top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]bosoxs202 158 points159 points  (35 children)

I'm really interested in Pentium and i3 tests. It seems that the patch affects weaker CPUs more.

[–]Skolas519R5 3600| RX480 |16GB DDR4 |Windows 10 105 points106 points  (14 children)

As a core I3 user, I'm scared

[–]PowerMac_G4i7 8700K, RX 5700 XT, 32GB DDR4 3200MHz 32 points33 points  (13 children)

It’s in the 4000 series so shouldn’t be so bad. As a 3570K faithful I am not excited.

[–]szili90000 18 points19 points  (5 children)

Normal 3570, I extremely hope this don’t fucks my performance up.

[–]PowerMac_G4i7 8700K, RX 5700 XT, 32GB DDR4 3200MHz 12 points13 points  (3 children)

Shit, I’ve at least got an overclock that might compensate for it a little. I hadn’t even considered how boned non-K CPU owners might feel.

[–]Raichyu 3 points4 points  (2 children)

I don't know how to feel then, running my i5-2500k at a slight boost.

My GTX970 just died the other week, performance is going to be even worse after these updates.

[–]IkarugaOne 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Sounds like it's about time to ryzen your PC to new heights.

[–]Raichyu 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I totally agree with you. I'm hoping AMD keeps up the good work with their products, because when I do get new parts I'm going to stray from my usual brands.

If only I weren't broke.

[–]DoOm101DoN 5 points6 points  (1 child)

So is my 550 going to be fine!

[–]ChainsawPlankton 2 points3 points  (0 children)

pssssh look at these guys and their 4 digit CPUs, will be interesting to see how my 530 handles it.

[–]gibletzor 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I have a 3570k. I have not seen any noticeable difference in performance in World of Warships or Diablo 3. That's all I've played since I downloaded the patch today. No official benching or anything, but everything felt just the same before as after.

My 8700 comes tomorrow though so good riddance to this old thing!

edit: I did run Cinebench before and after and scores were close enough to identical to be within margin of error.

[–]Enverexi7-8700, 32GB 3066MHz, RTX 2080 Ti, SSDs, Valve Index. 28 points29 points  (6 children)

Anything without PCID apparently. My 5th gen has it, apparently everything from 4th gen and above does. So you'd need to find a 3rd gen or below to test.

[–]yurimodini7-8700non-k GTX1080Ti 2560x1080 144Hz Gsync 23 points24 points  (3 children)

The flaw goes back to Pentium 2 in the 90's. There is no running from this one

[–]Enverexi7-8700, 32GB 3066MHz, RTX 2080 Ti, SSDs, Valve Index. 17 points18 points  (1 child)

Sure, but I was pointing out which CPUs they'd need to test for performance issues, as it doesn't affect newer ones as badly due to that instruction.

[–]yurimodini7-8700non-k GTX1080Ti 2560x1080 144Hz Gsync 2 points3 points  (0 children)

all I am getting at is we are just going to have to take the hit up front and deal with it......I would wager the first patches will be rushed and they might get some performance back through refinements etc.

[–]bliblio 11 points12 points  (3 children)

i3 2120 here, what should i do? Start panicking?

[–]bosoxs202 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Nothing is confirmed yet. I hope someone benchmarks the weaker CPUs soon.

[–]RaitoGG 1 point2 points  (1 child)

How boned am I with a Intel Pentium G4620 3.7GHz Dual-Core Processor?

[–]RazzeeX 115 points116 points  (6 children)

Very useful post, but are you able to test on games where the CPU usage tends to be next to 100%?

Battlefield 1, GTA V or The Witcher 3

I imagine 144Hz+ players will be greatly affected.

[–]ThePixelHunter 29 points30 points  (2 children)

I can input that Rainbow Six Siege absolutely demands 100% CPU usage under load. I get similar frames to OP and we both have the same CPU. The only difference is that mine's not over clocked. Despite this, I have a better graphics card which means I average 140 FPS instead of OP's 90. Regardless, in both cases I'm sure that CPU usage is at maximum, at least I can promise it always is for me.

