For the first time, average CPU performance across PCs and notebooks experienced a year-over-year decline. Between Q3 2022 and Q3 2023, desktop CPU performance dipped by 0.9%, while laptop performance dropped by a more significant 5.1%. This decline is attributed to a shift in market share towards lower-performing CPUs. While higher-performing models continued to improve, the overall average was dragged down by a greater proportion of budget-friendly and entry-level processors being sold. This trend is particularly evident in the laptop market, suggesting increased demand for affordable portable computing.
For the first time in two decades, PassMark's CPU benchmark data reveals a year-over-year decline in average CPU performance. While single-threaded performance continued to climb slightly, multi-threaded performance dropped significantly, leading to the overall decrease. This is attributed to a shift in the market away from high-core-count CPUs aimed at enthusiasts and servers, towards more mainstream and power-efficient processors, often with fewer cores. Additionally, while new architectures are being introduced, they haven't yet achieved widespread adoption to offset this trend.
Hacker News users discussed potential reasons for the reported drop in average CPU performance. Some attributed it to a shift in market focus from single-threaded performance to multi-core designs, impacting PassMark's scoring methodology. Others pointed to the slowdown of Moore's Law and the increasing difficulty of achieving significant performance gains. Several commenters questioned the validity of PassMark as a reliable benchmark, suggesting it doesn't accurately reflect real-world performance or the specific needs of various workloads. A few also mentioned the impact of the pandemic and supply chain issues on CPU development and release schedules. Finally, some users expressed skepticism about the significance of the drop, noting that performance improvements have plateaued in recent years.
Researchers have revealed new speculative execution attacks impacting all modern Apple CPUs. These attacks, named "Macchiato" and "Espresso," exploit speculative access to virtual memory and the memory management unit (MMU), respectively. Unlike previous speculative execution vulnerabilities, Macchiato can leak data cross-process, while Espresso can bypass memory isolation protections entirely, potentially allowing malicious apps to access kernel memory. While mitigations exist, they come with a performance cost. These attacks highlight the ongoing challenge of securing modern processors against increasingly sophisticated side-channel attacks.
HN commenters discuss the practicality and impact of the speculative execution attacks detailed in the linked article. Some doubt the real-world exploitability, citing the complexity and specific conditions required. Others express concern about the ongoing nature of these vulnerabilities and the difficulty in mitigating them fully. A few highlight the cat-and-mouse game between security researchers and hardware vendors, with mitigations often leading to new attack vectors. The lack of concrete proof-of-concept exploits is also a point of discussion, with some arguing it diminishes the severity of the findings while others emphasize the potential for future exploitation. The overall sentiment leans towards cautious skepticism, acknowledging the research's importance while questioning the immediate threat level.
Summary of Comments ( 198 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43029474
Hacker News users discussed the potential reasons behind the reported drop in average CPU performance. Some attributed it to the increasing market share of low-power Chromebooks and ARM-based laptops, skewing the average downwards. Others pointed to the global chip shortage and subsequent price increases, leading consumers to hold onto older hardware longer. A few commenters questioned the methodology of the benchmark, suggesting it might not accurately reflect real-world performance or usage patterns. The impact of integrated graphics performance being included in the overall CPU score was also debated, as was the possibility that manufacturers are prioritizing efficiency and battery life over raw processing power in recent designs. Finally, some users simply expressed skepticism about the significance of the drop, arguing that average performance remains more than adequate for most users.
The Hacker News post titled "The average CPU performance of PCs and notebooks fell for the first time" sparked a discussion with several insightful comments revolving around the provided cpubenchmark.net data. Several commenters questioned the methodology and data used to arrive at the conclusion of declining performance.
One of the most compelling arguments highlighted the potential bias introduced by the voluntary nature of CPU benchmark submissions. The commenter suggested that the decline could be attributed to fewer high-end CPU benchmarks being submitted rather than an actual decrease in performance. They pointed out that enthusiasts with high-end CPUs are less likely to upgrade frequently, especially during periods of economic downturn or when performance gains are incremental. Consequently, fewer submissions of these high-end CPUs would skew the average downwards. This argument was further strengthened by another user who noted the significant increase in low-power ARM-based devices. These lower-powered processors being included in the dataset would naturally lower the overall average performance, even if the performance of high-end devices remained stable or improved.
Another key observation was the influence of the global chip shortage. Commenters theorized that the shortage could have led to people holding onto older hardware for longer periods, leading to a higher proportion of older, less powerful CPUs in the dataset, thus driving down the average.
The discussion also delved into the website's methodology. Some users questioned the accuracy and reliability of user-submitted benchmarks, suggesting potential inconsistencies in testing environments and configurations could influence results. Others raised concerns about the weighting given to different CPU models and whether it accurately reflected market share or usage.
A few users expressed skepticism about the headline's claim, highlighting that year-on-year fluctuations can be misleading and that a longer-term perspective is necessary to determine actual trends in CPU performance. They suggested looking at multi-year trends rather than focusing on a single year-on-year comparison.
Finally, the discussion also touched upon the practical implications of the observed trend, with some users questioning whether the average user would actually notice the purported decrease in performance, given that CPU performance has generally exceeded the demands of typical everyday tasks for several years.