Intel Launches 8th Gen Core Series CPUs With Integrated AMD Radeon Graphics (hothardware.com) 123
MojoKid writes: At CES 2018, Intel unveiled more details of its 8th generation Intel Core processors with integrated AMD Radeon RX Vega M graphics. Like cats and dogs living together, the mashup of an Intel processor with an AMD GPU is made possible by an Embedded Multi-Die Interconnect Bridge (EMIB), which provides a high-speed data interconnect between the processor, GPU and 4GB of second-generation High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM2). Intel is delivering 8th generation H-Series Core processors in 65W TDP (laptops) and 100W TDP (desktops) SKUs that will take up 50 percent less PCB real estate, versus traditional discrete configs. Both the mobile and desktop variants of the processors will be available in Core i5 or Core i7 configurations, with 4 cores and 8 threads, up to 8MB of cache and 4GB of HBM2. The 65W mobile processors can boost up to 4.1GHz, while the Radeon RX Vega M GL GPU has base/boost clocks of 931MHz and 1011MHz, respectively. The AMD GPU has 20 compute units and memory bandwidth checks in at 179GB/s. Desktop processors ratchet the maximum boost slightly to 4.2GHz, while the base/boost clocks of the Radeon RX Vega M GH GPU jump to 1063MHz and 1190MHz, respectively. Desktop GPUs are also upgraded with 24 CUs and 204GB/s of memory bandwidth. Intel says that its 8th generation Core i7 with Radeon RX Vega M GL graphics is up to 1.4x faster than a Core i7-8550U with an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 GPU in a notebook system. System announcements from Dell and HP are forthcoming, with availability in the first half of this year. Intel has also launched a new NUC small form factor gaming mini PC based on the technology as well.
Does it run Crysis? (Score:1)
Re:Does it run Crysis? (Score:5, Informative)
Obligatory:Intel CPU Backdoor Report (Jan 1 2018) (Score:5, Informative)
Change log:
2018/01/01 - Added 14 Useful Links. Disable Intel ME 11 via undocumented NSA "High Assurance Platform" mode, Blackhat Dec 2017 presentation, Intel ME CVEs (CVSS Scored 9.0-10.0)
Intel CPU Backdoor Report
The goal of this report is to make the existence of Intel CPU backdoors a common knowledge and provide information on backdoor removal.
What we know about Intel CPU backdoors so far:
TL;DR version
Your Intel CPU and Chipset is running a backdoor as we speak.
The backdoor hardware is inside the CPU/Bridge and the backdoor firmware (Intel Management Engine) is in the chipset flash memory.
30C3 Intel ME live hack:
[Video] 30C3: Persistent, Stealthy, Remote-controlled Dedicated Hardware Malware [youtube.com]
@21:43, keystrokes leaked from Intel ME above the OS, wireshark failed to detect packets.
[Quotes] Vortrag [events.ccc.de]:
"the ME provides a perfect environment for undetectable sensitive data leakage on behalf of the attacker".
"We can permanently monitor the keyboard buffer on both operating system targets."
Backdoor removal:
The backdoor firmware can be removed by following this guide [github.io] using the me_cleaner [github.com] script.
Removal requires a Raspberry Pi (with GPIO pins) and a SOIC clip.
2017 Dec Update:
Intel ME on recent CPUs may be disabled by enabling the undocumented NSA HAP mode [ptsecurity.com].
Decoding Intel backdoors:
The situation is out of control and the Libreboot/Coreboot community is looking for BIOS/Firmware experts to help with the Intel ME decoding effort.
If you are skilled in these areas, download Intel ME firmwares from this collection [win-raid.com] and have a go at them, beware Intel is using a lot of counter measures to prevent their backdoors from being decoded (explained below).
Useful links (Added 2018 Jan 1):
Disabling Intel ME 11 via undocumented mode (NSA High Assurance Platform mode) [ptsecurity.com]
Blackhat 2017: How To Hack A Turned Off Computer Or Running Unsigned Code In Intel Management Engine [blackhat.com]
EFF: Intel's Management Engine is a security hazard, and users need a way to disable it [eff.org]
Sakaki's EFI Install Guide/Disabling the Intel Management Engine [gentoo.org]
Intel ME bug storm: Hardware vendors race to identify and provide updates for dangerous Intel flaws. [zdnet.com]
CVE-2017-5689 [cvedetails.com]: An unprivileged network attacker could gain system privileges to provisioned Intel manageability SKUs
CVE-2017-5705 [cvedetails.com]: Multiple buffer overflows in kernel in Intel Manageability Engine Firmware
CVE-2017-5706 [cvedetails.com]: Multiple buffer overflows in kernel in Intel Server Platform Services Firmware
does it run (Score:5, Funny)
Meltdown?
Re:does it run (Score:5, Funny)
You bet your ass it does! So how many can I put you down for?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Tim S.
Meltdown?
Re: (Score:2)
Only the CLI version.
A great time to buy Intel (Score:1)
Count me in!