[–]Keine 4 points5 points  (1 child)

If you aren't already, you may want to use Rivatuner to cap your FPS. On a lot of machines, including mine, Siege will continue increasing your FPS until it hits 100% cpu usage if you aren't using V-Sync(which most don't, due to input lag), which then causes a few wonky bits of lag.

Assuming you don't have some amazing monitor where 140 FPS is actually noticeable over something like, 80 or 90, you may get a huge performance buff by just capping your framerate.

[–]SniperPilot 1 point2 points  (0 children)


[–]CactusGardenSunrise 384 points385 points  (57 children)

The biggest FPS loss you had was on DayZ Standalone.

Conclusion: I will be turning off Windows Updates for time being since i will feel this fps loss on few titles.

Dont be stupid. Everything else was below 5% except for one other game. DayZ Standalone is a unoptimized piece of trash to begin with and you shouldnt value frames in videogames over security of your system.

[–]twobad4u 52 points53 points  (3 children)

DayZ is CPU heavy just like its conjoined twins Arma,2,3. Well I shoudl say anything from BIS

OP,if you have Arma 3


[–]AzehDerp 15 points16 points  (8 children)

DayZ Standalone is a optimized piece of trash

And when was the last time you played it?

[–]resetes12i7 7820HK@3.6Ghz, GTX 1070, 16Gb RAM 7 points8 points  (4 children)

It's been a year or more since DayZ got optimised and people still shit on the poor performance it had.

Just like how people still think that in PUBG is impossible to get constant 60FPS.

[–]AzehDerp 5 points6 points  (0 children)

About 1.5 years since the update was released and the goals were visual parity with the old renderer and minimum 30 fps in towns. The result was way better and not much optimization has been done yet.

[–]FRAkira123[🍰] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Don't be stupid too.

DayZ has changed his engine since months but, hey, better continue to spread false shit, amiright ?

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (36 children)

DayZ Standalone is a unoptimized piece of trash to begin with

It isn't, it runs good for a midrange system. This is a video of before and after they did optimisation and upgraded the renderer from DX9 to DX11.

It did run like shit pre-0.60 though, 0.59 and below was painful.

[–]DerogatoryMale 28 points29 points  (35 children)

I5-4690k OC @ 4.4GHz, GPU: MSI Rx 580 8G, RAM: 16GB 1866Mhz

So is this one of those mid range builds you speak of?

[–]Shitty_Human_Beingi5-4690k@4GHz // GTX980Ti@1470Mhz // 8GB RAM // 1440p 144hz 2 points3 points  (2 children)

DayZ is not an unoptimized piece of trash. Please inform yourself before making statements like that. It used to be unoptimized, but they fixed it. Runs like a dream now.

[–]Annonimbus 48 points49 points  (35 children)

I commented somewhere else: I'd love to see one with a i5-2500. But yours is also cool.

[–]Buck-O 21 points22 points  (30 children)

Considering the 2500k has a little worse IPC than this, I would suspect it to be an even larger Delta in the performance swing.

[–]jdenm8R5 1600X, RX 580 OC 32 points33 points  (26 children)

(allegedly) The 2500K is also missing a feature being used to offset a lot of the performance losses; the 4000s were the first to have it.

Have to admit, kinda scared. It'll be really fucked if I have to buy a new PC now at the peak of fucked pricing because the engineers fucked up.

[–]PowerMac_G4i7 8700K, RX 5700 XT, 32GB DDR4 3200MHz 15 points16 points  (18 children)

I’ve been thinking about this. Isn’t it amazingly convenient for Intel that an extremely large number of users of old hardware are now going to be swayed towards buying new hardware?

[–]n0stalghiaRyzen 7 3800X | GTX 1070 Ti | 1440p 144Hz | 1080p 60Hz 29 points30 points  (3 children)

Not really, Intel is getting a lot of bad PR for this.

[–]owensar 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Servers cost a lot of money, and the buyers buy in bulk.

If you ran an intel based server room that was just dealt a 5-15% or worse performance drop, would you shop brand new intel or amd?

[–]temp0557 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Depends on price.

[–]Silverhand7 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Also on a 2500k, if it's enough of a difference that I feel the need to upgrade I certainly won't be buying Intel.

[–]Zireael_Swallow 9 points10 points  (1 child)

2500k @ 4.6 Ghz here. Cinebench score went from 610 to 606. Just for reference.

[–]hypexeled 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Cinebench wont reflect this issue nearly as much as a game.

[–]nondescriptzombiei5-2500k@4.6, RX480 8GB X2@1337 5 points6 points  (1 child)

What should I bench? 2500k @ 4.6 RX480 x 2 16GB DDR3

Edit: So my Win10 install is borked beyond repair, probably because I removed most of the cruft with powershell and Windows Update had a fit, and apparently it will be two weeks until this patch comes out for Windows 7.

[–]Eternith 3 points4 points  (0 children)

2500k squad here. Would love to see results if you do this.

[–]AnonTwo 152 points153 points  (11 children)


Like, you did good research.

But your conclusion is TERRIBLE advice. Do NOT skip this update. There are more important things in this world than a few frames.

[–]AdoptedAsian_ 4 points5 points  (0 children)

OP never said it was advice.

[–]014a 10 points11 points  (1 child)

For now il deter it while we watch what comes out in next weeks.

Do. Not. Do. This. The exploit already has a positive proof of concept from browser JS, and that proof of concept is now in the hands of every script kiddie out there.

This exploit isn't like cloudbleed where hackers "get lucky" and find secret keys that just happened to be leaked incidentally; meltdown allows for scanning your entire system memory. If they know what they're looking for, they'll find it. Let's say, the Chrome browser password store and its associated encryption keys?

[–]Elsolar 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Are you sure that all of these benchmarks are actually CPU bound? I'm seeing a lot of "1080p Ultra settings", which is actually bad for this kind of benchmark because you don't want your overall performance to be bottlenecked by your GPU performance. For more reliable results, I'd recommend redoing the benchmarks at a much lower resolution, like 720p or 800x600. That will be a better indicator of how your CPU is performing with the new update.

[–]gungir 48 points49 points  (4 children)

253fps in csgo... literally unplayable.

[–]guy121 36 points37 points  (0 children)

Better turn off updates!

[–]Rhed0x 3 points4 points  (2 children)

You're joking but CSGO really is only playable at more than 200fps.

[–]gungir 9 points10 points  (1 child)

i have a 60 hz monitor and csgo feels fucky at under 250.

[–]Rhed0x 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Even worse with 120hz :)

[–]The_Murderess 55 points56 points  (33 children)

laughs in Ryzen 5 1600

[–]methAndgatorade 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Gets lower FPS than an Intel i3, even post-patch

[–]thatnitaiRyzen 3600, RTX 2070 4 points5 points  (7 children)

Isn't ryzen still slower? I wish to go AMD next time because of this fuck up, but Intel beats them in performance every time. It's the same story with gpus, only now with gsync I'm locked to nvidia.

[–]s0nicDwerp 1 point2 points  (5 children)

Slower than what exactly? The R5 1600/1600X are two of the most VFM chips imo. They rekt Intel's older offerings viz. 6th/7th gen with their multi-cores and were so good it FORCED Intel (yes it really did! because no one was willing to buy the 4C/4T i5's <LUL> anymore and i7's were lot more costly) to come up with something better with their 8th gen Coffee-lake (6C/6T i5's). That should say something.

[–]iamSammTheMan 2 points3 points  (0 children)

preciate the R6 Siege benchmark, since that's really the only game I ever play anymore.

[–]Kiskavia 8 points9 points  (1 child)

Lovely...less performance.

[–]meeheecaan 6 points7 points  (0 children)

ultra settings for the gaming benchmarks

Thats not how to properly test cpu performance... but yeah 1-4% decrease is what i expected

[–]A_of 14 points15 points  (10 children)

I posted this elsewhere, but I think this doesn't show the whole picture.
Thing is, a lot of people not only game on their computers. They code and compile, do college work, are artists using 2D and 3D programs, browse the internet, etc.
Overall impact on performance is going to be a factor, not just gaming.


