backtop


Print 41 comment(s) - last by murphyslabrat.. on Jul 30 at 12:03 PM


AMD talks Bulldozer  (Source: AMD)

AMD details "Falcon," a mainstream processor for "Copperhead"  (Source: AMD)
AMD talks details of "Bulldozer," the first completely new architecture since K8

AMD plans to launch its third-generation Opteron platform in 2009 with the Sandtiger octal-core processor. Beneath Sandtiger is AMD’s M-SPACE modular approach towards CPUs. M-SPACE allows AMD to mix and match CPU features for specific tasks.

The definition for M-SPACE is as follows:
  • Modular: Reconfigurable “building blocks” for design speed/agility
  • Scalable: Linear scaling of multi and single-thread performance
  • Portable: Energy-efficiency for increased mobility/portability
  • Accessible: Ongoing commitment to open innovation
  • Compatible: Backward compatibility and ease of upgrade
  • Efficient: Optimal on-chip and system level I/O efficiency
Sandtiger’s eight cores consist of eight AMD Bulldozers. Bulldozer is the name AMD has given to one of the CPU cores for its M-SPACE architecture. AMD claims dramatic performance-per-watt improvements in HPC applications with Bulldozer cores. Unlike Barcelona and Shanghai, which have evolved from AMD’s K8 architecture, Bulldozer is a completely new design developed from the ground up.

AMD installs eight Bulldozer CPU cores in Sandtiger with a memory control. AMD optimizes the design for servers and raises the performance-per-watt bar for single and multithreaded applications.

The modular M-SPACE technology also finds its way into Fusion. AMD plans to mix and match M-SPACE components for Falcon, a Fusion processor optimized for mobile and mainstream desktops. Falcon forms the basis of AMD’s planned Copperhead mainstream desktop platform. Falcon features four Bulldozer CPU cores with an integrated graphics processor. The integrated graphics processor features DirectX 10, possibly 11, support with AMD’s Universal Video Decoder, or UVD, technology. Falcon also features integrated PCIe.

In addition to Bulldozer, AMD has the Bobcat CPU core for Fusion processors designed for mobile, ultra-mobile and consumer electronics applications. Bobcat is also a completely new design and has greater power scaling capabilities. Bobcat-based processor designs can consume as low as one watt of power. AMD has not announced any details of Bobcat-powered Fusion processors yet.

Expect AMD to introduce Fusion designs based on Bulldozer and Bobcat beginning in 2009.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: hahah
By mmarq on 7/26/2007 10:27:34 PM , Rating: 5
Continue from above, because DaylyTech doesn't allow to long a post:

Now if they also go for Clustered Speculative Multhithreading, http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/rd/69795829%2C227934%2...
that is the possibility of a mechanism for breaking monolithic workloads into multithreaded ones On the Fly than a BullDozer could accelerate the big INT applications of today by a factor up to 1,6x. This forced multithreading, like in the reverse hyperthreading rumor, is what the author of hardocp seems to indicate(he was there asking questions) http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM2NywsLG...

" Bulldozer seems to be able to unite its core to work together on a single threaded application "

Now a BullDozer on the lines of a Clustered Speculative Multithreading K8-1, could have 80% better performance than a K10 and 2x the performance of a core 2.

Now everybody can collect signs that CPU manufacturers are heavy on the field of helping software developers at multithreading, parallelize and stream their work loads. CTM , EXOCHI, TBB and other stuff..

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070724-inte...
http://www.hardocp.com/image.html?image=MTE4NTQ1OT...

And as stated here; http://www.edn.com/article/CA6459066.html with compiler automatic vectorization optimization, they could reach over 100% for some benchmarks, expectable number in average since they are claiming over 1500% for other hand tuned bechmarks, meaning that in a generic load with 40% of codes "streamables", if improvement can reach an average of 100%, then by Amdahl's law, we can get 1/(0.6+0.004) = 1,665x.

> 66% is in average what is expected to be achieved with *2* micro-arquitecture upgrades... that is a LOT considering that schemes like CTM could put that number much higher.

So a a Fusion chip, a real integrated fusion without a separated CPU and GPU, but one with the streaming GPU in another pipeline of the CPU, like happened with the FP x87 in todays...

" He also described the merging of CPUs and GPUs in detail. His vision sees AMD's GPU technology being totally integrated into the CPU, much like we saw the floating point processor integrated into our current CPUs. "

" As Fusion moves forward we are going to be seeing CPU and GPU sharing transistors and actually becoming “fused” together in a more direct sense or at least that is how Phil Hester has explained his vision to HardOCP."

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM0MCwsLG...
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTM2NywsLG...

So a fusion chip with clustered speculative multithreading based on lines of a k8-1 could have >145% better performance than a k10, and >150%(2,5x)better performance than a core 2, at the same clock with the same number of cores, specially true for 8 cores and not far for 4 cores.

All in all, that graph bar is not pixels and it seems not far fetched at all. Depending on the implementation it could even be a little conservative.

So its not only AMD, but Intel to, that have always guarded their best designs, trying to squeeze the most money possible out of the market, while the enthusiasts get to each other throats over their preferences, while in theory they could deliver much much better.

Of course the only excuse they have is time and money, because radical designs require both.


RE: hahah
By crystal clear on 7/27/2007 5:41:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course the only excuse they have is time and money, because radical designs require both.


yes to the above I would add-ones(radical designs) that really work & feaseable-there is no guarrantee of success !

Its a gamble that can backfire.


Even if you take a very optimistic stand-do we have the software for these radical design.

Software & hardware dont come along at the same time,rather the software lags far behind the hardware.

Intel & AMD certainly do not talk about their projects that go flop & scrapped altogether.

Great plans is one thing- to deliver is another.

To summarize-I would say its not only time & money, but the ability to deliver in time

Can AMD deliver ?


RE: hahah
By mmarq on 7/27/2007 1:20:20 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
To summarize-I would say its not only time & money, but the ability to deliver in time

Can AMD deliver ?


In a unilateral point of view... YES

In a sense they all could deliver much more. The decisive point is not a window of opportunity based on theoretic maximum performance possible against the competition, but profit

A leapfrogging design is only introduced when the competition is clearly ahead, because no one is about to trash the value of current propositions by introducing a much more performant part. So manufacturers only introduce variations that don't do that trashing.

Most of times they could deliver more and in time, the problem is that they don't want to.

Enthusiasts care about performance, they care about profit. And in that sense is absurd to pay more than the double for an enhanced part that only do a few more FPS or seconds in some benchmarks.

Its akin to squeeze the gullible


"And boy have we patented it!" -- Steve Jobs, Macworld 2007

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki