[SOLVED] How is actual performance difference due to zombieload patch?

Oct 15, 2018
86
1
45
2
Before zombieland I7 8700k were 17% faster than Ryzen 5 2600x.
As it is hyperthreaded, Does difference still hold good. (just curious)
 
there have not been any significant gaming performance decreases that I am aware of within even the last 2 years since the first hypothetical exploits were publicized, although a few heavily hyperthreaded storage benchmarks were reduced by a nice amount...

As to putting an exact number on speed differences, it would of course depend on the game being compared, RAM speeds of each system (Ryzen scales better with faster RAM clocks) , the GPU being used (it would take a GTX1080Ti and above to allow significant processor scaling at 1080P), etc....

The 2600X is a competent processor, even if not quite as fast as an 8700K in most gaming scenarios...(I suspect the difference is now only about ~10% at 1080P on average...)
 
Reactions: wabale97
Oct 15, 2018
86
1
45
2
The 2600X is a competent processor, even if not quite as fast as an 8700K in most gaming scenarios...(I suspect the difference is now only about ~10% at 1080P on average...)
Not in gaming. it won't use all its potential in gaming.
What about in the video rendering or like this applications when all cores will be used.
 
These are linux benchmarks, and they don't test a 2600X, but to give you an idea: https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=mds-zombieload-mit&num=10
8700K saw a 16% performance drop on the geometric mean of all their benchmark results with all mitigations in place but without disabling SMT. 2700X saw a 3% hit.

There is an impact in storage performance, with low queue depth random IO (the most common for normal consumer use) taking the biggest hit. https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-amd-storage-test-mds-zombieload-ridl-fallout,6146.html
 
Reactions: wabale97

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS