Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Details Performance Impact of Spectre and Meltdown Mitigations on Windows Systems (microsoft.com)
Microsoft's Windows chief Terry Myerson on Tuesday outlined how Spectre and Meltdown firmware updates may affect PC performance. From a blog post: With Windows 10 on newer silicon (2016-era PCs with Skylake, Kabylake or newer CPU), benchmarks show single-digit slowdowns, but we don't expect most users to notice a change because these percentages are reflected in milliseconds.
With Windows 10 on older silicon (2015-era PCs with Haswell or older CPU), some benchmarks show more significant slowdowns, and we expect that some users will notice a decrease in system performance. With Windows 8 and Windows 7 on older silicon (2015-era PCs with Haswell or older CPU), we expect most users to notice a decrease in system performance.
Windows Server on any silicon, especially in any IO-intensive application, shows a more significant performance impact when you enable the mitigations to isolate untrusted code within a Windows Server instance. This is why you want to be careful to evaluate the risk of untrusted code for each Windows Server instance, and balance the security versus performance tradeoff for your environment.
For context, on newer CPUs such as on Skylake and beyond, Intel has refined the instructions used to disable branch speculation to be more specific to indirect branches, reducing the overall performance penalty of the Spectre mitigation. Older versions of Windows have a larger performance impact because Windows 7 and Windows 8 have more user-kernel transitions because of legacy design decisions, such as all font rendering taking place in the kernel.
With Windows 10 on older silicon (2015-era PCs with Haswell or older CPU), some benchmarks show more significant slowdowns, and we expect that some users will notice a decrease in system performance. With Windows 8 and Windows 7 on older silicon (2015-era PCs with Haswell or older CPU), we expect most users to notice a decrease in system performance.
Windows Server on any silicon, especially in any IO-intensive application, shows a more significant performance impact when you enable the mitigations to isolate untrusted code within a Windows Server instance. This is why you want to be careful to evaluate the risk of untrusted code for each Windows Server instance, and balance the security versus performance tradeoff for your environment.
For context, on newer CPUs such as on Skylake and beyond, Intel has refined the instructions used to disable branch speculation to be more specific to indirect branches, reducing the overall performance penalty of the Spectre mitigation. Older versions of Windows have a larger performance impact because Windows 7 and Windows 8 have more user-kernel transitions because of legacy design decisions, such as all font rendering taking place in the kernel.
This is a complete cop-out.
People will need to balance their security against their performance.
While this isn't MS's doing, it's Intel, MS is essentially side-stepping this and saying "bummer, dude, but you should decide if you need performance or security".
No wonder this patch borked some systems, it sounds like it's something they half implemented, rushed out the door, and then threw up their hands.
AMDs are bricked, didn't you read the earlier news?
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
*Some* AMDs are bricked, older chips.
So, how do I apply for a partial refund from Intel for my CPU?
>> With Windows XX on older silicon (2015-era PCs with Haswell or older CPU)...we expect...a decrease in system performance. (So plan to buy a new proc from our licensed PC distributors soon.)
Kudos to Microsoft and Terry Myerson - great article with excellent details...
as long as you're running an Intel processor. Inquiring minds want to know where in the performance-hit list a Ryzen shows up. Does it have the " refined...instructions used to disable branch speculation to be more specific to indirect branches, reducing the overall performance penalty of the Spectre mitigation."?
And the worms ate into his brain.
Or are they ancient and not worth reporting?
Folks, your CPUs 2015 and older are obsolete ... how convenient for Wintel.. get that fancy new CPU and another copy of Windows 10, because what you have today is OEM version, so with a new CPU you'll need a new Windows copy.
If you are using one of these "old" processors you haven't bought a new one and supported their good friends at Intel recently. Come on, get with the program, consumer. Also pick up a Pro or Enterprise version of Windows while you buying your new Intel processor, chum. ;)
A tiny percentage of AMDs crash when they boot. It's not all AMDs. And none of them are bricked.
AMDs are bricked, didn't you read the earlier news?
Except no PCs were bricked. An unspecified subset of computers needed the OS reinstalled.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
That's the nice Windows 7 you got there. It'd be a real shame if something happened to its performance.
No mention of AMD but :
From TFA:
In general, our experience is that Variant 1 and Variant 3 mitigations have minimal performance impact, while Variant 2 remediation, including OS and microcode, has a performance impact.
Spectre is Variant 1 and 2. Meltdown is Variant 3.
AMD original response is that there is a "near zero" risk of exploit for variant 2 and a "zero" risk for variant 3. Notice the difference.
And from a link page on the Microsoft website:
Microsoft is aware of a new publicly disclosed class of vulnerabilities that are called “speculative execution side-channel attacks” that affect many modern processors and operating systems, including Intel, AMD, and ARM.
So it is very likely that performance impacting mitigations are in place for AMD CPUs too. In fact, they are currently working with AMD on the issue, so it is probably too early to tell.
I'm getting terrible performance in Grand Theft Auto 5 and other games. I shelled out big money for a 6 core Intel CPU specifically so it would last a long time.
I can't even play the games that used to run perfectly on the system with acceptable performance.
Anything short of a full recall that replaces my CPU with one that performs at the level I paid for is completely unacceptable. Intel will never recover from this if they screw their best customers.
It’s all a nefarious plot to force people to upgrade their old computers to the newest models!
I don't think this is really that surprising. Modern CPU's are almost like mini-computers in themselves breaking down and reorganizing code on the fly internally. Fixing them means ugly workarounds which will usually cost a bit in performance. As time goes on, expect more of these issues rather than less. It's why most modern CPUs have a BIOS loaded table that makes workaround fixes in hardware although this problem is probably too big to fix there.
PCID is only supported on newer cpus and just so happens speeds up the performance of isolating kernel tables in software, which is required to block this decades-old exploit. And now Linux is having tons of undocumented patches to support this as well.
Well, at least we have nothing to worry about and go back to working, knowing that there's no way that anyone could use our sensitive information to proxy nefarious activities.
I know! I'm with you. My 2 year old still needs diapers. As for my i7 quad-core from 2010 I might need to rethink upgrading... or putting that Registry key and preventing the update from downloading. It already is slow because it has a spinning HD.
But now I'm mad because "I have to" upgrade and pay them money for their mistake. However, proper CPUs don't exist yet. So I want to wait. And suffer in the meantime?
Grumble grumble.
I am sorry but how is 2015 called old? Most of 2015 was barely 2 years ago.
" older" is the word they used, not "old". Are you of the belief that something from 2015 is not older than something from 2017?
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
AFAIK, most of the issues people have with Windows 10 are about policies and the GUI. And on these aspects, is is reasonable to consider Windows 7 superior.
On the core technical aspects however, most people seem to agree that Windows 10, and even 8 are superior to 7.
I find that statement interesting. I was playing GTA 5 on a i7-6700K last night and didn't' notice any performance impact from the game. I was running over goats just as well as I always have been. Do you have any benchmarks you can provide, before and after?
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Sounds like this isn't a big issue after all. Good job by Microsoft and Intel with their timely fixes!
Windows 10 sucks (quantify that)
1. Keyloggers that send your keystrokes to Microsoft to serve targets ads in the OS. *cough* I mean 'Telemetry'.
2. Inability to control patches / updates
3. Reduced control over a system I *own*
There's a good start.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Windows 10 is a nice kernel but with an GUI made by preschool children on top of it... Maybe I change my mind and switch to it when the interface be made by real professionals, until then I'll continue with Windows 7.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
You are right. You can't expect Microsoft to fix their older operating systems that are under support. They just don't have the manpower or money. Everyone should just install Windows 10 (starts at only $119). And you also shouldn't expect Intel to fix their stuff either. It isn't like they have money to fix their stuff either. Just buy a new chip when it comes out. Problem solved.
>>> 3. Reduced control over a system I *own*
I find this the most fascinating part of modern computing - "Here, pay me $700 for this smartphone so I can see everything you do, know everyone you know, and sell that information to anyone who'll pay me a dime for it. And, no, you're not allowed to stop me, or to even find out what information I'm collecting". Windows 10 moved that smartphone concept down to the PC.
This whole concept of paying large amounts of money for something that isn't yours (because you're not allowed to make unauthorized changes to it) and that's going to be used to make money off you is so new, and so foreign, that I have trouble with it. Maybe I'm just too old.
I remember when I trusted Quicken to not upload my whole financial database to Intuit for their perusal - and that now I assume that it does. I remember when I refused to get a supermarket loyalty card because I didn't like them tracking my purchases - until they implemented punitive pricing measures that "encouraged" my compliance. I remember when the concept of a car that stored my accelerations and speed for 10 seconds prior to an accident seemed like a huge invasion of privacy - and yet I have a Tesla Model 3 on order that will be able to count how many times I picked my nose on the way into work, and will likely use that information to advertise nasal sprays to me on the central display screen.
And the worms ate into his brain.
