After these security flaws should i go with Intel 8700k or AMD R 1700?

[Abdullah Aman]

After these security flaws should i go with Intel 8700k or AMD R 1700 how much it effect the performance or going to???

 

[R-T-B]

Security wise, it is irrelevant to an end user unless you plan to rent VMs.

Performance wise, the fixes hit Intel a bit harder than AMD, but you're going to find Intel is slightly faster per core than AMD anyways, so... both are valid choices really. Whatever you can get cheaper / whatever fits your workload best, is what I'd go for.

Basically it comes down to: What do you like more? Singlethreaded, or multithreaded performance? Intel is better in singlethreaded.

 

[Capitan Harlock]

Wait for march release of Ryzen Pinnacle ridge.

 

[pigulici]

Same question was for me, but I just ordered the i7 8700(non k), for now it is not so clear how much performance impact it is, if any.

 

[Abdullah Aman]

Same question was for me, but I just ordered the i7 8700(non k), for now it is not so clear how much performance impact it is, if any.

i also paling on buying 8700K on 10th of this month but now em very confused

 

[R0H1T]

Some numbers from reddit, though YMWV ~

 

[pigulici]

For me , at this point, as a home user, all this about last problems don't look much worst than usually security problems, are websites who list everyday some security issues of our electronics, if you want to sleep, don't read,I am more worry that I can't control or update the software to my "smartphone", even a adblocker can't install without root.

 

[notb]

After these security flaws should i go with Intel 8700k or AMD R 1700 how much it effect the performance or going to???

A patched 8700K system will still be faster, while the performance/price ratio drops a bit.
The patch does not affect gaming in significant way.

 

[HD64G]

Anyone who gives money to products intentionally produced unsecure (for any reason) encourages them to keep doing so and ruin others who care about security. Data security means privacy. Or else we'd like living in a world with camera surveilance 24/7.

 

[biffzinker]

The patch does not affect gaming in significant way.

I just finished running Rise of the Tomb Raider benchmarks, 1080p, very high preset, FXAA.
Unpatched:

• Mountain Peak: 131.48 FPS (min: 81.19 max: 197.02)
• Syria: 101.99 FPS (min: 62.73, max: 122.24)
• Geothermal Valley: 98.93 FPS (min:76.48, max: 117.00)
• Overall score: 111.31 FPS

Windows patch only:

• Mountain Peak: 135.34 FPS (min: 38.21 max: 212.84)
• Syria: 102.54 FPS (min: 44.22, max: 144.03)
• Geothermal Valley: 96.36 FPS (min:41.35, max: 148.46)
• Overall score: 111.93 FPS

Windows patch and BIOS update:

• Mountain Peak: 134.01 FPS (min: 59.91 max: 216.16)
• Syria: 101.68 FPS (min: 38.95, max: 143.44)
• Geothermal Valley: 97.55 FPS (min:46.18, max: 143.97)
• Overall score: 111.62 FPS

Average framerates don't seem affected.

See my #233 post in the other thread.

 

[notb]

Anyone who gives money to products intentionally produced unsecure (for any reason) encourages them to keep doing so and ruin others who care about security. Data security means privacy. Or else we'd like living in a world with camera surveilance 24/7.

You'll stand by this theory when AMD patches start to roll out?

 

[Peter Evans]

See my #233 post in the other thread.

The minimum framerate ( percieved smoothness ) has been clobbered, bloody hell!! Those averages might not have changed but those minimums; have you played the games to see if this is perceptible to the user experinece.

Given the recent emphasis on frame-times and .1, .01 and 99% percentile etc...., surely all those measures of badness will have to be redone....EEK! After the software-plaster microcode update has been confirmed to be installed and active in mitigation of Hardware-level problem ( designed functionality ) of course.

 

[Final_Fighter]

Anyone who gives money to products intentionally produced unsecure (for any reason) encourages them to keep doing so and ruin others who care about security. Data security means privacy. Or else we'd like living in a world with camera surveilance 24/7.

this. Intel knew there was an issue but still put out the product. this is not to say amd is not effected but we will see how they react with their new hardware release coming soon. i would hold off until this gets figured out. dont spend your money to promote ANYBODY who is willing to take a chance on your security.

At the end of the day tho you will have to choose and this is why it sucks only having 2 to pick from.

 

[HTC]

Wait for march release of Ryzen Pinnacle ridge.

Agreed.

Regardless of which CPU you end up choosing, new AMD offerings should bring down to cost of old ones as well as put pressure on existing Intel's offerings, specially now with these security issues.

Furthermore, by then one should know which exact CPUs can be protected against, and @ what penalty cost (the patches).

 

[R-T-B]

Or else we'd like living in a world with camera surveilance 24/7.

Data security has about as much to do with camera surveilance as auto racing has to do with apple orchards. I really can't see the connection here, besides that both are bad to misuse.

 

[pigulici]

"http://www.dsogaming.com/news/intel...c-shows-performance-impact-on-gaming-servers/"

still I can't wait to recieve my i7 8700 , next week.

 

[HTC]

"http://www.dsogaming.com/news/intel...c-shows-performance-impact-on-gaming-servers/"

still I can't wait to recieve my i7 8700 , next week.

That CPU server utilization spike after the patch ...

Not possible, dude: it doesn't affect game benchmarks so the end user is not affected ...

 

[pigulici]

Yeah, not affect the game if it is drm free and single player, like Witcher 3, but multiplayer, like CS, well, this look bad for now.

 

[newtekie1]

At the end of the day, I'd still go with an 8700K for my main system. The Z370 platform is a much better platform than X370. Maybe this will change with X470 but it isn't looking like it from the leaked specs.

That CPU server utilization spike after the patch ...

Not possible, dude: it doesn't affect game benchmarks so the end user is not affected ...

It is if that game server is using VMs to host multiple games at once. But that still isn't a scenario consumers will be affected by.

 

[HD64G]

You'll stand by this theory when AMD patches start to roll out?

Until today the official facts we "know" are about this security flaw topic are:

1) AMD didn't know of this flaw when Zen arch was finalised. It was discovered in early Q4-17.
2) AMD's CPUs are easily patchable (not even bios update needed) for the part of the flaw that are vulnarable without any decrease in performance until proved otherwise.
3) Intel made so just because of indifference for their product security level and when it was published they tried to make others look as bad as them.
4) Intel's CPUs aren't patchable for all of the bug cases even with os and bios updates and that's the worst of all.
5) Releasing unsecure product and trying to cover this crime by making all vendors look as bad as you is as evil as it gets imho. Any objection on that?

Let all the data come out and we will discuss again about this situation.

 

[RejZoR]

I thought they said Spectre1 and 2 is not even fixable on Intel. And now they are saying it is. It was initially stated they only have a fix for Meltdown and even that one is with a potential performance penalty. What's true now (especially since Intel is saying they have a fix for everything all of a sudden)?

 

[DeathtoGnomes]

Until today the official facts we "know" are about this security flaw topic are:

1) AMD didn't know of this flaw when Zen arch was finalised. It was discovered in early Q4-17.
2) AMD's CPUs are easily patchable (not even bios update needed) for the part of the flaw that are vulnarable without any decrease in performance until proved otherwise.
3) Intel made so just because of indifference for their product security level and when it was published they tried to make others look as bad as them.
4) Intel's CPUs aren't patchable for all of the bug cases even with os and bios updates and that's the worst of all.
5) Releasing unsecure product and trying to cover this crime by making all vendors look as bad as you is as evil as it gets imho. Any objection on that?

Let all the data come out and we will discuss again about this situation.

Intel has always been Evil and that is nothing new, but wallets still do all the voting.

 

[HD64G]

Intel has always been Evil and that is nothing new, but wallets still do all the voting.

Nothing to object there. I just hope we as the customers who feed the companies stop being selfish and act responsibly to help one another and the whole pc community get better in vfm and security products instead of caring just for +1% FPS for +30% higher price that makes companies more greedy than they are by nature. Intel's practice in this security topic is derived from their confidense that most of their customers won't abandon them even when they betrayed their trust as bad as it gets. Sad to report that they seem to be correct by the reactions of those till now.

 

[notb]

Until today the official facts we "know" are about this security flaw topic are:

1) AMD didn't know of this flaw when Zen arch was finalised. It was discovered in early Q4-17.

They were informed by Project Zero on June 1. So it was after they launched Zen, but before many of Zen CPUs came out (including EPYC).

2) AMD's CPUs are easily patchable (not even bios update needed) for the part of the flaw that are vulnarable without any decrease in performance until proved otherwise.

Of course. We're waiting for this proof.
But in the previous comment you were explicitly talking about releasing a CPU with known security flaw. You didn't mention performance, so why is it becoming important now?

3) Intel made so just because of indifference for their product security level and when it was published they tried to make others look as bad as them.

Their first comment on this situation might not have been great (albeit true!), but the following actions were very honest and positive - including a great whitepaper and generally a lot of public information.
Check this out:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...el-apple-microsoft-others-are-doing-about-it/

4) Intel's CPUs aren't patchable for all of the bug cases even with os and bios updates and that's the worst of all.

I'm pretty sure we'll see patches. There already are some successful workarounds. What's your source?

5) Releasing unsecure product and trying to cover this crime by making all vendors look as bad as you is as evil as it gets imho. Any objection on that?

They could always say: "most of CPUs with this flaw are very old, so we are unlikely to devote any valuable engineering resources to this issue"

Let all the data come out and we will discuss again about this situation.

But before that happens, we're discussing the matter with the info we have. However, you're assuming the worst possible intentions - almost criminal-level. I'm assuming they are really working on a solution. And I like sum of feedback we've been getting. ARM is even better in this aspect. AMD does...well - nothing. They said that this issue doesn't exist on their CPUs (when exploits were already shown to work).

Moreover, both Intel and ARM have already covered the issue beautifully - including information and publications - on their main websites.
Intel put it on main US site (considered "global" or "main") - right below the Olympics bullsh*t:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/homepage.html
ARM has it in news:
https://www.arm.com/news

So what about AMD? Well... it's not on the home page and not in News. It's in Investors Relations. And it's really poor. It can't even be called "covering issue" - more like "mentioning it"...
http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-irhome

And BTW: I've just noticed what else is on their home page. AMD Fan Store! It says it all, doesn't it?

 

[HD64G]

They were informed by Project Zero on June 1. So it was after they launched Zen, but before many of Zen CPUs came out (including EPYC).

Of course. We're waiting for this proof.
But in the previous comment you were explicitly talking about releasing a CPU with known security flaw. You didn't mention performance, so why is it becoming important now?

Their first comment on this situation might not have been great (albeit true!), but the following actions were very honest and positive - including a great whitepaper and generally a lot of public information.
Check this out:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...el-apple-microsoft-others-are-doing-about-it/

I'm pretty sure we'll see patches. There already are some successful workarounds. What's your source?

They could always say: "most of CPUs with this flaw are very old, so we are unlikely to devote any valuable engineering resources to this issue"

But before that happens, we're discussing the matter with the info we have. However, you're assuming the worst possible intentions - almost criminal-level. I'm assuming they are really working on a solution. And I like sum of feedback we've been getting. ARM is even better in this aspect. AMD does...well - nothing. They said that this issue doesn't exist on their CPUs (when exploits were already shown to work).

Moreover, both Intel and ARM have already covered the issue beautifully - including information and publications - on their main websites.
Intel put it on main US site (considered "global" or "main") - right below the Olympics bullsh*t:
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/homepage.html
ARM has it in news:
https://www.arm.com/news

So what about AMD? Well... it's not on the home page and not in News. It's in Investors Relations. And it's really poor. I can't even be called "covering issue" - more like "mentioning it"...
http://ir.amd.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=74093&p=irol-irhome

And BTW: I've just noticed what else is on their home page. AMD Fan Store! It says it all, doesn't it?

Intel is forced to reply in detail as their the big player in CPU industry for private customers and server and cloud also and are in big risk losing contracts and maybe face mass suits on court. Damage control clearly. If AMD is proven false in their claims they are evil also. Do you take the same stance against Intel though? I think not.

So, let's wait for further proof on what's going on but till now AMD's CPUs are vulnerable for a part of that flaw and for Linux and is patchable with just an update without sacrifising performance. And I mentioned performance because Intel sacrifised security to get better benchmark results to sell more cpus. Am I wrong?