Nehalem wont be 20 stage. It will be somewhere around what we have today ~12-14. It is a Core 2 evolutionary step.Quote:
Originally Posted by xlink
DDR3 on a 192bit bus is the evolutionary step. More cores simply just need more bandwidth and Nehalem is designed to scale to 8 cores (16 threads).
I think they redesigned the cache structure mainly due to SMT and speed of the shared cache. Plus its the exact same design as Itanium. So you have more knowledge and experience.
Hey Dave :) Do you know/are you allowed to say if thats across the board, average increase or only in a few certain situations?Quote:
Originally Posted by Movieman
:toast:
I'm hearing it's a HUGE increase in apps like encoding(maybe 30%) and his "impressions" were that it was app 20% across the board better.Quote:
Originally Posted by K404
Now thats not giving away any secrets as that is one persons impressions and no benchmarks shown..;)
K10h is a 12 stage pipeline, 65nm, 283mm², 463M transistor, 23.x FO4 delays design. Not made for high clocks in any way, AMD intended, as presented at one of the global IEEE 2006 conferences to reach 2-2.8GHz with Barcelona with it's rated supply Vdd. Intel Core 2 is a 21 FO4 depth design AFAIK and Penryn at FO4 ~18, it is supposed to have been reduced substantially since HKMG integration.
The IBM Power6 is not the least nor the only architecture with 13 FO4 inversion delay, it just happens to be very well tuned for absolute speed and performance. P3 had FO4 15 depth, Willamette P4 FO4 8-10, Alpha 21264 has 15 FO4, and so on. Neither of those could achieve what IBM did.
However, I don't think the IBM Power6 bears any relevance to desktop computers. It is a major success for it's HPC market and trumped anything any competitor had to offer in 2007 including Harpertown and Itanium 2 Montecito. It's the only CPU to hold all 4 major industry records in one go, transactions, Java, throughput and floating point. Beat Harpertown 3.16GHz 8 core vs 8 core in Int too. Best in SAP, TPC-C OLTP, OASO, Spec Jbb2005, Linpack HPC and so on last I checked late 2007. For instance in TPC-C:
Bull Escala PL1660R 16-cores IBM Power6 4.7 GHz 1,616,162tpmC
NEC Express5800/1320Xf 32-cores Intel Dual-Core Itanium 2 9050 1.6GHZ 1,245,516tpmC
Bull Escala PL1660R 4-core IBM Power6 4.7 GHz 404,462tpmC
HP ProLiant ML370G5 X5460 QC 8-core Intel X5460 3.16GHz 275,149tpmC
As you can see, it trumps anything for what it was designed to do.
What it does show is those who usually guess SOI is the only clocking restriction are wrong, as if you look at IBM technical documentations, IBM Power6 scales to 6.1GHz with low LpolySi tuning on air using SOI at 1.3V Vdd supply. Far more than anything else out there including HKMG 45nm CPUs. The official 3.2GHz IBM Power6 is rated for less than 100W TDP at 65nm SOI, big achivement. The 4.7GHz is rated for a maximum of 160W TDP with massive 790M transistors inside a big 341mm² transitor package, wowzer achievement, especially at the same pipeline, instructions per cycle and latch cycle overhead from 90nm. No other chip from AMD/Intel at 65nm or 45nm can do sub-200W TDP at those specs or temperatures (sub 60C air, with 105C limit). To compare, the Power5+ 1.9GHz is a 200W TDP CPU at 389mm² 276M transistors. Intel "Montecito" Itanium 9000 running at 1.6GHz is less than half as powerful as IBM Power6 with a hefty 104W TDP, just shows how brilliant the engineering on Power6 really is and yet, you forget the +25W minimum TDP of the memory controller with Power6 that Itanium 2 doesn't have. Comparing Kentsfield 2.67GHz MCM 65nm was at 130W TDP, 286mm² 582M transistor package to IBM Power6 4.7GHz 160W gives us:
2.67GHz vs 4.7GHz
130W (+35W NB) vs 160W
582M vs 790M
20.5MHz/W vs 29.38MHz/W
0.455W/mm² vs 0.469W/mm²
0.22W/MilT vs 0.20W/MilT
In all respects it is far better a CPU at 65nm, but it isn't a desktop market intended chip, hence comparisons with our market shouldn't be made to judge absolute numerical performance, although electrically, you can do.
To get the speeds on any architecture is not just about one timing, jitter, skew, latch, wiring delays all add up and can increase delays and lower your clock performances per cycle. IBM mainly had to employ the use of very high speed low delay wiring and mainly, Dual Stress Liners within the transistors. Look at the low Vdd it needed for high frequencies, 0.9V Fmax is 3GHz.Quote:
Originally Posted by IBM
Anyway, as for L3 cache, many have had it but not more than one Intel SKU before the K10h architectural lineup in the desktop market AFAIR (?). Alpha EV5 was the first that I can recall with others such as >Power4, UltraSPARC IV+, Madison/9M, etc. It helps only mainly when your L2 and L1 is saturated for high memory access or large matrix array applications, such as databases. It was always mainly a server design bonus, hence not featured much on the desktop but now that seems to be changing and it's led by AMD quite obviously with their MPU+IMC design. Not that Intel didn't know this before AMD, they just couldn't produce a chip below 45nm with it.
Someones also mentioned AMD K10h L3 cache is different to the upcoming "Nehalem" (it's not called Nehalem), as in inclusive rather than being exclusive. This isn't entirely true either, AMDs design is not specifcially inclusive or exclusive, but a bit of both:
Also the L3 is 20% of the die in K10h.Quote:
The L3 cache is specifically designed with data sharing in mind. This entails three particular changes from AMD’s traditional cache hierarchy. First, it is mostly exclusive, but not entirely so. When a line is sent from the L3 cache to an L1D cache, if the cache line is shared, or is likely to be shared, then it will remain in the L3 – leading to duplication which would never happen in a totally exclusive hierarchy
Well, the additions for Nehalem are good on paper, but fingers crossed as Native+IMC is too difficult to have running as a design without problems, esp. at your first go. 45nm HKMG helps a lot but not as much as 32nm would. I'm fearing the prices on these, as clocks are far harder to get, yeilds much lower, defect rates very high, and hence, price is where it'll bite us in the hind, unless AMD has something Intel fears by 13th October '08.
*Cache arrangement is nearly exactly the same as AMD K10h, no doubt, though Intel chose to keep it mainly inclusive. The L3 cache by nature of redundant access is slower than L2 and L1 but far quicker than RAM access. That large size of L3 will only help with large matrix applications, mainly in videoing/imaging/large gaming/server apps but beyond 8 or so MB data access, they might have paramount performance scaling issues when all caches are full with the same replete data, the latency will build. That's the problem with keeping it inclusive, they need speed and very low latency for it.
*IMC built within limits the current delta between IMC-Core and withholds overclocking/speeds. Each MB PWM design now has to provide separate power for the IMC and not just the separate cores. Same for VMods.
*IMC also increases power/TDP much, especially with triple channel memory support. You can add 30-60W of minimum to maximum power here at just 2.0-2.8GHz clocks, maybe even more so with SMT and QPI support being internal. Maximum theoretical AC and DC power consumption becomes much higher through individual latch testing.
*Triple channel memory is essentially needed, I reckon its a clever move, because Native+IMC design suffers from low real bandwidth, and worse so for write/copy bandwidth than read. Individual DRAM access by each core is the best way to go, should improve or at least keep level write/copy bandwidth but improve read bandwidth over current Penryn. Just having IMC+3 controllers, doesn't gurantee this at all though.
*4 vs 3 instructions executed at a time means it will obviously be quicker than Penryn per clock - unless something down the line holds it back, latencies being my fear. Hoping there will be major improvements here espceially with SSE 4.2 instruction updates once they're supported in software.
*I don't like the sound of keeping a small L2 and large L3, this is more a server segment design win. L2 will be far quicker than L3, but slower than L1; the Native+IMC approach require a large L2 for speed in smaller apps and large L3 for speed in larger apps, but suffers from little L2 in the smaller desktop apps. Apps like SuperPi will probably see a big hit with this, not just 1M, even 32M, although not as much hit as L3 exclsuive on AMD K10h does.
*Unfortunately, Native+IMC also means, lower bins, lower clocks, lower overclocks, higher defect rates, higher TDPs and much chances of cold bugs and low clocks held by the IMC, especially if they are in-sync. You have to realize the nature of binning and chip sorting is more than three times as difficult with 4-cores+IMC in one package. I hope they make the IMC run at a separate clock and PLL to the cores, fully adjustable, or IMC/MEM oc will also be poorer and very hard compared to modern Core 2 oc, which is easy. They have only quantified DDR3 800-1333 support which gives me the shivers of these clock restrictions since Nehalem is set for production in Q4 '08, for that time, I would've expected them to add DDR3 1600 support unless something is holding things back here.
*IMC clocking depends on the delta between IMC and MEM gate currents and volts, so this could be a very tricky area to have working with DDR3 1.5V unless the IMC gate voltages are at the required delta's.
Can't wait to see it in action, it is a revolutionary design for Intel, completely different to their previous CPU designs: a new architecture very clearly. They've chosen the same desktop architectural design as AMD now, to compete. It's the right way to go, but introducing SMT aka HyperThreading back again is not a good idea unless the single threaded Front End performance is weak or the clocks are lower than Penryn. That isn't a good sign of multi-threaded performance and clock speeds. We know software developers at Intel have been ringing developer ears since before Penryn of how poor multi-core paralellism exists everywhere on the desktop and home market (videos on their site showing 4 core to 6 core lost perf. scaling majorly) but let's hope they've improved this through the cache data fetch and eviction algorithms, the larger TLB and BTB can do this. This is mainly where SMT will help most.
As for people fighting cases of this firm vs that, you're all wrong as all electrical designs and knowledge of anything and everything is mostly copied and passed on = it's not called copying though, it's called sharing. How you teach your child, how you know anything about computers is mostly through reading or being told, which again is sharing by some male/female somewhere. How I draw a picture by watching a video of someone drawing it, doesn't mean I copied or that it isn't an achievement if I made it good or better. And FWIW, K10h featured many improvements which were exactly what Core 2 received from Pentium M.
I hope they do launch sub-120W TDP 2.8GHz quad-core Nehalem CPUs by October. Would be a major achievement to pull off with plus 1.1x Penryn performance per clock, not sure how many recognize ardently how difficult it is to produce especially at the same fabrication node as your current SKU lineups. Monstrously difficult job, go visit a fab and you'll realize much better. Just had a little time to sit down today. :)
Again we don't know, AMD's L3 cache operates at NB speeds, but this is not what kills them on latency so much as they need FIFO buffers which absorb the clocks skew.... Even with this new information, we don't have too much info on Nehalem, heck, Intel may have done similar dividing of the clock domains, in which case they will also have similar latency hits in the cache hierarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by duploxxx
It is funny to watch people talk 'Retun of 20 stage pipeline', etc etc above when that info has never been released or disclosed by Intel... people are talking like they know detailed spec, I find it amusing :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
didnt you know, fanboys know everything. :D
So what to expect a TLB Erratum from intel in the Nehalem.
i wonder how overclocking will be handled... it's so easy and intuitive to o/c when you have a range of CPUs with different front side busses, but soon neither AMD nor Intel will have that
IMC clock/overclock constraints will be lesser on the mainstream model assuming it has an off-die MC. maybe only the server/extreme-parts will coldbug... that'd be ironic :lol:
maybe overclocking will not be possible with nehalem and Intel will force us to buy those 1000 $/€ cpus if we want high end stuff ¬_¬
Not true for K10. L2 is 12 cycles just like K8. Also L3 latency is higher than 30.Quote:
Originally Posted by savantu
See here http://www.digit-life.com/articles3/...ma-phenom.html
Just a minor correction. AMDs figures are quite old and can very well have changed since then because of CTI.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
Well AMD chips have a reference HTT clock not a PCI-E clock. If future mainstream Intel CPUs get their clock from the PCI-E bus then overclocking is going to get severly limited because increasing PCI-e clocks too much causes data corruption and stability problems for various hardware. Lets hope Intel will put the pci-e on a seperate clock domain and get CPU speed from somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by JumpingJack
@KTE :up: Simply amazing and very informative post. Thank you
Power 6 is in-order and has a far higher power budget.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
It's not the core , it's the I/O that rocks => with 300GBs of I/O per CPU and 5000+ pins .Quote:
However, I don't think the IBM Power6 bears any relevance to desktop computers. It is a major success for it's HPC market and trumped anything any competitor had to offer in 2007 including Harpertown and Itanium 2 Montecito. It's the only CPU to hold all 4 major industry records in one go, transactions, Java, throughput and floating point. Beat Harpertown 3.16GHz 8 core vs 8 core in Int too. Best in SAP, TPC-C OLTP, OASO, Spec Jbb2005, Linpack HPC and so on last I checked late 2007. For instance in TPC-C:
Bull Escala PL1660R 16-cores IBM Power6 4.7 GHz 1,616,162tpmC
NEC Express5800/1320Xf 32-cores Intel Dual-Core Itanium 2 9050 1.6GHZ 1,245,516tpmC
Bull Escala PL1660R 4-core IBM Power6 4.7 GHz 404,462tpmC
HP ProLiant ML370G5 X5460 QC 8-core Intel X5460 3.16GHz 275,149tpmC
As you can see, it trumps anything for what it was designed to do.
In single threaded tasks it get obliterated by Core and sometimes even Itanium Montecito altough the later has a 3x frequency and 30x BW gap.What does that say about the core ?
Hold on a little.Quote:
What it does show is those who usually guess SOI is the only clocking restriction are wrong, as if you look at IBM technical documentations, IBM Power6 scales to 6.1GHz with low LpolySi tuning on air using SOI at 1.3V Vdd supply. Far more than anything else out there including HKMG 45nm CPUs. The official 3.2GHz IBM Power6 is rated for less than 100W TDP at 65nm SOI, big achivement. The 4.7GHz is rated for a maximum of 160W TDP with massive 790M transistors inside a big 341mm² transitor package, wowzer achievement, especially at the same pipeline, instructions per cycle and latch cycle overhead from 90nm. No other chip from AMD/Intel at 65nm or 45nm can do sub-200W TDP at those specs or temperatures (sub 60C air, with 105C limit).
With unlimited TDP , yeah , you could get to 6GHz.Too bad Power 6 has a fairly substantial problem once you go above 4.7GHz , leakage sky-rocket.
At 5.2Ghz you already burn 200w.
http://www.research.ibm.com/journal/rd/516/berri12.gif
I suggest you read this : http://www.realworldtech.com/forums/...85903&roomid=2
Somehow you've lost a 128MB L3 for an Power MCM , but what's 128MB anyway ?:rolleyes:Quote:
To compare, the Power5+ 1.9GHz is a 200W TDP CPU at 389mm² 276M transistors. Intel "Montecito" Itanium 9000 running at 1.6GHz is less than half as powerful as IBM Power6 with a hefty 104W TDP, just shows how brilliant the engineering on Power6 really is and yet, you forget the +25W minimum TDP of the memory controller with Power6 that Itanium 2 doesn't have. Comparing Kentsfield 2.67GHz MCM 65nm was at 130W TDP, 286mm² 582M transistor package to IBM Power6 4.7GHz 160W gives us:
2.67GHz vs 4.7GHz
130W (+35W NB) vs 160W
582M vs 790M
20.5MHz/W vs 29.38MHz/W
0.455W/mm² vs 0.469W/mm²
0.22W/MilT vs 0.20W/MilT
In all respects it is far better a CPU at 65nm, but it isn't a desktop market intended chip, hence comparisons with our market shouldn't be made to judge absolute numerical performance, although electrically, you can do.
Complete and utter BS.Why would Intel put an L3 on a chip just for the sake of it ? Core 2 could have had 2x 512KB L2s and a 2MB L3.But why do it since you already have the best answer - fast and large L2s ?Quote:
Anyway, as for L3 cache, many have had it but not more than one Intel SKU before the K10h architectural lineup in the desktop market AFAIR (?). Alpha EV5 was the first that I can recall with others such as >Power4, UltraSPARC IV+, Madison/9M, etc. It helps only mainly when your L2 and L1 is saturated for high memory access or large matrix array applications, such as databases. It was always mainly a server design bonus, hence not featured much on the desktop but now that seems to be changing and it's led by AMD quite obviously with their MPU+IMC design. Not that Intel didn't know this before AMD, they just couldn't produce a chip below 45nm with it.
L3s are needed more for QC because of coherency issues and saturation of a shared L2.
You know that how ? Magic crystal ball ? If AMD couldn't get it right that means Intel won't either ? :rolleyes:Quote:
Well, the additions for Nehalem are good on paper, but fingers crossed as Native+IMC is too difficult to have running as a design without problems, esp. at your first go. 45nm HKMG helps a lot but not as much as 32nm would. I'm fearing the prices on these, as clocks are far harder to get, yeilds much lower, defect rates very high, and hence, price is where it'll bite us in the hind, unless AMD has something Intel fears by 13th October '08.
More BS.A MC burns less than 10w.Quote:
*IMC also increases power/TDP much, especially with triple channel memory support. You can add 30-60W of minimum to maximum power here at just 2.0-2.8GHz clocks, maybe even more so with SMT and QPI support being internal. Maximum theoretical AC and DC power consumption becomes much higher through individual latch testing.
The stupidest claim of the month.Quote:
*Triple channel memory is essentially needed, I reckon its a clever move, because Native+IMC design suffers from low real bandwidth, and worse so for write/copy bandwidth than read. Individual DRAM access by each core is the best way to go, should improve or at least keep level write/copy bandwidth but improve read bandwidth over current Penryn. Just having IMC+3 controllers, doesn't gurantee this at all though.
If native+ IMC suffers from low BW , how does a non-native non-IMC design do ? Crawls ?
Got bored with the rest of your post.Sorry , but it's obviously you had too much free time lately to write such rubbish.
I'd think it'd be lower than that as current NBs don't draw that much and the IMC isn't even everything which is on the IMC, plus in the past integration lowered overall power consumption so it should be less than that assuming yields aren't an issue. We'll see though.Quote:
Originally Posted by KTE
the MCH itself dont draw much power, 5-10W perhaps in the enthutiast and less in the normal. The main powersucker in a NB is the PCIe controller.
I think P965 as an example had a 21W TDP but used around 8-9W with actual usage and on 90nm. This is 45nm.
To say 30-60W is just clueless fearmongering.
I'd heard it was going to be before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shintai
ehh.
From what I understand, the QPI links do set the base frequency that the processor multiplier operates on to dictate the final clock speed. Most boards should have the option to scale the base frequency of the QPI links. So anything with Tylersburg as a QPI hub will be overclockable from that knob there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Den Leiw
Questions still arise from how memory overclocking comes in. If one of the AMD guys could help me out as to how they setup their memory clocking it would be appreciated as I'm far to use to chipset straps and memory ratios. From my understanding, in K10, AMD uses memory ratios based off the HTT reference frequency ranging from 3:3 --> 3:8 for DDR2-400 --> DDR2-1066. Nehalem will most likely use a similar setup with the memory frequency being set off this base frequency.
