Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 46

Thread: 5% to 30% performance hit on cpu renderering

  1. #16
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    5,418
    Quote Originally Posted by rustythe1 View Post
    but at the same time, the hole has been there for 10 years
    Except that now it's public, and the mechanism is not difficult to discern from the patches and descriptions given (and it'll only get more public from here).
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.2),32GB RAM, NV 980ti

  2. #17
    LightWave Engineer Jarno's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    578
    The performance hits will be in doing system calls (basically, calling stuff in the kernel of the operating system). That basically doesn't happen during rendering, which is just pure number crunching. So at the moment I'm not expecting to see any significant degradation in render speed.

    We will keep an eye on the benchmarks to see if something unexpected pops up.

    ---JvdL---

  3. #18
    pass:sword OFF's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Russia
    Posts
    806
    Quote Originally Posted by samurai_x View Post
    Good to know. Need further testing.
    For interiors, probably the same. Lightwave 2015 was never fast with interiors. I have kray for that.
    Volumetric - lw 2018 is faster than lw 2015. Faster than redshift, octane, cycles using a sample vdb? Not tested but I'm sure gpu will be faster.
    Exteriors - Is it faster than dpsun+backdrop radiosity? Need to test. Exteriors aren't really problematic with most render engines. Even octane is fast for exteriors.
    Not faster - but now can give the quality of the picture at the level of the best renderers. Unfortunately - the render speed is not enought high.
    http://soundcloud.com/pass-sword
    from now the kingdom of God is preached, and every effort goes into it

  4. #19
    Registered User samurai_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    lalaland
    Posts
    1,019
    So amd cpus are affected as well.
    https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/03/ke...er-and-device/

  5. #20
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    1,357
    To a lesser degree yes (according to the one I heard it from at least) but it won't matter, as I very much doubt the updates from Linux, Microsoft etc.. will make any distinction. As their primary goal is to close the hole. But I won't install anything at all, until I see how this goes.
    Last edited by MichaelT; 01-04-2018 at 01:24 PM.

  6. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    1,357
    This is the list of affected Intel CPUs. As for the other brands, you need to find out for yourselves.
    I'm guessing that the older the CPU (or lower spec) the worse that performance cap is going to hit you.
    If you never load your CPU you might not even notice, but for those who do (and do the kernel talk) most likely will see a big difference.
    I still want to see some ability to disable that fix... because this is potentially so damaging to performance.. I'd like to see some options here.

    List:

    Intel Core i3 processor (45nm and 32nm)
    Intel Core i5 processor (45nm and 32nm)
    Intel Core i7 processor (45nm and 32nm)
    Intel Core M processor family (45nm and 32nm)
    2nd generation Intel Core processors
    3rd generation Intel Core processors
    4th generation Intel Core processors
    5th generation Intel Core processors
    6th generation Intel Core processors
    7th generation Intel Core processors
    8th generation Intel Core processors
    Intel Core X-series Processor Family for Intel X99 platforms
    Intel Core X-series Processor Family for Intel X299 platforms
    Intel Xeon processor 3400 series
    Intel Xeon processor 3600 series
    Intel Xeon processor 5500 series
    Intel Xeon processor 5600 series
    Intel Xeon processor 6500 series
    Intel Xeon processor 7500 series
    Intel Xeon Processor E3 Family
    Intel Xeon Processor E3 v2 Family
    Intel Xeon Processor E3 v3 Family
    Intel Xeon Processor E3 v4 Family
    Intel Xeon Processor E3 v5 Family
    Intel Xeon Processor E3 v6 Family
    Intel Xeon Processor E5 Family
    Intel Xeon Processor E5 v2 Family
    Intel Xeon Processor E5 v3 Family
    Intel Xeon Processor E5 v4 Family
    Intel Xeon Processor E7 Family
    Intel Xeon Processor E7 v2 Family
    Intel Xeon Processor E7 v3 Family
    Intel Xeon Processor E7 v4 Family
    Intel Xeon Processor Scalable Family
    Intel Xeon Phi Processor 3200, 5200, 7200 Series
    Intel Atom Processor C Series
    Intel Atom Processor E Series
    Intel Atom Processor A Series
    Intel Atom Processor x3 Series
    Intel Atom Processor Z Series
    Intel Celeron Processor J Series
    Intel Celeron Processor N Series
    Intel Pentium Processor J Series
    Intel Pentium Processor N Series

  7. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Stavanger, Norway
    Posts
    92
    Don't understand why they published this in the first place. This is an obscure exploit that no one knew about 6 months ago; now everyone does. Expect attacks to follow.

    In any event, I'm not sweating it. I'm not gonna do any of the potentially slowing updates. Keep the system clean and only online when needed, and you're in the clear. My really important stuff is in any event dependent on security items not connected to anything relevant
    - Ignorance is bliss...

  8. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    1,357
    Obscure or not... I find that all IHVs share the same bug.. very interesting. .. in any case. This fix should not be obligatory... it is far to damaging for that.

  9. #24
    Super Member Qexit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Warrington, UK
    Posts
    898
    Quote Originally Posted by Amerelium View Post
    Don't understand why they published this in the first place. This is an obscure exploit that no one knew about 6 months ago; now everyone does. Expect attacks to follow.

    In any event, I'm not sweating it. I'm not gonna do any of the potentially slowing updates. Keep the system clean and only online when needed, and you're in the clear. My really important stuff is in any event dependent on security items not connected to anything relevant
    Well, the information about the exploit was first published by a well-known hacker. That was picked up by The Register who published an article which got widely distributed, so everyone else had little choice but to put their side of the story (so to speak). At least that is the gist of how things seem to have gone from what I have read on the subject.
    Kevin F Stubbs

    Remember...one size does NOT fit all

  10. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Stavanger, Norway
    Posts
    92
    ...methinks it's all being blown a bit out of proportion though; as I understand it it takes quite a bit of work and access to actually make use of the exploit - unless you're big or famous you're a highly unlikely target for it. I'm certainly not going to compromise speed for a less-likely-that-being-attacked-by-shark-whilst-struck-by-lightning scenario. I can see bitcoin hubs, Trump and Big Evil Corporation being targets for something like this, not you or me. No sweat.
    - Ignorance is bliss...

  11. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    1,357
    Quote Originally Posted by Amerelium View Post
    ...methinks it's all being blown a bit out of proportion though; as I understand it it takes quite a bit of work and access to actually make use of the exploit - unless you're big or famous you're a highly unlikely target for it. I'm certainly not going to compromise speed for a less-likely-that-being-attacked-by-shark-whilst-struck-by-lightning scenario. I can see bitcoin hubs, Trump and Big Evil Corporation being targets for something like this, not you or me. No sweat.
    The problem isn't the potential target. The problem are the fixes... it is those who drag down the performance by as much as 30% (lower cpu performance)

  12. #27
    Electron wrangler jwiede's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Jose, CA
    Posts
    5,418
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelT View Post
    Obscure or not... I find that all IHVs share the same bug
    If that's your interpretation of the multiple issues now being discussed, you've misunderstood some rather significant details in your study of it.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by samurai_x View Post
    You're conflating multiple issues together as if they're all the same, and they are not.
    John W.
    LW2015.3UB on MacPro(12C/24T/10.13.2),32GB RAM, NV 980ti

  13. #28
    Registered User samurai_x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    lalaland
    Posts
    1,019
    Quote Originally Posted by jwiede View Post
    If that's your interpretation of the multiple issues now being discussed, you've misunderstood some rather significant details in your study of it.

    - - - Updated - - -



    You're conflating multiple issues together as if they're all the same, and they are not.
    I didn't say by the same thing. That's why the link is there. Lol.

  14. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Stockholm
    Posts
    1,357
    Quote Originally Posted by jwiede View Post
    If that's your interpretation of the multiple issues now being discussed, you've misunderstood some rather significant details in your study of it.

    - - - Updated - - -



    You're conflating multiple issues together as if they're all the same, and they are not.
    When a patch applied covers more than one brand of CPU.. it is at the very least similar. In any case.. I have only what's out there to go on If that is wrong or incorrect, I am always willing to change. My main point however is still the rather significant drop in performance.

  15. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Stavanger, Norway
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelT View Post
    The problem isn't the potential target. The problem are the fixes... it is those who drag down the performance by as much as 30% (lower cpu performance)
    Which is why I'm not gonna do any software based fixes. If they redesign all future chips so that they work slower; well we cannot do much about that - I'll fall off that cliff when we get to it.
    - Ignorance is bliss...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •