Gigabyte Z390 AORUS Master review
Intel Core i9 9900K processor review
Intel Core i7 9700K processor review
Intel Core i5 9600K processor review
MSI MEG Z390 ACE review
ASUS ROG Maximus XI Hero review
Crucial P1 M.2 1000GB SSD Review
Corsair Force Series MP510 M.2 SSD Review
MSI GeForce RTX 2070 Armor 8G review
ASUS Turbo GeForce RTX 2070 8GB review
Windows Vulnerability CPU Meltdown Patch Benchmarked
Posted by: on: 01/04/2018 06:18 PM [
186 comment(s) ]
A quick look at that expected desktop performance drop after we install the Microsoft CPU Meltdown Vulnerability Patch. Will our test PC drop massively in performance?
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
AsiJu
Senior Member
Posts: 5145
Senior Member
Posts: 5145
Posted on: 01/04/2018 06:47 PM
Thanks a lot! Not bad then, chispy is this in line with your SSD benches or did you see bigger hits?
Thanks a lot! Not bad then, chispy is this in line with your SSD benches or did you see bigger hits?
chispy
Senior Member
Posts: 8380
Senior Member
Posts: 8380
Posted on: 01/04/2018 06:52 PM
It seems on Ryzen systems the performance hit it's bigger than on intel , need to do much more testing. But same as Hilbert findings Storage performance it is where it is more pronounced this performance degradation.
Now let's hope AMD can work with Microsoft to make a new patch to exclude AMD cpu's from this BS and get back our performance. Linux users have already a patch available that excludes them from this performance degradation.
Here: Patch to exclude AMD hit the Linux kernel 5 or 6 hours ago. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=00a5ae218d57741088068799b810416ac249a9ce
Thanks a lot! Not bad then, chispy is this in line with your SSD benches or did you see bigger hits?
It seems on Ryzen systems the performance hit it's bigger than on intel , need to do much more testing. But same as Hilbert findings Storage performance it is where it is more pronounced this performance degradation.
Now let's hope AMD can work with Microsoft to make a new patch to exclude AMD cpu's from this BS and get back our performance. Linux users have already a patch available that excludes them from this performance degradation.
Here: Patch to exclude AMD hit the Linux kernel 5 or 6 hours ago. https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=00a5ae218d57741088068799b810416ac249a9ce
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 33522
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 33522
Posted on: 01/04/2018 07:02 PM
I am still doing some NVMe tests on another system as I had an issue with the Samsung 960 pre and post patch results. Will update once the numbers are done.
I am still doing some NVMe tests on another system as I had an issue with the Samsung 960 pre and post patch results. Will update once the numbers are done.
Turanis
Senior Member
Posts: 1301
Senior Member
Posts: 1301
Posted on: 01/04/2018 07:06 PM
Good to know,but will be better to test on normal SSD.You know,without fancy wheels like Optane,Nvme.
Not many users have Nvme and the speed on that is already "astronomical".
Good to know,but will be better to test on normal SSD.You know,without fancy wheels like Optane,Nvme.
Not many users have Nvme and the speed on that is already "astronomical".
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 33522
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 33522
Posted on: 01/04/2018 07:09 PM
NVMe is MUCH heavier on file IO as it is 4 to 6 times faster. So any problem would be better visualized.
However, i have not patched the 2nd test system yet so will run a regular SSD before patching as well.
NVMe is MUCH heavier on file IO as it is 4 to 6 times faster. So any problem would be better visualized.
However, i have not patched the 2nd test system yet so will run a regular SSD before patching as well.
StewieTech
Chuck Norris
Posts: 2525
Chuck Norris
Posts: 2525
Posted on: 01/04/2018 07:10 PM
Good stuff boss.
Good stuff boss.
Yxskaft
Senior Member
Posts: 1191
Senior Member
Posts: 1191
Posted on: 01/04/2018 07:13 PM
I really hope the older CPUs don't get much more affected than the new ones. i5 2500 CPUs are pushed pretty hard in today's games, and for people still not needing more than a Core 2 Quad or i5 750, even a 10% performance drop would be noticed.
I really hope the older CPUs don't get much more affected than the new ones. i5 2500 CPUs are pushed pretty hard in today's games, and for people still not needing more than a Core 2 Quad or i5 750, even a 10% performance drop would be noticed.
KayserKay
Member
Posts: 38
Member
Posts: 38
Posted on: 01/04/2018 07:25 PM
No Problems here with an Oldie (but Goldie) i5 4460 and GTX 1070.
Tested some heavy on the CPU, realtime physics based games: BeamNG Drive, EuroTruck Simulator 2 and ATS, City Car Driving...all on Utra and no unknown FPS drops!
Performance with Audiointerface and ASIO Driver: still rock solid, no dropouts!
No Problems here with an Oldie (but Goldie) i5 4460 and GTX 1070.
Tested some heavy on the CPU, realtime physics based games: BeamNG Drive, EuroTruck Simulator 2 and ATS, City Car Driving...all on Utra and no unknown FPS drops!
Performance with Audiointerface and ASIO Driver: still rock solid, no dropouts!
RzrTrek
Senior Member
Posts: 1733
Senior Member
Posts: 1733
Posted on: 01/04/2018 07:32 PM
Looks like the AMD people cried wolf, but as always, good work and thank you for your benchmarks.
Looks like the AMD people cried wolf, but as always, good work and thank you for your benchmarks.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 33522
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 33522
Posted on: 01/04/2018 07:43 PM
Honestly, if this is it ... I very much doubt you'd even notice. My 8700K setup also shows similar (near NIL) differences. File IO remains something to be checked out though. Still checking and running benchmarks. Will update in the next hour or so.
I really hope the older CPUs don't get much more affected than the new ones. i5 2500 CPUs are pushed pretty hard in today's games, and for people still not needing more than a Core 2 Quad or i5 750, even a 10% performance drop would be noticed.
Honestly, if this is it ... I very much doubt you'd even notice. My 8700K setup also shows similar (near NIL) differences. File IO remains something to be checked out though. Still checking and running benchmarks. Will update in the next hour or so.
Alessio1989
Senior Member
Posts: 970
Senior Member
Posts: 970
Posted on: 01/04/2018 07:45 PM
The wolves are gonna be in cluster virtual machine environments, not for +/- 2% on futuremark.
Looks like the AMD people cried wolf, but as always, good work and thank you for your benchmarks.
The wolves are gonna be in cluster virtual machine environments, not for +/- 2% on futuremark.
sykozis
Senior Member
Posts: 20593
Senior Member
Posts: 20593
Posted on: 01/04/2018 07:51 PM
That's a rather large generalization there. As an "AMD person", I stated more than once that the performance impact would be largely unnoticeable for consumers.
I greatly appreciate you proving my previous statements in regards to the performance impact to be accurate. I think I'll be holding off on patching my 2 AMD systems for now, though I will be patching all 4 of my Intel based systems in the coming days.
Looks like the AMD people cried wolf, but as always, good work and thank you for your benchmarks.
That's a rather large generalization there. As an "AMD person", I stated more than once that the performance impact would be largely unnoticeable for consumers.
Honestly, if this is it ... I very much doubt you'd even notice. My 8700K setup also shows similar (near NIL) differences. File IO remains something to be checked out though. Still checking and running benchmarks. Will update in the next hour or so.
I greatly appreciate you proving my previous statements in regards to the performance impact to be accurate. I think I'll be holding off on patching my 2 AMD systems for now, though I will be patching all 4 of my Intel based systems in the coming days.
Goiur
Senior Member
Posts: 554
Senior Member
Posts: 554
Posted on: 01/04/2018 07:55 PM
Already installed, waiting for something to blow up lol
Already installed, waiting for something to blow up lol
H83
Senior Member
Posts: 2392
Senior Member
Posts: 2392
Posted on: 01/04/2018 08:01 PM
Nice to see Hilbert already posting some benchies about the patch. But i have to say i´m surprised with the results after all the talk that performance would tank and the difference is around 2% in the end... Did people overblown the issue or should we wait for further updates/patches that may cripple the performance severely???
Thanks for the quick nice work Hilbert!
Nice to see Hilbert already posting some benchies about the patch. But i have to say i´m surprised with the results after all the talk that performance would tank and the difference is around 2% in the end... Did people overblown the issue or should we wait for further updates/patches that may cripple the performance severely???