This is going to suck ass for compiling. A 5-30% hit on something that already takes an hour or more will be awful.

[–]saphira_bjartskular 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm not entirely certain the compiler requires a lot of sys calls that require context switching. I don't think it will be as bad as the worst case scenario (which is what the 30% estimate is, a program whose instructions are all context switching)

[–]NotEspeciallyClever 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Yep, My girlfriend does a lot of photoshop/illustrator work and i tinker in music programs on occasion. I'm curious if or how much this is going to affect stuff like that. (Both of our machines have an i5-3570k.)

[–]nerpTV 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Pretty much not at all.

[–]NotsoElite4 23 points24 points  (9 children)

Glad my systems seems like it won't be affected too much but it still hurts. Definitely going with AMD for my next rig. Zen+ or Zen2 here I come.

[–]SimonGn 12 points13 points  (5 children)

I have a feeling that all current CPUs in the pipeline of both Intel and AMD are going to get delayed while they work on making them hardened against Spectre ASAP, and then the Cores are going to be in extremely short supply as the large datacentre customers buy them all up.

[–]GILLHUHN 4 points5 points  (4 children)

That's my CPU not sure how I feel about this I'm already slightly bottlenecked on some games at 1440p 144hz.

[–]ekzei5-750 @ 3.8, GTX 970 15 points16 points  (17 children)

Scared to see the impact it will have on my i5-750.

[–]AscendedAncient 15 points16 points  (5 children)

Same on my 2600k.

[–]kmartburritoi7 2600k, R290X 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Same here, this might be the final straw to break the camel's back. Seriously impressed that my 2600k is doing so well in today's gaming arena, but with what I'm reading I'm very afraid. At least I'll be able to save the PC and make it a NAS or streaming rig. Think about how long the 2600k has survived though! Pat yourself on the back for making such a good long-term choice. Thanks for being the one to kill my PC, Intel :/

[–]alpha-ki5 4590, GTX 1060 6GB 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Oh man same. I have an Intel dp55wb board so can't even overclock the fucker, performance loss will mean I'll finally have to upgrade 😔


Very little, the "fix" is simply going to make system calls a lot more expensive, and most games try not to use system calls very much because they've always been resource hogs.

[–]conquer69 11 points12 points  (6 children)

Very little

And how much is that? this guy with a 4690k lost up to 6%. Could be even higher in other games, applications.

Why would an older and slower cpu lose less performance?

[–]hypexeled 6 points7 points  (0 children)

In fact theyll show more loss becouse 3rd gen and lower dont have a new feature that minimizes the impact

[–]Nurripter 2 points3 points  (7 children)

Now does the Intel bug affect older CPUs like the pentium d lineup?

[–]superdude4agze 11 points12 points  (0 children)

It affects potentially all out-of-order execution Intel processor since 1995, except Itanium and pre-2013 Atoms. It definitely affects out-of-order x86-64 Intel CPUs since 2011.

[–]Chareon 4 points5 points  (3 children)

All Intel CPUs post 1995 except for Atoms pre 2013 and Itanium CPUs are affected.

[–]FartingBob 12 points13 points  (1 child)

You all laughed at 2008 netbooks, well who's laughing now!

[–]Mind0fMetalAndWheels 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Ayy my 2010 Atom N455 is safe 😂

[–]Nurripter 1 point2 points  (0 children)


[–]jigssaw 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Yes and no.

There are two security flaws - Spectre and Meltdown. Spectre affects basically almost everything in the last 20+ years with few exceptions. However this one is less serious and the fix to spectre should have negligible impact on performance (less then 1%).

Then you have meltdown which is the serious one. That affects intel cpus (starting with the core i line - intel has list on their website). And the fix to this one is the one that causes those big performance degradations (up to 30%-50% in some server workloads).

by fix I mean software workaround to render those flaws imposible to abuse

[–]Darksider123 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have the same cpu, wish i had ryzen instead

[–]cl33t 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Any chance you could benchmark while in multiplayer?

I'd love to know what happens with the added network traffic since they're all syscalls which are supposed to be what slows things down.


I would like sandy bridge i7 tests, since that chip peforms way better than a haswell i5 chip

[–]Akitu 2 points3 points  (2 children)

I think the i7 3770k is somewhat common. Would it be helpful if I were to benchmark it with a 1070 gpu when I get home in a few days?

[–]bryntrollianRyzen 7 1700 / GTX 1070 Hybrid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This system has lasted me a very long time, but I wonder if that time has come to a sudden end.

[–]Pokemoneuro 2 points3 points  (0 children)

As an owner of an even older cpu (i5-3570) I'm quite scared

[–]Castavar 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh boy, how will this affect my intel G4560?

[–]71Duster360 13 points14 points  (37 children)


In general, this makes me curious. First of all can people really tell the difference of a few FPS, especially on the high side? Also, you say that you're turning off the update because of the loss of FPS. So, if the game originally ran at lower frame rate, would you still be playing it?

[–]Head_Cockswain 2 points3 points  (0 children)


Short answer: Yes.

Long answer: Yes. Not only is it noticable on variable-sinc monitors, on set monitors, 60hz for example, a lot of people use vsync to stop screen tearing(often depends on the game).

IF you dip below 60, it can jump all the way to 30fps which can make things a stuttery mess.

This isn't always a problem, especially on high-end systems, but a lot of people do have their graphics set to run just over 60(as in tuning all the bells n whistles like AntiAliasing and post processing, etc) so that at the worst times(most resource hungry(lots of explosions, actors on screen, etc) they don't dip below 60.

Something like this is going to really effect those resource needed spikes, going to affect the quality balance that a lot of mid-range hardware users are always dancing around. A 5% or bigger hit can make or break that 60fps cut-off.

You see this on a lot of consoles because there are no settings, they're set to average action just over X(used to be 30, but consoles have improved a lot), but when a lot of stuff happens in the game, they bog down, because they're not built for worst case scenario, they're tuned to average or even light action. This is one reason why a lot of people shift to PC gaming.

People get tired of explosions or chaotic times in, say, an FPS like Call of Duty being greatly affected by a lot of action, in fact, it can actually change game mechanics in a lot of games. Automatic rifle fire speed, a big deal in past CoD games, was tied to the frame-rate. That awesome fast firing gun only fires it's 1120 (or however many) rounds a minute at optimal screen refresh rates, a bogged down system can actually make that gun fire slower, meaning that they can end up losing confrontations even if it's not affecting how they move or perceive things.

/haven't played CoD in forever, but I remember some people got really really into the mechanics and doing a lot of reading about their research and picking my weapon loadouds with such things in mind because I'd noticed something off as well. http://denkirson.proboards.com/thread/6642/fire-rates-frame

[–]XXLpeanutsi7 9700k 4.9ghz, 1080ti, 16gb DDR4 ram, NVME SSD 22 points23 points  (25 children)

When you spend hours getting all your games to look as good as possible while maintaining that 60fps this patch is basically going to cause every single game I own (I am cpu limited in them all) to run under 60fps, and cause me to have to tweak all 80+ of them all over again, and lose visual fidelity because intel are fuckwits. It seriously is not cool.

[–]Hotdoggn 16 points17 points  (8 children)

You play 80+ titles at a time? I can barely manage to juggle two games at a time... How much time do you have on your hands? Do you sleep?

[–]SkoobyDoo 4 points5 points  (6 children)

I have 130ish hours in the past two weeks. According to steam this is across ten titles. Worth noting that included a week of vacation...

Those ten titles change every two weeks, with maybe 1-3 carrying over.

[–]Yodamanjaro 5 points6 points  (5 children)

I wish I had that enough free time

[–]XXLpeanutsi7 9700k 4.9ghz, 1080ti, 16gb DDR4 ram, NVME SSD 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I have 80+ installed, I don't play them all at the same time, but I do hit most of them up every so often.

