Quote from: vertigo on November 16, 2021, 09:52:59
And I wonder how much this patch is going to slow them down. Intel chips should just be viewed as a couple generations older than they are when comparing performance, since that's where they'll be after all the flaws are patched. And this article is (unsurprisingly) unclear, but it sounds like even chips not affected by the second issue will still get the patch for it, which suggests they may receive a performance hit unnecessarily.

The bad part is that Intel isn't clear about these things in most cases, so it would be simply amazing to find in-depth, detailed articles regarding the barely unveiled vulnerabilities that most of us don't care about (let's be honest, what's the impact of a so-called "vulnerability" that requires physical access to the target systems for home users?).

Quote from: vertigo on November 16, 2021, 09:52:59
Intel chips should just be viewed as a couple generations older than they are when comparing performance, since that's where they'll be after all the flaws are patched.

What in the hell are you talking about
A 7th gen Intel Core will beat the living hell out of a Broadwell, even when fully vaccinated
If you just can't live with that 3% loss (AKA, margin of error), disable mitigations as described in "Windows Server guidance to protect against speculative execution side-channel vulnerabilities", (C) Microsoft 2019
Embarrassingly uninformed!

And I wonder how much this patch is going to slow them down. Intel chips should just be viewed as a couple generations older than they are when comparing performance, since that's where they'll be after all the flaws are patched. And this article is (unsurprisingly) unclear, but it sounds like even chips not affected by the second issue will still get the patch for it, which suggests they may receive a performance hit unnecessarily.