothing when both are at stock.

So how are you defining "much better" this time?

PUBG, planetside2 are a couple. There a many more that just prefer intel.

 

[Rroff]

TBH my gaming machine will be run unpatched for maximum performance - once stuff is running on the system anyway there are much easier ways to exploit it than using these vulnerabilities thanks to MS's security in general (might be another consideration on say Linux where it is much harder to compromise the system security/SU). My main vulnerability would be unsolicited attempts via things like scripts on websites.

 

[humbug]

PUBG, planetside2 are a couple. There a many more that just prefer intel.

Again you're just making assertions, given your history of exaggerating can you provide any actual performance data to backup your claims?

I'm not disputing Coffeelake is faster in some games, even most games; but that is more often than not at 1080P with £700 GPU's and even then the performance difference between this mid range Ryzen £160 vs £360 top of the range Intel mainstream CPU is 20 or so % at best.

In other words if what you are running is a GTX 1080TI then yes what you want and need is an 8700K to get the best out of, for the masses not running 1080TI's they are better off with a Ryzen 1600 because its £200 cheaper and on a more normal GPU like a GTX 1070 has the same performance as the 8700K.

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[humbug]

Again you're just making assertions, given your history of exaggerating can you provide any actual performance data to backup your claims?

I'm not disputing Coffeelake is faster in some games, even most games; but that is more often than not at 1080P with £700 GPU's and even then the performance difference between this mid range Ryzen £160 vs £360 top of the range Intel mainstream CPU is 20 or so % at best.

In other words if what you are running is a GTX 1080TI then yes what you want and need is an 8700K to get the best out of, for the masses not running 1080TI's they are better off with a Ryzen 1600 because its £200 cheaper and on a more normal GPU like a GTX 1070 has the same performance as the 8700K.

Wouldn't you agree?

You see the reality looks more like this, there are no 'particular slow' CPU's these days, even with high powered GPU's they are all much of a muchness, unless they are really low end.
Ryzen is nothing like Bulldozer, infact per core and clock its a full 70% faster than Bulldozer.

across about 20 games its give and take, more Intel take but it still only looks like this.

Even at 720P the most expensive Mainstream Intel is only 20% quicker overall than AMD's middling 1600.

 

[~>Dg<~]

we have proven them numerous times the funny thing was humbug used to post his benchmark in every known thread to man to try and prove otherwise.i said wait till coffeelake and it wasnt posted since they launched lol.

pubg and any intel down to a a i5 7 series woops anything ryzen. the difference is from 20 fps upwards. 8700k can be 40 fps difference. the funny thing is people are spouting 30 percent difference with the bug with all this going off and its been shown a 5 fps hit. so even if you have this / these bugs you are still miles off better on the intel set ups for games.

pubg actual recent benchmarks.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1532-pubg-cpu-benchmarks/

even i3s beat the top ryzens lol.humbug lives in cuckoo land.

 

[gavinh87]

Again you're just making assertions, given your history of exaggerating can you provide any actual performance data to backup your claims?

I'm not disputing Coffeelake is faster in some games, even most games; but that is more often than not at 1080P with £700 GPU's and even then the performance difference between this mid range Ryzen £160 vs £360 top of the range Intel mainstream CPU is 20 or so % at best.

In other words if what you are running is a GTX 1080TI then yes what you want and need is an 8700K to get the best out of, for the masses not running 1080TI's they are better off with a Ryzen 1600 because its £200 cheaper and on a more normal GPU like a GTX 1070 has the same performance as the 8700K.

Wouldn't you agree?

gif hosting

Exaggerating? I have posted many, many screens to backup my claims. Its no secret that ryzen struggle in AVX2 loads.
I've already shown that even a 1700 can even bottleneck a 1070 with my 3dmark results. https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/13810220/fs/13418487# Do note that this is probably the best case for the 1700 also. 3.9ghz/3466 CL14 ram. The 8700k was stock with 2133 ram.

A 1600 is fine for 60hz gaming. But not without expecting hit and miss performance, its either keeping up with intel 8400 or nowhere near depending on the game/dev.
This is particularly highlighted in indie games.

 

[DragonQ]

pubg actual recent benchmarks.

https://www.techspot.com/article/1532-pubg-cpu-benchmarks/

even i3s beat the top ryzens

...by about 10% when using a top tier GPU at 1080p. Also it's only a "new" quad-core Core i3, let's not forget that was reserved for Core i5 CPUs until very recently. Let's keep things in perspective please.

 

[Jono8]

You see the reality looks more like this, there are no 'particular slow' CPU's these days, even with high powered GPU's they are all much of a muchness, unless they are really low end.
Ryzen is nothing like Bulldozer, infact per core and clock its a full 70% faster than Bulldozer.

across about 20 games its give and take, more Intel take but it still only looks like this.

Even at 720P the most expensive Mainstream Intel is only 20% quicker overall than AMD's middling 1600.

25%

Well 24.2 to be exact.

 

[pete910]

planetside2

Planetside2 loves Intel , I noticed that when I jumped to a 4790k from a x6 1090t.

Cant say I've played it whilst owning this ryzen chip.

Will this fix/workround effect games like that then as I believ they are single threaded bound?

 

[humbug]

gif hosting

Exaggerating? I have posted many, many screens to backup my claims. Its no secret that ryzen struggle in AVX2 loads.
I've already shown that even a 1700 can even bottleneck a 1070 with my 3dmark results. https://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/13810220/fs/13418487# Do note that this is probably the best case for the 1700 also. 3.9ghz/3466 CL14 ram. The 8700k was stock with 2133 ram.

A 1600 is fine for 60hz gaming. But not without expecting hit and miss performance, its either keeping up with intel 8400 or nowhere near depending on the game/dev.
This is particularly highlighted in indie games.

Yup, i know this review, its just about as bad as it gets for the Ryzen, and yet its still only 25% behind Intel's flagship on a 1080TI.

So again worst case ^^^^ if you're running a 1080TI clearly what you want is an 8700K, for everyone else the Ryzen 1600 offers the same performance.

These are £160 CPU's vs £360 CPU's

 

[gavinh87]

Planetside2 loves Intel , I noticed that when I jumped to a 4790k from a x6 1090t.

Cant say I've played it whilst owning this ryzen chip.

Will this fix/workround effect games like that then as I believ they are single threaded bound?

From my testing, I have seen no impact. Though thats with a 8700k.
This is my point, some games just run better on intel. Ryzen will do the job but sacrifices will be made.

Yup, i know this review, its just about as bad as it gets for the Ryzen 1600, and yet its still only 20% behind Intel's flagship on a 1080TI.

So again worst case ^^^^ if you're running a 1080TI clearly what you want is an 8700K, for everyone else the Ryzen 1600 offers the same performance.

See my 3dmark compare. Overclocked to the max vs stock even with a mid range 1070.
Games like pubg/ wow/ ps2/ fallout/skyrim all prefer intel. As soon as you go above a 1060 the differences can be seen.

Who upgrades their CPU the same time as their GPU? I'd argue not many.
Get the best CPU you can afford right now and know that you'll be covered. The 1600 shows its weakness with a 1080ti.
What happens in 2 years time where the xx60 is as fast as the 1080ti? That 1600 will need upgrading. You will end up paying twice.

 

[Hedge]

What resolution was used for that graph?

 

[humbug]

See my 3dmark compare. Overclocked to the max vs stock even with a mid range 1070.
Games like pubg/ wow/ ps2/ fallout/skyrim all prefer intel. As soon as you go above a 1060 the differences can be seen.

Who upgrades their CPU the same time as their GPU? I'd argue not many.
Get the best CPU you can afford right now and know that you'll be covered. The 1600 shows its weakness with a 1080ti.
What happens in 2 years time where the xx60 is as fast as the 1080ti? That 1600 will need upgrading. You will end up paying twice.

If you're that bothered you would upgrade to a Ryzen 2600 and still save money vs getting the 8700K, that's how much more expensive the 8700K is and its about to because a bit null with the Ryzen 2 about to launch.

As for your slides anyone can cherry pick one slide and try to make out its because a lack of overall performance, look how the low end Ryzen 1500X 4 core trashes the top on the range Intel 6 core in this game..

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Planetside2 loves Intel , I noticed that when I jumped to a 4790k from a x6 1090t.

Cant say I've played it whilst owning this ryzen chip.

Will this fix/workround effect games like that then as I believ they are single threaded bound?

I play PS2 too,but it does seem to run a bit better more recently than many years ago. Apparently they did make the PS4 version more multi-threaded so not sure if that has meant some improvements have been patched in more recently.

 

[pete910]

I play PS2 too,but it does seem to run a bit better more recently than many years ago. Apparently they did make the PS4 version more multi-threaded so not sure if that has meant some improvements have been patched in more recently.

Good to know. I may just give PS2 another bash If I can be arsed to boot win, Hate to think the hours I might have in it. I jumped on that on release which seems like an age ago now!