I’ve seen a video from CTT demonstrating the <10 performance boosts by simply off the mitigation. The system will be secure for personal use as before.
Ask yourself: do you really need a performance boost or are you just chasing the numbers to avoid a non-existant problem?
Yea
The short answer, as a ton of people already said in the comments of the video, is “hell no” it is not and it is most likely also not worth it. Back when the video came out I tested it (with unplugged network) on my system and the performance gain was ~1% which I’d consider well within the margin of error
Mines about 60% faster, ymmv
What workload makes that much of a difference?
Games on a 3rd gen i7
Which games?
Aren’t you the guy who runs one of the largest RuneScape private servers? Why tf are you disabling security measures
Isolated machine for emulating old consoles
Everything is secure until it isn’t. I’d leave it on.
It depends on how importent security is for that system and how devestating it would be if someone else got control over it and all accounts and devices connected to it.
Assuming there are sucessful exploits it would be like running everything as root and disabling all sandbox/isolation features from the kernel and browsers. I’d say you should not connect such a machine to the internet.
Link for the video?
As a general rule of thumb, I’ve been told that anything less than a 50% performance boost is hardly noticeable.
I’ve also heard (but ready to stand corrected) that mitigation costs only about 10% CPU (depending on the CPU).
I don’t get out of bed for a 10% performance boost.
The system will be secure for personal use as before.
I wouldn’t be so sure of that. CPU side channels allow data to be leaked across security contexts. For example, from a user process to sandboxed JavaScript in a browser, from kernel space to user space, or from one containerized process to another. This is a problem even on a single user system without any VMs.
