Only in Crystaldiskmark alone.Not in ATTO. I have near zero influence on my rig (Win10pro, 8700k, 960Pro 1TB).
https://www.techspot.com/article/1554-meltdown-flaw-cpu-performance-windows/The last storage focused test I ran was ATTO Disk Benchmark and here we find something interesting. These are all sequential tests so the 4K results here won’t necessarily reflect what we saw previously and they clearly don’t. However as the file size grows to 16 kilobytes we start to see a noticeable drop in performance with the update. The drop off isn’t as significant as the 4K read results seen previously but we are seeing up to a 9% reduction in throughput.
ok, i did NOT have that information.They have known since Jun of last year!
Edit: here is the link to the CNBC article:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/04/int...lready-knew-about-massive-security-flaws.html
Google knew and informed the entire industry to mitigate this.ok, i did NOT have that information.
Was it Google that knew, or Intel? If Google's research team knows but they had not disclosed it yet, Intel might still be able to save themselves.
i'm gonna side with cpu manufacturers saying "it works as intended".
in other news, Lamborghini willingly released their latest car knowing full well at launch that the tires it comes equipped with are subject to a defect where if an attacker lays spikes in front of the oncoming vehicle, the tires can be punctured.
Also locks that can be opened, the chassis is susceptible to fires when covered in gasoline, and the windshield will shatter if simply struck with an 8-pound hammer.
a vulnerability is not a defect. the FDIV floating point bug was a defect. in common market products, you might have a slim chance if it was proven that a manufacturing company skipped common tests for common vulnerability, such as a company that produces roof tiles and does not test them for rain.
when it comes down to research-based technology, you just don't have a chance. unless you prove that they *knew* the vulnerability existed and went into production anyway ...
Waiting out this gen of chips has proved to be the right course of action.
Those who waited can wait some more, and then be able to build their new system without any of these vulnerabilities.
Hopefully.
If your system is a few years old and you have been waiting, then wait a little longer for the next gen of chips before spending
your hard earned money.
What could Intel have done in June to mitigate this?Google knew and informed the entire industry to mitigate this.
time travel confirmed2. We did it anyway because we needed to cram in some hidden performance to overtake our competitors
I don't know, I'm still confused as to whether this is even a problem for a home user and if it is even a problem in the absence of a malware infection?Yeah, unintended for me, lol. I was more or less waiting for a decent Vega 56 release, priced well, and available....so I continue to wait. Still haven't bought my Ryzen (Was also waiting for good mATX boards, as well). Now it's no big thing to wait for Zen+ in a couple of months. By then, I expect the issues that actually effect AMD will be ironed out and part of an initial update.
Can these be done through BIOS? I've only read that they were software/OS fixes.
...but also smaller and better PSUs are finally starting to show up, so all of these delays are helpful.
Mozilla had to make changes to Firefox in order to limit exploit potential via JS. Based on this I reckon a browser based attack was a possibility, hence home users could become targets.I don't know, I'm still confused as to whether this is even a problem for a home user and if it is even a problem in the absence of a malware infection
I don't know, I'm still confused as to whether this is even a problem for a home user and if it is even a problem in the absence of a malware infection?
Also, I am thinking that patches and updates will gradually decrease the performance hit for those situations where that occurs.
Well, bring their own engineers on board to research and fully understand the issue, start discussing and writing patches for their own systems and OS's, stuff like that.What could Intel have done in June to mitigate this?
IIRC, that was only in a benchmark, not in actual use?patching meltdown looks to be a real performance hit for people using NvMe SSDs. Some of those benchmarks were reporting 20-25%? Rather defeats the purpose of going that route, then.
Part of me wishes Google never attempted performing this exploit. Fixes of some kind have to be performed once any exploit is disclosed. This kind of fix I could have done without.
Home users will not be significantly impacted in terms of performance (meaning zero or near zero performance impact). Update your browser, update your OS, go on with your life as usual.So any conclusive impact on older machines like my core 2 quad?
I'd hate that to be slowed down and be forced to buy a new machine that gets slowed down
Probably not going to notice in regular home use.So any conclusive impact on older machines like my core 2 quad?
I'd hate that to be slowed down and be forced to buy a new machine that gets slowed down
This is what I'm most curious about: what CPUs will Intel be selling in 2019 that have been purposely built to avoid this vulnerability? Why would Intel's next gen arch be designed to be immune to this exploit path considering Intel has just become aware of it?But when you do buy a new system in a year, the newer chips should not have these flaws.
Intel said the first chips with hardware mitigation will be released in 2018. They already know about it for 7 months so definitely possible.This is what I'm most curious about: what CPUs will Intel be selling in 2019 that have been purposely built to avoid this vulnerability? Why would Intel's next gen arch be designed to be immune to this exploit path considering Intel has just become aware of it?