Lol (Score:1)
Did anyone at Intel even think about the probable reaction to this announcement?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Defective (Score:4, Insightful)
So if you buy an Intel CPU you will need to deal with Meltdown.
By using an up-to-date version of Windows, Mac, or Linux. And if you don't buy an Intel CPU, you still need a very similar fix to mitigate Spectre.
Like it or not, this is not going to end in a mass recall - it's a fundamental design flaw with speculative execution. Poor security is a bug, but they delivered everything they promised on the box. This is not a simple patch. It's a complete redesign of a huge section of the die - and even if you do get your recall, it's going to be years before a new design can be fabricated and mass-produced. By then, it will be replaced and obsolete.
Re:Defective (Score:5, Informative)
> And if you don't buy an Intel CPU, you still need a very similar fix to mitigate Spectre.
Fixing meltdown requires kernel unmap/KPTI. This comes with a 20-30% tax for many workloads. I know people at hosting firms with shit melting down because they've installed the patch and now they have degenerate end-user workloads.
Spectre requires a million little fixes that are generally cheap in performance.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We need a final solution to the degenerate end-user problem.
Re: (Score:2)
This comes with a 20-30% tax for many workloads.
Except it didn't. All benchmarks point to a 5-10% worst case hit, and an unmeasurable hit in pretty much all desktop / user facing workloads. Despite all the initial reports I've yet to see any benchmark, Windows, Linux, server loads, office applications, gaming, databases, or whatever get into the double digits.
Here's just some top google results:
http://www.guru3d.com/articles... [guru3d.com]
https://www.techspot.com/artic... [techspot.com]
And here's some Linux ones on KPTI:
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.... [phoronix.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Then you've not looked very hard. Things that are very syscall intensive, like du across a filesystem, have been shown to pay a 50% tax. Tun/tap stuff in userspace pays a ~35% tax. Or if you want something higher level:
https://www.postgresql.org/mes... [postgresql.org]
Trivial PostgreSQL txns (where you don't end up IO or scanning bound, but instead are measuring system call path) pay a 17% tax. On Skylake. Where the penalty is comparatively less.
Promises, promises. (Score:2)
Yes. It says on the box: "Intel inside".
Re: (Score:2)
it's a fundamental design flaw with speculative execution. Poor security is a bug, but they delivered everything they promised on the box. This is not a simple patch. It's a complete redesign of a huge section of the die
It is a design flaw with Intel's implementation of speculative execution which does speculative loads before checking permissions. The only necessary redesign is to check the permissions before executing the speculative load instead of at instruction retirement.
The only benefit to what Intel did is to execute speculative code that causes faults more quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Stop talking about Spectre. There is no fix for Meltdown. Meltdown is much more severe. You cannot fix it in software, only mitigate it. You have been fooled, or you are being intentionally misleading.
Meltdown is the one which can be fixed in software. Flush the TLBs and do not share them between privilege levels. Unfortunately doing so incurs a significant performance penalty during privilege changes.
Re: (Score:1)
Intel CPUs are the more expensive ones. They run at about the same temperature, and Ryzen is every bit as good at multithreading as Intel chips.
Intel having competition means us consumers win.
Too soon? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Too soon? (Score:4, Insightful)
Meltdown is probably an easy fix even for the silicon. Spectre however, as far as I can see, is next to impossible to fix. Maybe somebody can correct me, but they need to get rid of the speculative execution pipeline all together.
It really seems very facetious of them to try to sell everybody on their new CPUs with this very heavy baggage hanging over their chips.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe somebody can correct me, but they need to get rid of the speculative execution pipeline all together.
Or break the side-channel information leak of which cache lines were filled by the speculative execution (which is how the attacker finds out the value of the bits or bytes it shouldn't know).
Or separate the branch predictions per-context (which is how the attacker gets the speculative execution to look at the desired bits or bytes).
I like that last one. IMHO the behavior (especially the target addres
Re: (Score:1)
I believe meltdown/spectre can't work if user can't walk/read the cache directly.
Re: (Score:1)
You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. CPUs don't allow you to 'walk the cache'. There is no way to 'walk/read the cache directly'. That's not how Meltdown works. The values that Meltdown reads off the (presumed) cached all belong to the process running the Meltdown exploit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
It's neither.
It's reading the value from RAM where you are allowed to read it, and measuring how long this takes.
If the result is returned faster than (slow) RAM can return it, it came from cache.
Unless you want to slow the cache down, there is no way to prevent this. And if that's your solution, you might just as well get rid of cache in the first place, making computers at least an order of magnitude slower.
(And while you are at it, you might just realize that RAM is basically a cache for the hard drive,
Re: (Score:2)
AMD affected by Meltdown bug after all (Score:1)
Who is going to buy these CPUs? Intel knew about the bug for half a year and did not scratch the release? Linus was right then. They do intend to keep selling shit.
Re: (Score:2)
hahaha! corporate america will. have you seen the investor headlines regurgitating intel's spew? Intel has patch for spectre, which was the more serious bug! meltdown just takes a little patch!
no, not kidding
Re: (Score:2)
Name (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Intel don't like taking RISCs
Re: (Score:2)
Why not throw a RISC processor in to be sure.
