www.phoronix.com
Funny how you don't like facts showed in every thread. Maybe because they counter your biased BS.
Want more? How about TomsHardware?
The hardware reviews and news website Phoronix has found that Intel's security mitigations for all exploits since Spectre reduces performance by 16% on average, and even more with Hyper-Threading disabled.
www.tomshardware.com
Maybe you should answer that question yourself. Or accuse both Phoronix and TomsHardware of lying.
Please answer these questions just because I need to know if we are on the same grounds here:
1) Do you actually follow Phoronix? (I do, in fact the owner of this website and I correspond quite often)
2) Do you actually run Linux on any of your PCs? (I do, at least four PCs under Linux)
3) Do you know what workflows are real and with are mostly artificial? (I do as I've read all the Phoronix reviews on the topic and I also know how much Phoronix (Michael Larabel) has been misquoted and how his writing style has affected even your own attitude)
4) How many Phoronix reviews of HW vulnerabilities in Intel CPUs have you personally read? (Me? All of them, I've been a Phoronix reader since the inception)
5) Do you understand these vulnerabilities and their applicability? Like what they entail, in what situations they manifest themselves, and in under which circumstances they can be exploited? (I understand)
6) Has any of the vulnerabilities in the Intel CPUs made them "worthless" as indicated in this topic over and over again?
7) Do Spectre-class vulnerabilities affect AMD CPUs?
Here are the latest Phoronix results with somewhat real world tests:
www.phoronix.com
The Intel Core i7 5960X saw 86% the performance out-of-the-box compared to the unmitigated performance, the Core i7 8700K about 84% the unmitigated performance, the Core i5 9400F at 86%, the Core i9 9900K at 88%, and then the new Intel Core i9 10980XE at 97% based upon the tests ran that are affected by Spectre, Meltdown, and other CPU vulnerability mitigations.
I.e. the newest enterprise CPUs are barely affected at all even though they still have the same old "worthless" Sky Lake core.
Also, let's restore some justice here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltdown_(security_vulnerability)#Affected_hardware : the worst vulnerability (by its performance impact) was also found in the CPUs made by
ARM, IBM, and probably some older SPARCs. It surely looks to me it wasn't just Intel who sought to make their CPUs faster without thinking about proper security.
Speaking of wildly misinterpreted results in terms of performance loss, here are some perfect examples, i.e. Redis LPUSH, GET and SET benchmarks:
www.phoronix.com
There's almost 38% performance loss. However question number
8) How often do you run Redis LPUSH, GET and SET queries in isolation without having any application logic on top of it? Just to be extra sure, do you know what Redis is? (I do, cause we use it in our company).
Anyways, will please get back to the marketwatch piece and how it's completely irrelevant on these forums? Or people haven't expressed their hatred towards Intel in other topics yet? But are we sure such discussions even pertain to the subforum called "CPUs and OC'ing"? Maybe we should move to politics? ;-)