Thanks for the quick nice work Hilbert!
tsunami231
Senior Member
Posts: 8703
Senior Member
Posts: 8703
Posted on: 01/04/2018 08:04 PM
im sorry but those test before and after look like there within "margin" of error and are nothing most people will ever notice, another thing made to look worse then it acutal is?, the actual security hole is actual bad like really bad, and considering I used VM for the purpose to doing things that may or may not result in malware/virus that i dont want on my system this flaw make me worried then again I been doing this VM thing for years now think i was fine.
Personally I was hoping these fixes could be done threw say MB FW updates, which i would think would minimize performance hits more then it being done by OS, but HW changes need to happen to plug it from hw stand point? which means $$$ for intel cause people will still buy intel, I know i will, i just wont be making new PC anytime soon, I already kinda miffed by the fact year and half after i got my 6700k I could got 8700k with 6core/12t and same ghz and same STP for same price. which has the same flaw anyway. maybe in 3/4 years time this flaw will be shorted out and fixed hw wise and 8c/16t will be the normal with the same or BETTER stp, yes stp still important to me more so then mtp which will probably have different security flaw that in it hw that would need sw/fw patch to fix that might hurt performance that will need new hw change meaning more $$$ for intel, none these "issue" would be much of a issue if they would not be made known to the world, then ever bad person with know how will try and exploit things thing vs just few that know about.
Security flaws should be reported yes and they should be fix, but they should NOT be made public and made worldwide knowledge. that is like governments say to the world hey our nuclear plants and stock pile of weapons and other vital stuff are unprotected and located here are desings and even info on what security and flaws we have come get us... and in world were cyber threat is just as bad real world why would people make such thing public knowledge. Now tell said people that response able for the flaw and fixing to fix it they have till so and so time to do so or this info will be released world if they don't fix it is another story, even then i dont think it should be done for the above reason, but all these "flaws" seem to get release in wild regardless now cause FB/Twitter and everything else cause people want there spot in lime light. regardless of info the releasing what damage it can cause, social media sites imo are one worst things happen, when comes to stuff like this.
im sorry but those test before and after look like there within "margin" of error and are nothing most people will ever notice, another thing made to look worse then it acutal is?, the actual security hole is actual bad like really bad, and considering I used VM for the purpose to doing things that may or may not result in malware/virus that i dont want on my system this flaw make me worried then again I been doing this VM thing for years now think i was fine.
Personally I was hoping these fixes could be done threw say MB FW updates, which i would think would minimize performance hits more then it being done by OS, but HW changes need to happen to plug it from hw stand point? which means $$$ for intel cause people will still buy intel, I know i will, i just wont be making new PC anytime soon, I already kinda miffed by the fact year and half after i got my 6700k I could got 8700k with 6core/12t and same ghz and same STP for same price. which has the same flaw anyway. maybe in 3/4 years time this flaw will be shorted out and fixed hw wise and 8c/16t will be the normal with the same or BETTER stp, yes stp still important to me more so then mtp which will probably have different security flaw that in it hw that would need sw/fw patch to fix that might hurt performance that will need new hw change meaning more $$$ for intel, none these "issue" would be much of a issue if they would not be made known to the world, then ever bad person with know how will try and exploit things thing vs just few that know about.
Security flaws should be reported yes and they should be fix, but they should NOT be made public and made worldwide knowledge. that is like governments say to the world hey our nuclear plants and stock pile of weapons and other vital stuff are unprotected and located here are desings and even info on what security and flaws we have come get us... and in world were cyber threat is just as bad real world why would people make such thing public knowledge. Now tell said people that response able for the flaw and fixing to fix it they have till so and so time to do so or this info will be released world if they don't fix it is another story, even then i dont think it should be done for the above reason, but all these "flaws" seem to get release in wild regardless now cause FB/Twitter and everything else cause people want there spot in lime light. regardless of info the releasing what damage it can cause, social media sites imo are one worst things happen, when comes to stuff like this.
jaggerwild
Senior Member
Posts: 531
Senior Member
Posts: 531
Posted on: 01/04/2018 08:20 PM
With everything that has been going on ever since yesterday in regards to the processor bug and the acclaimed up-to 30% performance drops, we decided to grab the new Microsoft patch, install it and tr...
Windows 10 CPU Bug Fix Patch Benchmarks
THANKS for posting this HH, nice read!!!
With everything that has been going on ever since yesterday in regards to the processor bug and the acclaimed up-to 30% performance drops, we decided to grab the new Microsoft patch, install it and tr...
Windows 10 CPU Bug Fix Patch Benchmarks
THANKS for posting this HH, nice read!!!
foxx1337
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Junior Member
Posts: 12
Posted on: 01/04/2018 08:32 PM
So I only performed one test on my system, and I would say that I get like 10% worse performance.
Core i7 2600K at 4 GHz, samsung 850 EVO ssd. The test is, in a ConEmu terminal under Windows, under Bash (from git-bash), I type this:
export JAVA_HOME="c:\\Program Files (x86)\\Java\\jdk1.8.0_152"
cd /d/src/java/Weasis
mvn clean install
Weasis compilation:
Before patch: 53 seconds
After the patch: 1 minute, 5 seconds (so 65 seconds)
Weasis is a Java viewer for X-Ray, CT-scan and CAT-scan file formats. This ConEmu + MinGW + bash + Maven + javac scenario probably touches quite a few different aspects of the operating system, from file access, to lookup, writes, compilation, the (few) Weasis tests, etc. I tested by restarting the computer, opening ConEmu and running the clean + install cycle 5-6 times until it stabilized.
So I only performed one test on my system, and I would say that I get like 10% worse performance.
Core i7 2600K at 4 GHz, samsung 850 EVO ssd. The test is, in a ConEmu terminal under Windows, under Bash (from git-bash), I type this:
export JAVA_HOME="c:\\Program Files (x86)\\Java\\jdk1.8.0_152"
cd /d/src/java/Weasis
mvn clean install
Weasis compilation:
Before patch: 53 seconds
After the patch: 1 minute, 5 seconds (so 65 seconds)
Weasis is a Java viewer for X-Ray, CT-scan and CAT-scan file formats. This ConEmu + MinGW + bash + Maven + javac scenario probably touches quite a few different aspects of the operating system, from file access, to lookup, writes, compilation, the (few) Weasis tests, etc. I tested by restarting the computer, opening ConEmu and running the clean + install cycle 5-6 times until it stabilized.
Hilbert Hagedoorn
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 33522
Don Vito Corleone
Posts: 33522
Posted on: 01/04/2018 08:38 PM
File IO tests have been updated, a SATA SSD was added as well. I am not seeing anything that worries me.
File IO tests have been updated, a SATA SSD was added as well. I am not seeing anything that worries me.
user1
Senior Member
Posts: 980
Senior Member
Posts: 980
Posted on: 01/04/2018 09:18 PM
good to see that the performance hit wont be very significant for the majority of users.
good to see that the performance hit wont be very significant for the majority of users.
WareTernal
Senior Member
Posts: 207
Senior Member
Posts: 207
Posted on: 01/04/2018 09:33 PM
It seems on Ryzen systems the performance hit it's bigger than on intel
Sounds like sloppy work by MS to include AMD in this mess. It's a shame if Ryzen is taking a hit for no reason.
im sorry but those test before and after look like there within "margin" of error
tell said people that response able for the flaw and fixing to fix it they have till so and so time to do so or this info will be released
Some of those results are within margin of error, but others have found similar results. If it was margin of error we would expect to see some higher numbers post patch. I think they did wait until patches were available before public disclosure.
The wolves are gonna be in cluster virtual machine environments, not for +/- 2% on futuremark.
What he said^. I appreciate the demonstration that this isn't going to affect my games, but what about a VM host with 10 VM's?
It seems on Ryzen systems the performance hit it's bigger than on intel
Sounds like sloppy work by MS to include AMD in this mess. It's a shame if Ryzen is taking a hit for no reason.
im sorry but those test before and after look like there within "margin" of error
tell said people that response able for the flaw and fixing to fix it they have till so and so time to do so or this info will be released
Some of those results are within margin of error, but others have found similar results. If it was margin of error we would expect to see some higher numbers post patch. I think they did wait until patches were available before public disclosure.
The wolves are gonna be in cluster virtual machine environments, not for +/- 2% on futuremark.
What he said^. I appreciate the demonstration that this isn't going to affect my games, but what about a VM host with 10 VM's?
Primey0
Senior Member
Posts: 117
Senior Member
Posts: 117
Posted on: 01/04/2018 09:49 PM
Ummmmm.... In order to full secure your PC you also need to update the CPU firmware.
That patch that Intel provides will be the one that impacts performance in certain workloads. Did you do this before the benchmarks? Because I think you're only benchmarking the windows 10 patch which isn't the patch that impacts performance
Ummmmm.... In order to full secure your PC you also need to update the CPU firmware.
That patch that Intel provides will be the one that impacts performance in certain workloads. Did you do this before the benchmarks? Because I think you're only benchmarking the windows 10 patch which isn't the patch that impacts performance
SoloCreep
Senior Member
Posts: 677
Senior Member
Posts: 677
Posted on: 01/04/2018 10:46 PM
8700k here and no difference in FPS.
8700k here and no difference in FPS.
jaggerwild
Senior Member
Posts: 531
Senior Member
Posts: 531
Posted on: 01/04/2018 10:52 PM
So I only performed one test on my system, and I would say that I get like 10% worse performance.
Core i7 2600K at 4 GHz, samsung 850 EVO ssd. The test is, in a ConEmu terminal under Windows, under Bash (from git-bash), I type this:
Weasis compilation:
Before patch: 53 seconds
After the patch: 105 seconds
Weasis is a Java viewer for X-Ray, CT-scan and CAT-scan file formats. This ConEmu + MinGW + bash + Maven + javac scenario probably touches quite a few different aspects of the operating system, from file access, to lookup, writes, compilation, the (few) Weasis tests, etc. I tested by restarting the computer, opening ConEmu and running the clean + install cycle 5-6 times until it stabilized.
Nobody cares!!!!!
They already stated the media over rated it to hype it up for hits, also Im not doing shoddy stuff on the internet. The patch could be a spy, good work man!
So I only performed one test on my system, and I would say that I get like 10% worse performance.
Core i7 2600K at 4 GHz, samsung 850 EVO ssd. The test is, in a ConEmu terminal under Windows, under Bash (from git-bash), I type this:
Weasis compilation:
Before patch: 53 seconds
After the patch: 105 seconds
Weasis is a Java viewer for X-Ray, CT-scan and CAT-scan file formats. This ConEmu + MinGW + bash + Maven + javac scenario probably touches quite a few different aspects of the operating system, from file access, to lookup, writes, compilation, the (few) Weasis tests, etc. I tested by restarting the computer, opening ConEmu and running the clean + install cycle 5-6 times until it stabilized.
Nobody cares!!!!!
They already stated the media over rated it to hype it up for hits, also Im not doing shoddy stuff on the internet. The patch could be a spy, good work man!
chispy
Senior Member
Posts: 8380
Senior Member
Posts: 8380
Posted on: 01/04/2018 11:08 PM
Hilbert if you can , test an AM4 Ryzen or Treadripper system on an SSD or NVMe. It seems Ryzen systems have taken a bigger hit on performance than Intel. Myself and a lot more members can confirm this by our own testing , it's all over the internet by now that degradation in performance on Ryzen systems is worst and more noticable than Intel.
Hilbert if you can , test an AM4 Ryzen or Treadripper system on an SSD or NVMe. It seems Ryzen systems have taken a bigger hit on performance than Intel. Myself and a lot more members can confirm this by our own testing , it's all over the internet by now that degradation in performance on Ryzen systems is worst and more noticable than Intel.
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 8380
With everything that has been going on ever since yesterday in regards to the processor bug and the acclaimed up-to 30% performance drops, we decided to grab the new Microsoft patch, install it and tr...
Windows 10 CPU Bug Fix Patch Benchmarks
Thank you for your testing and findings Hilbert. I tested on my Ryzen 1700x / Asus CH VII Hero / Crucial MX300 1TB ssd and i found a big hit in performance in writes and to a lesser extent reads are also affected on my configuration ( Ran Crystal Disk , AS SSD , ATTO and Anvil ). Same PC as yesterday before the patch just tested today with the patch. Trimmed , clean w10 , ran optimized tool between benchmarks and i could not achieve the same scores as yesterday.
Perhaps AMD Ryzen systems are affected in a different way or it might be due to my configuration. But the degradation in performance it is there in the storage department.