They did that when they introduced the Pentium Pro.
Performance claims (Score:1)
Intel says that its 8th generation Core i7 with Radeon RX Vega M GL graphics is up to 1.4x faster than a Core i7-8550U with an NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 GPU in a notebook system.
That's actually a very impressive result. If I was buying a gaming machine, a 1050 is about the minimum. A 1050 TI would be better and it seems like this chip is in 1050 Ti territory.
Re: (Score:2)
You can get passively cooled 1030s
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.... [phoronix.com]
Re: (Score:2)
1030 isn't a "reasonable" card in this context. It's not something that can run modern games at acceptable quality and/or framerates.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'd go for a 1050 or 1050 Ti as a minimum to be honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Intel integrated graphics are aimed at a different market though. People with Intel integrated graphics don't care about gaming performance at all - they just want something that can handle a GUI. On the other hand it comes free with your CPU and it's lower power than a discrete solution.
Re: (Score:2)
AMD's strategy (Score:1)
I'm confused about AMD's business strategy with this move. They just finally got their foot back in the door with Ryzen being competitive against Intel after a decade of falling behind in performance. Topping this off of Intel not having a competitive solution to AMD's APU with a decent-performing 3D GPU, and AMD finally seemed poised to grow its share in the laptop & desktop market.
But partnering with Intel to create an Intel APU defeats the purpose of buying an AMD APU.
I suspect AMD has accepted tha
Re: (Score:3)
My guess is, this looks like something Apple asked for specifically.
I guess we'll know in a few months, if they finally update the Mac mini and the MacBook Air.
Re:AMD's strategy (Score:5, Informative)
But partnering with Intel to create an Intel APU defeats the purpose of buying an AMD APU.
Not really.
The AMD parts will be cheaper.
They'll be easier to overclock.
The AMD parts may have some advantages on bus interconnects, being from the same vendor (benchmarks will tell...).
There's a real chance that Global gets to 7nm first.
Yet ... somebody who really wants an Intel anyway and won't consider an AMD CPU -
- well, they're getting AMD graphics. That helps in the AMD/nVidia marketshare battle and it looks like Intel may be existing that market as well.
Re: (Score:3)
How about "We ship silicon that is in 95% of all PCs"
Getting a taste of practically everything sometimes adds up to more than all of very little.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's just fitting with the current trend of stuffing chips into laptops that are completely incapable of running at full speed more than a few seconds without throttling back. So you'll have a thin, quiet, fast laptop until you actually try to use it for something processor intensive, then you'll have a too-hot to sit on your laptop, slow-ass laptop until it can go back to idle.
Though someone will probably make it into a portable workstation and/or gaming machine that's 2" thick, equipped with some loud-as
It's a little old school, but... (Score:1)
Dear intel (Score:4, Insightful)
Putting AMD hardware next to yours doesn't automatically grant immunity from Meltdown and Spectre. Nice try, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Right....better move over to ARM or something thing non-intel relat.....huh?....what's that? Meltdown affects ARM chips too?!?!
awe....and I wanted to hate on Intel like a smarty pants....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Hey Meltdown trolls.... (Score:5, Insightful)
eh, I read AMD is only vulnerable to Spectre variant 1
you have source for your claim anything but Intel and certain ARM are vulnerable to Meltdown?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, the example code only affected Intel. The underlying exploit exist in AMD and ARM64 as well.
The original paper postulated as to why their code wouldn't run on AMD and even went so far as stating it may work on AMD with some optimization or on chips with different execution pipeline sizes.
https://meltdownattack.com/mel... [meltdownattack.com]
Re: (Score:2)
No, the example code only affected Intel. The underlying exploit exist in AMD and ARM64 as well.
The original paper postulated as to why their code wouldn't run on AMD and even went so far as stating it may work on AMD with some optimization or on chips with different execution pipeline sizes.
https://meltdownattack.com/mel... [meltdownattack.com]
However, for both ARM and AMD, the toy example as described in Section 3 works reliably, indicating that out-of-order execution generally occurs and instructions past illegal memory accesses are also performed.
The paper shows a timing variation indicating that speculated instructions caused memory access but *not* that the specific memory was accessed, For instance those may have been page table accesses needed to load a TLB before permissions were checked. Nothing indicates that speculated instructions
Re: (Score:2)
My 486DX2/66 is unaffected. Apparently so is my Raspberry Pi. So is the Commodore 64, though with that machine you can read whatever memory you want any time you feel like it without any fancy tricks.
Re: (Score:2)
idiot here
Who said ACs are always trolling?
Since when did NVidia become a bigger threat... (Score:4, Interesting)
I understand Intel wanting a GPU to pair efficiently with their CPUs for the smallest form factors... but I don't see why AMD and not NVidia. Did NVidia turn them down? Or does Intel really consider NVidia, who doesn't make AMD64 chips, to be a bigger threat than AMD? Or is there something inherent in the GPU platforms that makes AMD possible but not NVidia?