ASRock Z690 Taichi review
Radeon RX 6500 XT review
MSI Vigor GK71 Sonic keyboard review
MSI GeForce RTX 3080 Suprim X 12GB review
TeamGroup A440 PRO Special 5eries 4TB NVMe review
Core i5 12400 processor review
MSI MAG B660M Mortar WIFI review
Biostar Z690 Valkyrie review
TeamGroup A440 PRO PCIe 4.0 M.2 NVMe review
DDR5 scaling with G.Skill TridentZ5 6000 CL36 review
Intel Shares Internal Security Fix Benchmarks Results for Desktop & Laptop
Intel has released a set of desktop and laptop benchmark results with all Windows security patches in place and the firmware up-to-snuff. They compare mobile (Kaby Lake) and Desktop CPUs (Coffee lake, Kaby and Sky lake).
The metrics are a bit all over the place, however as it seems their findings match up to ours, overall in Sky Diver (which is more CPU dependent), there's minimal performance loss that easily could be seen as an anomaly (~1 or 2%) otherwise.
When the workload changes to really heavy with say PCMark 10 / Sysymark, here on the desktop platforms you are looking at a 4% differential overall with an exception here and there. And in the massive stressed synthetic benchmark, Sysmark, the worst it got was 10% perf loss. The WebXPRT browsing benchmark does take a hit, here again, that is a heavy synthetic test with multiple workloads including DNA sequencing, not your normal browsing experience. Have a peek for yourself and load up the screengrab below.
The data sets do not include any server-side or storage benchmarks, where the biggest hit is to be found. Neither did Intel share numbers for the Haswell and older generations CPUs/Platforms. Intel did test the results with an SSD which would have an effect om Sysmark and PCMark alright, specs of the test setups are listed below the test-results.
Intel Showcases 10nm Updates and 64-Layer NAND For Enterprise - 09/20/2017 09:51 AM
Intel delivered updates at its Technology and Manufacturing Day held in Beijing, China, on Sept. 19. Disclosures included power and performance updates for Intel’s 10 nm process, high-level ...
Intel Shows 1.59x Performance Improvement in Upcoming Intel Xeon Scalable Family - 05/18/2017 07:57 AM
Intel unveiled performance advances in its upcoming Intel Xeon Processor Scalable family. At the SAP Sapphire NOW conference, Intel showed up to 1.59x higher Intel Xeon processor performance running i...
Intel Shows 28-core processor die-shot - 03/29/2017 10:43 AM
During its Technology and Manufacturing Day Intel has shared a slide of a server-processor with 28 cores. The die-shot as such must be the Skylake-SP series of products in the Xeon Platinum range....
Intel Shows Optane SSD writing at 2GB per second - 04/16/2016 10:33 AM
Over at IDF in China a prototype of an Optane SSD from Intel has been showing some staggering numbers. The SSD is based on 3D XPoint storage technology and while copying a 25GB file it did so at 2 GB/...
Intel shows Core i7-6950X specs at 3,5GHz and 25MB cache - 04/04/2016 10:34 AM
Intel posted info on their Core i7-6950X over the weekend on their website. The 10-core processor will get a 3,5GHz base clock and 25MB cache. Other then some snippets of info, nothing specific is m...
tsunami231
Senior Member
Posts: 12498
Joined: 2003-05-24
Senior Member
Posts: 12498
Joined: 2003-05-24
#5509766 Posted on: 01/11/2018 07:38 PM
how you see that, even HH said it matches what he has seen
So basically their test is just smoke and mirrors
how you see that, even HH said it matches what he has seen
Ricepudding
Senior Member
Posts: 804
Joined: 2017-02-17
Senior Member
Posts: 804
Joined: 2017-02-17
#5509772 Posted on: 01/11/2018 07:46 PM
Basically 1-2% difference in most cases, with some very heavy cases hitting around 4% difference in performance. Though general users would be hard pressed to see these differences, these would effect massive content creators/ servers and maybe even software programmers the most. Though as the table says these results are in a +/- of 3% meaning take them with a grain of salt as tests are never 100% accurate and go up and down all the time.
Personally I've not seen or noticed anything of difference if there has been a 1/2 fps drops in games i would never personally notice something like that, Though CPU usage and temps seem about the same as before the patches and CPU-Z seems to give me similar results
Single thread - 547
Muti Thread - 4106.2
(not overclocked)
Using newest version of CPU-z
Basically 1-2% difference in most cases, with some very heavy cases hitting around 4% difference in performance. Though general users would be hard pressed to see these differences, these would effect massive content creators/ servers and maybe even software programmers the most. Though as the table says these results are in a +/- of 3% meaning take them with a grain of salt as tests are never 100% accurate and go up and down all the time.
Personally I've not seen or noticed anything of difference if there has been a 1/2 fps drops in games i would never personally notice something like that, Though CPU usage and temps seem about the same as before the patches and CPU-Z seems to give me similar results
Single thread - 547
Muti Thread - 4106.2
(not overclocked)
Using newest version of CPU-z
kruno
Senior Member
Posts: 260
Joined: 2017-09-25
Senior Member
Posts: 260
Joined: 2017-09-25
#5509779 Posted on: 01/11/2018 07:59 PM
They didn't test old machines, as i have noticed plenty of people here on forum have "old" 2000 or 3000 series cpu's.
Edit: That is one of more interesting stuff to test and that is the thing Intel is in unique position to test, of course i am not forgetting that they didn't post results for even older systems, and god knows there are plenty of Core2 CPU's in use
how you see that, even HH said it matches what he has seen
They didn't test old machines, as i have noticed plenty of people here on forum have "old" 2000 or 3000 series cpu's.
Edit: That is one of more interesting stuff to test and that is the thing Intel is in unique position to test, of course i am not forgetting that they didn't post results for even older systems, and god knows there are plenty of Core2 CPU's in use
Neo Cyrus
Senior Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 2006-02-14
Senior Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 2006-02-14
#5509795 Posted on: 01/11/2018 08:33 PM
According to MS the Haswell and older chips got hit harder so this doesn't apply to a lot of us even if Intel didn't twist the numbers.
According to MS the Haswell and older chips got hit harder so this doesn't apply to a lot of us even if Intel didn't twist the numbers.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 260
Joined: 2017-09-25
So basically their test is just smoke and mirrors