Stick with it just stop pretending to be experts, telling others Windows 10 sucks (quantify that) and encouraging NOVICES who would benefit from architecture improvements to stay away from it because YOU don't like it.
Windows 10 fails to run quite a bit of legacy software developed for windows platform that functions just fine on windows 7 and earlier, this includes some very simple software using nothing but windows libraries.
Windows 10 fails to routinely respect user choice in things like allowed update install and reboot times.
On windows 10 the user is not in control of the machine even if logged in as administrator.
If you look on Nvidia forums theres a +100 page complaint thread about performance issues appearing over 2017 windows updates and smaller thread on microsofts own forums where their employees have been regularly responding and requesting additional telemetry on the issue after each patch..
No similiar complaints about windows 7 despite 7 being still more popular and I guess running with older hardware on average as well..
As a matter of fact I have hard time figuring any advantages windows 10 has over 7 except the "get help"-program that actually connects you to a microsoft employee, an actual person, at any hour of the day by a hit of a button, which I guess does make it more user friendly for tech-illiterates by leaps and bounds
The decrease is performance only happens if you manage to update the BIOS and there's fat chance of doing that on a Haswell motherboard! It'll have reached non-support EOL long ago.
And you let all these things happen.
Android phones can be re-imaged. Nobody forced anyone to use quicken or any software that uploaded everything to the could. I drive older cars not because I am broke but for how solid they are built, and they don't report shit.
If it's new, 'Free' has 'consequences'. For now, it's still my choice.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
Actually, most of 2015 is closer to 3 years ago.
" older" is the word they used, not "old". Are you of the belief that something from 2015 is not older than something from 2017?
Of course not, it's just less new.
Probably. I assume any such reductions are already included in the overall performance metric.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Windows 8 was preschool children - it may as well have had the "tiles" outlined in crayon.
Windows 10 is at least 3rd grade UI.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
No. They are hoping to find some flaws in AMD CPUs. They are speculating that they can archive something, by doing something, So far the facts are that they have tried, and failed . AMD says "Good luck, our CPU doesn't work that way", and yet you believe people who make claims based on wishes, hopes and speculation.
Nothing is ever certain, but claiming AMD might be vulnerable at this juncture and measures need to be taken is FUD, plain and simple. Unless you're speaking for Intel, then I could see the need for measures to slow down AMD. But that would be inviting a tort suit.
I know! I'm with you. My 2 year old still needs diapers. As for my i7 quad-core from 2010 I might need to rethink upgrading... or putting that Registry key and preventing the update from downloading. It already is slow because it has a spinning HD.
But now I'm mad because "I have to" upgrade and pay them money for their mistake. However, proper CPUs don't exist yet. So I want to wait. And suffer in the meantime?
Grumble grumble.
That mechanical drive of yours is a much bigger bottleneck than any of these patches will be if your system is otherwise well equipped. Also try overclocking before buying new anything.
I have an "older" Broadwell 14 Core Xeon and that thing kicks the ass of 99% of any "newer" chips. Performance drop or not.
The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
You are right. You can't expect Microsoft to fix their older operating systems that are under support.
They are fixing them.
There are patches for Windows 7, 8, and 10. Because the kernel architecture has evolved over time, the performance deltas are different when patching each OS. Microsoft has been streamlining and modularizing the Windows kernel for a decade, so this performance difference should be expected.
E.g., Microsoft kicked font rendering out of the kernel going from Windows 7 to 8---this means fewer transitions between user and kernel execution when rendering web pages or Office documents. Since the patch penalizes transitions between user and kernel code, this has a direct impact on how badly the patch will affect the system's performance.
Bear in mind, this is only one relevant change. Microsoft makes a lot of changes under the hood with each release of Windows, and I expect there are quite a few more examples. The overall trend of kicking non-essential code out of the kernel (good idea in its own right) is working to their benefit here.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
I've got a Windows machine just for playing games. I don't have any sensitive information in the machine, nor do I really care if I have to reinstall at any point (slightly annoying). So, how can I say to Microsoft "Thanks for looking out for me, but I'd rather the extra performance"?
Note that the machine on which I game is from 2015 so the "fix" would have a noticeable slowdown. I've already turned off automatic updates, but this would likely be classes as an emergency update which ignores the settings.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
Windows bricked itself when running on some AMD CPUs.
GNU/Linux, for instance, did not brick itself.
I agree. Microsoft software gets better and better. Always upgrade to the newest!
Hate to break it to you, but that knocks you out of the running for "their best customers." Any small to medium business that refreshes machines every three years to stay within vendor support will buy more CPU's in a month than you'll buy in a lifetime. Intel manages to fleece gamers for some high-margin parts, but their real money is in the volume sales for mid-range plus Xeon's to business.
Windows 10 fails to run quite a bit of legacy software developed for windows platform that functions just fine on windows 7 and earlier, this includes some very simple software using nothing but windows libraries.
People complained about this a lot going from XP to Vista/7. The culprit, in most cases, was a better security model for the operating system which broke old applications. I am perfectly fine with this kind of change.
Windows 10 fails to routinely respect user choice in things like allowed update install and reboot times.
This is largely resolved in v1709. You set your active hours, and you can override it when prompted if you're outside the active hours.
Or, for an unsanctioned fix, disable the Windows Update service until you want to install updates.
If you look on Nvidia forums theres a +100 page complaint thread about performance issues appearing over 2017 windows updates
There were all kinds of performance issues with XP, Vista, and 7 in the first couple years after release. And I expect 8 got a free pass because hardly anybody used it. This is not new, and FWIW, I think Vista still holds the crown as the most broken OS.
As a matter of fact I have hard time figuring any advantages windows 10 has over 7
There's lots of little things, which you would probably find if you tried the OS instead of complaining about it. Pinning windows to any/all desktops is the one thing I couldn't live without if I were considering going back to 7/8.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
we don't expect most users to notice a change because these percentages are reflected in milliseconds.
Most users don't even notice that percentages are dimensionless, so it makes no sense to translate them to milliseconds.Yes, I understand that he pretends to mean that the penalty for each instance of the problem only causes a delay of milliseconds, but still, the performance drop is there and many consecutive penalties aggregate into a noticeable slowdown.
Apart from this joke, this is a good move from MS.
I bet your fun at partys.
I bet you're a hoot at grammar conferences.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
This is largely resolved in v1709. You set your active hours, and you can override it when prompted if you're outside the active hours.
Or, for an unsanctioned fix, disable the Windows Update service until you want to install updates.
I use windows 10 on my work laptop and in the up to date version I have installed on the option to change the active hours have been completely removed, futhermore microsofts own update prevention tool that lets you select individual updates doesn't work, at all, in my experience; If I let microsoft update the graphics drivers it completely breaks any gaming performance whatsoever, it also does the same every time theres a large patch and I have to remove all graphics drivers using DDU then reboot and hope windows hasn't started installing drivers against all settings so I can do clean install myself that will result in functional computer.
AMD original response is that there is a "near zero" risk of exploit for variant 2 and a "zero" risk for variant 3
Claims about "near zero" or "zero" risk of exploit are traditional CYA effluent, after all...
Even AMD has claimed (for a different CPU errata) that problems "would not occur during normal desktop usage and we've never encountered it during our testing." The claim was funny, as all you had to do was fire up a VM... or the right benchmark... It didn't speak well to AMD's testing at the time.
-- Sometimes you have to turn the lights off in order to see.
I am running a Skylake Core i5-6500 with 8GB RAM and a 250GB Samsung SSD with Windows 7 Home Premium and I have the patch installed and haven't observed any slowdowns.
Just kicked of a full compile (in VS 2017) of a large (~2100 files) project I have here and I saw no noticeable slowdowns compared to how fast the thing compiled before the patch. And such a thing would be highly I/O bound (reading all the input source files and things, writing out compiled obj and other files, reading toolchain binaries etc) and likely making a lot of kernel-user transitions.
I have no games on here that are demanding enough to show any observable difference between old and new so I cant test those.
Here's a real world example of the performance loss from the patch:
https://www.epicgames.com/fort...
Looks like about 60% for that server workload. My guess is that Microsoft made it optional on server versions of Windows after seeing similar numbers.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
That used to be the case, but it's completely changed now. Now you pay big money, and you are still the product being sold. In fact there's absolutely no way to not be the product being sold with most new products these days. I miss the days when you could say that only the free services were selling you as the product, now you have to assume that every service does that. No matter how expensive.
Windows 10 was a free update!
how do they come up with these idiotic ideas?
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
I have an "older" Broadwell 14 Core Xeon and that thing kicks the ass of 99% of any "newer" chips. Performance drop or not.
But I bet it's still older than chips made in 2017
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Q2 2012 release? Yeah pretty old. Then again I'm typing this from a 2017 Ryzen so I might be biased.
What is the impact of Spectre on ClearLinux?
Casteism
Didn't MS put in code to disable Windows updates for Win7 users if they upgraded their CPU to a newer CPU?
I wonder if this policy will change?
Hmmm....