Problems? See this thread at archive.org.
That's just Linux orientated rather than Windows?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Don’t forget to run benchmarks before and after (Cinbench and Wprime). Or just download and save it
Vasudev and Robbo99999 like this. -
Well I ran the benchmarks while I was cooking (no time lost really, and replying to my own post for context!). Well, it's confirmed, I'm Spectre protected, and as you can see updated to C2 microcode (following screenshot)!
CPU performance has decreased with Spectre protection:
- wPrime1024 (v1.55): 1% decrease (135s before, 136 now)
- Cinebench 15: about 0.5% decrease (1050 before, 1045 now)
- 3DMark Firestrike & Timespy GPU Performance: no change
- 3DMark Firestrike CPU Physics: 3% decrease (15224 before, 14750 now)
- 3DMark Timespy CPU Physics: 2.5% decrease (6181 before, 6024 now)
- F1 2015 Game Benchmark: no change, perhaps slight decrease, 0.5% decrease (177 before, 176 now - within margin of error)
- Dirt Rally Game Benchmark: 1% decrease (167 before, 165 now)
The results are showing a slight decrease in CPU performance, not great news for high refresh rate gaming, but my game benchmarks are only showing about 1% loss in framerate. I don't have any means to test in high CPU usage games like Battlefield 1 multiplayer, but I imagine the effects could be amplified (perhaps close to the 3% performance loss as seen in the Firestrike CPU test I might postulate), as average CPU consumption is about 85% during an intense 64 player match in Battlefield 1.
I'm gonna leave the updated Spectre protected microcode installed for piece of mind, and performance loss is not noticeable in use - haven't noticed any slowness or lack or snappiness in desktop & general use so far. Hey, at least we're not gonna have to rely on OEM's & motherboard manufacturers to push out BIOS updates that include the Spectre fix - Microsoft will be releasing microcode updates as part of Windows Update by the looks of it - I mean they did it for Skylake (released yesterday), and this testing is me testing that update from Microsoft!
EDIT: and link to Guru3d article on the topic: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/microsoft-will-distribute-spectre-microcode-via-windows-update.htmlLast edited: Mar 2, 2018Vasudev, hmscott and Vistar Shook like this. -
-
I'm pretty sure when I read up about Spectre that it requires both the microcode fix and also at the same time the OS fix. I'll google it now to see what I can find. I'm also not sure on how to disable the OS fix anyway (apart from perhaps clicking the 'disable' button on the InSpectre tool -- in the screenshot in my previous post, post #867).
EDIT: I researched this again to check if you need both a windows patch and a microcode patch to protect against Spectre - the answer is yes, and that's for both Variant 1 & 2. Here it is at this link: https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/mi...-and-meltdown-mitigations-on-windows-systems/
And here's the important part of the above link:
You can see there are Windows operating system changes that are involved in both Variant 1 & 2 of Spectre - so if you remove the OS level fix then you're not gonna be Spectre protected at all.Last edited: Mar 3, 2018 -
-
KB4090007: Intel microcode updates
Applies to: Windows 10 version 1709, Windows Server, version 1709 (Datacenter, Standard)
https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/4090007/intel-microcode-updates
"Intel recently announced that they have completed their validations and started to release microcode for newer CPU platforms around Spectre Variant 2 (CVE 2017-5715 (“Branch Target Injection”)). This update includes microcode updates from Intel for the following CPUs:
This update is a standalone update available through the Microsoft Update Catalog and targeted for Windows 10 version 1709 (Fall Creators Update) & Windows Server version 1709 (Server Core).
This update also includes Intel microcode updates that were already released for these Operating Systems at the time of Release To Manufacturing (RTM).
We will offer additional microcode updates from Intel thru this KB Article for these Operating Systems as they become available to Microsoft. Please ensure that mitigation against Spectre Variant 2 is enabled through the registry settings documented in the following articles:
- Windows Client Guidance for IT Pros to protect against speculative execution side-channel vulnerabilities
- Windows Server Guidance to protect against speculative execution side-channel vulnerabilities
Known issues
Microsoft is not aware of any issues that affect this update currently.
How to get this update
Microsoft Update Catalog
Last edited: Mar 14, 2018AndiiiHD, Robbo99999 and Vasudev like this. -
Meltdown/Spectre: Intel plans changes to protect future chips-Pcworld.com
Of the three side-channel attacks making up Spectre and Meltdown, the first Spectre vulnerability variant has essentially been patched via software. That code was originally authored by Intel, then routed to customers via hardware makers and Microsoft. Microsoft supplied OS patches as well as Intel’s microcode via Windows Update. But software patches alone won’t be enough to patch the second Spectre variant, as well as Meltdown. Both will demand hardware revisions, which will roll out later this year.
To accomplish that, Intel said it had designed “partitions” to protect against Spectre variant 2 and Meltdown. Those partitions will first appear within the next-generation Xeon, code-named Cascade Lake, as well as an unnamed 8th-generation Core chip expected to ship during the second half of 2018.
------------------------------------------
Intel and Microsoft release final Spectre Patches up to and including Sandy Bridge
Last edited: Mar 15, 2018Vistar Shook, Vasudev and KY_BULLET like this. -
-
-
![[IMG]](images/storyImages/ximg_5ab043d1f29b2.jpg.pagespeed.gp+jp+jw+pj+ws+js+rj+rp+rw+ri+cp+md.ic.qNDKNF9k2g.jpg)
Windows Spectre Patches Are Here, But You Might Want to Wait
To fully protect your PC against Spectre, you need updated Intel CPU microcode. This is normally provided by your PC manufacturer via a UEFI firmware update, but Microsoft now offers an optional patch with the new microcode
by Chris Hoffman howtogeek.com March 20th 2018
Many of the worst fears about Spectre have been addressed by other software patches, which makes this update less urgent. For example, web browsers have released updates that prevent websites from exploiting Spectre via JavaScript code. Spectre is much harder to exploit than Meltdown was.
We also haven’t seen any serious Spectre exploits in the wild yet. So, overall, we don’t recommend rushing this. It’s possible that Microsoft themselves may want time to test this update before rolling it out to all Windows users automatically via Windows Update, although we have no idea what Microsoft’s future plans for this update may be.
However, some types of systems are still especially vulnerable. Systems that run virtual machines containing untrusted code—like at a cloud hosting service—should almost certainly install the microcode update on those systems.Last edited: Mar 20, 2018tilleroftheearth, Vasudev and inm8#2 like this. -
Meltdown & Spectre: Analyzing Performance Impacts on Intel's NUC7i7BNH
by Ganesh T S on March 23, 2018 4:15 PM EST
https://www.anandtech.com/show/12566/analyzing-meltdown-spectre-perf-impact-on-intel-nuc7i7bnh
"One of the consequences of the Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities, besides the immediate security concerns, is what it has meant for our ongoing testing and benchmarking operations. Along with accounting for the immediate performance changes from the required patches, we've also needed to look at how we present data and how we can (or can't) compare new patched systems to older unpatched systems. From an editorial perspective we need to ensure the continuity of our data as well as providing meaningful benchmark collections.
What we've found so far is that the impact of the Meltdown and Spectre patches varies with the workload and the type of test. Nate's GPU testing shrugs it off almost entirely, while Billy's SSD testing especially feels the pinch. In the middle of course are consumer system reviews, where workloads are more varied but also much more realistic and often more relevant as well. Of course, this is also the type hardware that we most often have to return when we're done, making it the most challenging to correct.
As everyone at AnandTech has been integrating the patches and updating their datasets in their own way, I wanted to offer some insight into what's going on for system testing. With several important systems set to launch in the first half of this year – particularly Intel's Hades Canyon – I've been going back and collecting updated results for use in those future reviews. In the process, I also wanted to document how performance has been impacted by these security patches and which benchmarks in particular have been affected.
...
Concluding Remarks
While the primary purpose of this exercise was just to update our datasets for future system reviews, it none the less proved to be an enlightening one, and something worth sharing. We already had an idea of what to expect going into refreshing our benchmark data for Meltdown and Spectre, and in some ways we still managed to find a surprise or two while looking at Intel's NUC7i7BNH NUC. The table below summarizes the extent of performance loss in various benchmarks.
Looking at the NUC – and really this should be on the mark for most SSD-equipped Haswell+ systems – there isn't a significant universal trend. The standard for system tests such as these is +/- 3% performance variability, which covers a good chunk of the sub-benchmarks. What's left then are more meaningful performance impacts in select workloads of the BAPCo SYSmark 2014 SE and Futuremark PCMark 10 benchmarks, particularly storage-centric benchmarks. Other than those, we see certain compute workloads (such as the 2nd stage of the Agisoft Photoscan benchmark) experience a loss in performance of more than 10%.
On the whole, we see that the patches for Meltdown and Spectre affect real-world application benchmarks, but, synthetic ones are largely unaffected. The common factor among most of these benchmarks in turn is storage and I/O; the greater the number of operations, the more likely a program will feel the impact of the patches. Conversely, a compute-intensive workload that does little in the way of I/O is more or less unfazed by the changes. Though there is a certain irony to the fact that taken to its logical conclusion, patching a CPU instead renders storage performance slower, with the most impacted systems having the fastest storage.
As for what this means for future system reviews, the studies done as part of this article give us a way forward without completely invalidating all the benchmarks that we have processed in the last few years. While we can't reevaluate every last system – and so old data will need to stick around for a while longer still – these results mean that the data from unimpacted benchmarks is still valid and relevant even after the release of the Meltdown and Spectre patches. To be sure, we will be marking these results with an asterisk to denote this, but ultimately this will allow us to continue comparing new systems to older systems in at least a subset of our traditional benchmarks. Which combined with back-filling benchmarks for those older systems that we do have, lets us retain a good degree of review and benchmark continuity going forward.alexhawker, Vasudev and Robbo99999 like this. -
DOH! What's this!? MSI have today updated a few of their Z170A boards (my board included) with a new BIOS that according to MSI "[updates] Intel microcode for security vulnerabilities", as seen in the following screenshot. (Ignore the release date listed on the website, it's wrong, it actually only appeared on the website today). Thing is, it doesn't actually update with a microcode that addresses any security vulnerabilities, instead it updates the microcode to version BA, which is only a microcode fix for the i7 hyper threading bug, nothing to do with security - it should be the latest C2 microcode included, but it's not. That's quite misleading, it's not a fix for Spectre at all, and the InSpectre tool clearly shows me that my system is not protected from Spectre. I wonder why MSI have done this?
https://www.msi.com/Motherboard/support/Z170A-KRAIT-GAMING-3X.html
Another change with this BIOS - I had to run Package C-states at C0 rather than C6, because this BIOS would otherwise result in about 5% loss of GPU performance - weird! Idle CPU power consumption hasn't increased with that change, so that's still gravy. On a positive note this BIOS combined with the C0 Package setting resulted in a 4% increase in Graphics Score on Timespy (in comparison to previous BIOS), and a frame or two extra performance in some game benchmarks, like Dirt Rally.Last edited: Mar 28, 2018Vasudev likes this. -
-
I gave you my view on it, more directly it would be best to ask MSI through a support ticket, and let's hear what they have to say.
Riley Martin and Vasudev like this.
-
-
As long as you have an informative contact now in MSI, would you please ask them if they think the Spectre microcode needs to be done as a BIOS update, as Microsoft has already done it via Windows and Linux also provides microcode updates through Intel updates in the OS.
Thank you!
Vasudev likes this.
CPU Vulnerabilities, Meltdown and Spectre, Kernel Page Table Isolation Patches, and more
Discussion in 'Hardware Components and Aftermarket Upgrades' started by hmscott, Jan 2, 2018.
