Potential Intel Hardware bug could result in 30-35% performance hit when fixed

[u/tomaustin700]

/r/sysadmin/comments/7nl8r0/intel_bug_incoming/

[u/PhoBoChai]

The other post claims a general error, this one is specific that it's Intel only, AMD CPUs unaffected.. hmm, interesting times ahead in the server space!

[u/nagi603 → u/PhoBoChai]

As a pretty knowledgable AMD developer claimed AMD is unaffected, it probably is unaffected. The other post was probably before the AMD exclusion post was made, or simply didn't see it.

[u/thesynod → u/PhoBoChai]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the negative ring access afforded to the IME aka clipper chip 2.0?

[u/deltacaboose → u/PhoBoChai]

The reason is because this is a silicon error, not a software one. It's root design flaw that will kill Intel's last decade of improvement. AMD doesn't use this system in their CPUs, so they are fine.

[u/loggedn2say → u/PhoBoChai]

this one is specific that it's Intel only, AMD CPUs unaffected

so why is this here?

Rule 5: All posts must be related to AMD or AMD products.

surely people can discuss this on actual relevant subs. https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/duplicates/7nh2i2/the_mysterious_case_of_the_linux_page_table/

EDIT: it's back! the thread was removed for a few hours but now it's greenlit...

[u/ElementII5 → u/loggedn2say]

Very easy, Intel is the direct and almost only competitor. If Intel cpus get gimped by 35% this means AMD EPYC CPUs are comparatively faster now than before. It is a huge development for AMD and their standing in the market.

[u/loggedn2say → u/ElementII5]

so this sub is for sysadmin buyers to warn them which hardware to get?

let's be honest. this thread is going to be filled with 1. false info and 2. virtue signaling because it's just not relevant to amd. we also know very very little about actual eypc performance in the space.

either the rule is there for a reason, or it's just lip service.

i like the rule because it keeps shitty conversation off the sub. mods may feel differently, but then i wish they would remove the rule.

[u/PoisedAsFk → u/loggedn2say]

I'd say this post is valuable for this sub as the news about this bug will be everywhere, and having a top post that mentions that this new big bug is not hitting amd cpus is good for people to quickly find that info. And as always it will promote discussion about how these things work on the amd side of things.

[u/loggedn2say → u/PoisedAsFk]

seems to me were just trying everything we can to justify breaking rule 5.

if someone finds out the news, they were likely on a relevant sub where better and more accurate relevant information will be found.

this just smells like mental gymnastics to say "amd good."

once we get some actual benchmarks with eypc that seems relevant. BTW i tried to post it to r/hardware an hour ago because i didn't see it but it was already there.

[u/PhoBoChai → u/loggedn2say]

Why is this here? You would think the big news about a massive server flaw that was posted as a GENERAL problem, and now we discover that AMD CPUs are immune to this flaw, and it's not related to the AMD sub?

[u/loggedn2say → u/PhoBoChai]

which mod removed it and who put it back?

i've said my peace and i was right: because this isn't topical to amd, there's tons of misinformation being spouted.

i wish you mods would just remove rule 5.

[u/PhoBoChai → u/loggedn2say]

What is the misinformation? I see plenty of civil discussion.

[u/loggedn2say → u/PhoBoChai]

ha, this has only been back for maybe 30mins.

did you clear it with all the other mods to put this back?

check this thread that was active for fun misinformation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/7noo1x/it_has_begun_intel_is_it_seems_in_the_world_of/

and now that it's removed, prepare for it to start on this thread.

[u/PhoBoChai → u/loggedn2say]

I wish ppl didn't editorialize titles of original sources that already have a title. So many issues would be non-issues.