[–]coredumperror 5 points6 points  (15 children)

Intel are not "fuckwits". This is a mindblowingly subtle bug that went unnoticed for 10 YEARS because it's so esoteric.


Its really annoys me if it keeps dipping bellow 60.

Depends on game type. fast paced fps games benefit from having more fps to decrease input lag even if you only have 60Hz monitor. In other games it doesn't really matter and i can play them on 40fps like Stellaris or Total war.


Depends on game, when i RMA'd my previous GPU and had to use integrated for a month i simply stopped playing games like CS:GO/WarThunder because when it was ~40-50fps it was simply not enjoyable not because of graphics but because moving objects slightly blur and everyone has significant input advantage over you.

[–]71Duster360 1 point2 points  (1 child)

You make a good point with the 60 FPS threshold. I can definitely see how that would affect gamin experience. It's just that on a lot of the benchmarks you posted, there's only a difference of 3-5 frames.

[–]JNYDTH 16 points17 points  (9 children)

Those are some MASSIVE decreases. People bought Intel CPUs because of the "9%" more power over Ryzen when they were announced. And now that goes out the water. I wonder how my 7600k is affected, stock.

I can barely hold Disnohored 2 at 60 frames on Ultra Textures and Everything Else on High with a GTX 1060 on 1080p. If it dips below... jeez. I don't want to think about it. Same goes for Nioh and other games, especially R6S. And i am not buying another setup in at least 5 years minimum.

[–]LieutenantBilli7-3820 @4.3GHz │GTX 680 26 points27 points  (1 child)

You’re GPU bottlenecked.

[–]aaronfrankeUbuntu 20.04 + Windows 10 (for VR) 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It depends on the game.

[–]Blze001 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Curious to see how this patch hits my trusty old 4670k.

[–]Catechin 1 point2 points  (2 children)

You should be fine. 4th gen on has less of an impact, and even 3rd gen benchmarks are looking okay for gaming.

[–]Sourenics 1 point2 points  (3 children)

And where can I find this update for W7? Or what should I do.

[–]walentaz 14 points15 points  (6 children)

And yesterday some topic said there is no impact. Stop linking BS sources from people who lack knowledge. In earlier news it was accented the impact is more severe on older CPUs, but some idiot tested with 7700k and dares to say based on one CPU test there is no impact - BS. And many in the comments were screaming - oh it's overblown... It's not. The security check is flat CPU call number thus when you compere percentage impact it's obviously more severe on older gen and weaker CPUs. Also in desktop typical use CPU calls are not that high count as in server related tasks, thus deskop use scenarios are impacted less than server use scenarios. But fact is, saying it doesn't affect performance is just spreading BS and such sources should never be linked here.

Now OP here tests also one CPU, but the difference is - you only need one to prove it has impact, while one is not enough to prove there is no impact - basically you get the idea behind this logical principle (forgot how it's called specifically). Anyway, thanks for sharing OP, you prove there is an impact and I bet it's even greater on let's say popular 2500k

[–]inimigor 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Anyone knows how it affects the Core 2 Quad Q9650/Xeon E5450 range of CPUs? I have an HTPC which runs a E5450 on a Dell Mobo and it barely scratches on a few games.

[–]Dustin_Hossmani7 6700k@4.6ghz, 11GB Asus Strix 1080ti, Corsair Dominator 16GB 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Is this update coming in a windows update or do i need to install it myself?

[–]Masziii 1 point2 points  (2 children)

What about laptops?

[–]LBGW_experiment3700x, EVGA 2080Ti, 32GB Ripjaw V, 2TB NVME, NZXT H1 case 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the Siege benchmark. It's what I play the most. I have been playing the Witcher 3 a ton lately, so I'm curious how that will also be affected.

[–]techno_phoenix10i7-4790k | Gigabyte Windforce 970 4GB | 32 GB DDR3 | Windows 10 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've got an i7-4790k. What would the performance impact be? I run VR stuff a lot.

[–]sonnytron9700K | Pulse 5700(XT) | Rift S | G29 1 point2 points  (1 child)

What resolution were you running?
Not to call you out or anything but if you were using even 1080P then you kind of fudged this a bit.
What we really need to see are CPU maxed testing, like 720P on low settings before and after update.

[–]thatnitaiRyzen 3600, RTX 2070 2 points3 points  (0 children)

You're right we'll see a bigger difference. But it will be pretty unrepresentative. 1080p on lowest setting is more attuned to day to day gaming as almost nobody plays at 720p.


There really wasn't much of a difference. It's better to patch and not have the security risk. I do not agree with your conclusion

[–]perrigowee 1 point2 points  (0 children)


I don't think you should wait for a few weeks.

The flaw was discovered last year and unlikely that any fix without compromising performance will come out soon.

[–]The_Occurence 1 point2 points  (3 children)

As an MSI Z97 user with my 4790k, I'm disappointed to say the least to see that on their support page for this article, they're only releasing a fix for 100-series or newer boards. Then somewhere down the bottom it says "Upgrade your older board now for maximum security."
Like they're asking me to spend money to fix a worldwide problem.


I'm on a 3570k with a rx 580. I pretty much only play overwatch on 1080p 75% render scale with a 240hz monitor and I get about 160 - 200 fps, while cpu is pretty much always 100%. I'm so screwed aren't I?

[–]tassarion 1 point2 points  (4 children)

3570k@4.4ghz, gtx1080 here. Gonna do some benchmarking later today to establish a baseline then install the patch and see what’s what. Vr performance has me most worried.

[–]artins90i7 7820X 4.8Ghz / RTX 2080 Ti / 32GB 3400 Trident Z 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Turns out the fix has not been enabled on most machines because you also need a bios update to make it work. Windows will not activate the fix if it doesn't detect capable hardware (bios): https://forum-en.msi.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=297707.0;attach=63917;image

[–]JackTheSqueaker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm not installing it in a million years

[–]Pyroven 5 points6 points  (0 children)

This is actually awful, that's a sizeable difference.

[–]herogeriki9 9900k, 32GB RAM, GTX 1080 Ti[🍰] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A lot of these benchmarks I see from various sources are usually within the margin of error or just barely outside of it. It still sucks we're losing performance we've been used to for years, but this isn't nearly the "gaming apocalypse" reddit has been trying to make it out to be.

Now, when it comes to enterprise-level things like servers and VMs, I can totally understand that this is a pretty huge issue. But, if you're like me and do mostly gaming and light content editing/creation, you're barely going to notice any difference.

[–]Mkilbride8700K @ 5GHZ, 1080 Ti @ 2025MHZ, 32GB RAM @ 3000MHZ, 1TB SSD-W10 6 points7 points  (28 children)

It's kinda funny how your results are different than all the other benchmarkers out there.

[–]XXLpeanutsi7 9700k 4.9ghz, 1080ti, 16gb DDR4 ram, NVME SSD 64 points65 points  (0 children)

Thats because his CPU is different to all the others.....

[–]MrChocodemon 12 points13 points  (4 children)

That's how PCs work. But it is also a reason to not project all those benchmarks on your own system.

[–]octiceps 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Exactly. There is a massive difference between an 8700K and 2500K (what he has).

[–]KevyB 4 points5 points  (0 children)

These "benchmarks out there" are worthless since they assume everyone has a fine tuned shiny new rig at hand.

[–]octiceps 4 points5 points  (3 children)

Don't you have a 1080 Ti paired with a 2500K? You should post some of your own pre- and post-patch benches since you have one of the most CPU-bound setups out there.

[–]CountyMcCounterson 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Try it with an nvidia card, apparently they are being fucked much harder by it because they rely on the part that is slowing down

[–]nerpTV 5 points6 points  (0 children)

False rumor started by AMD fanboys. :) Not true at all.

[–]Sandwich247i7 6700k | GTX 1080 | XB240H 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Darn, from ~3-14 % decrease depending on the title. Darn you Intel, why?

[–]1leggeddogUltrawide FTW 1 point2 points  (4 children)

yeah thats gonna be a no for me dawg.

[–]OptiKal_ 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Welp, no thanks. Turning off updates.