The problem comes up, that the mainstream stuff (Lynnfield/Havendale) are going to have both integrated PCI lanes and even graphics. They receive their clock frequency directly from the PLL and thus all control over the reference and clock splitting is all done on die. Since none of the big 2 have done this yet, mainstream overclocking might become a thing of the past depending on how it's implemented.
Talk about a serious inter-generational leap....:D Everyone's excited about this...I'm just a bit concerned about whether mobo makers will get it right at launch...
So we might have to buy the 3 channel version w/ northbridge so we can oc?
maybe, depends how open the on die clock regulation for the mainstream chips come out.Quote:
Originally Posted by shiznit93
Right now there isn't a 3 Ch version with a Northbridge. There was talk of Legacy Chips with a North Bridge but these were what we call Celerons today.Quote:
Originally Posted by shiznit93
An IBM guy told me, "Meant for Budget or Light Duty Workstations." Even he admit that was still up in the air. Oh and NOT Socket 775 compatible.:(
It's not really a northbridge, it's more of a QPI hub and PCIe controller.
Might not be the right thing to say on XtremeSystems.org but will Overclocking have the same affect? Or will extra MHz Scale as well? Performance increases talked about so far say 10 to 30% gains clock for clock. Will we worry about NOT being able to overclock? You'll have to overclock old Intel and AMD processors to keep with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blauhung
To summon up the northbridge, 3ch etc.
Server/Extreme: Socket 1366, 3ch IMC, PCIe/QPI on Northbridge, ICH10 Southbridge.
Performance/Mainstream: Socket 1160, 2ch IMC, ondie PCie, Ibexpeak Southbridge. (No Northbridge)
Value/Budget: Socket 1160, 2ch IMC, ondie PCIe, ondie GPU(IGP), Ibexpeak Southbridge. (No Northbridge)
Intel basicly removed all flexibility on the mainstream/performance. I big F U to nVidia and their locked chipsets for SLi. :rofl:
Right, i didnt mean northbridge literally. I was asking if we might have to overclock with socket 1366 to avoid a possible bottleneck from the pci-e controller.
Donnie27, yes its nice that Nehalem will be faster clock for clock and that we probably won't have to oc as much to get similar performance, but thats not the issue. Say a 3.5ghz Penryn = 3.0ghz Nehalem for the sake of argument. To get a 3.5ghz Penryn you can buy one thats 2.4ghz stock for under $300 (probably alot cheaper by Q4) but if Nehalem can't OC then you will have to buy the full bone fide version for close to $1000. Big problem.
But who knows the Nehalem prices? I don't believe Intel will sell 2.4GHz Nehalems for $1000, not even half that amount:D Intel knows the Market has gotten way the hell to use to lower prices except for a few suckers buying Extreme Edition for E-Penos reasons. IMHO, there will be that $1299 model maybe even a second $700 model but the rest will be affordable and left out of this is almost nothing said about the Dual Core versions. The DC versions will be even cheaper, Have Hyperthreading 2 for 4 threads and totally Obliterate whatever few Dual Cores still on the market. No, I don't think there is NO WAY in hell Intel will pull an AMD X2 on us.Quote:
Originally Posted by shiznit93
when did I say a 2.4ghz Nehalem will be $1000? I was implying that, assuming overclocking flexibility is gone in the mainstream version, a Nehalem with comparable performance to a oveclocked $300 Penryn (say 3.6ghz) will be much more expensive since you will have to buy the actual ghz you are shooting for.
Here is a roadmap I saw recently, http://pc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/2...gai403_03l.gif. The first Nehalem parts it shows are socket 1336 versions @ 3.2ghz and 3.0ghz, and if you look to the right at the price axis, they fall in the $800-1000 range. The mainstream parts don't show up until Q2 09, and they start with a 2.4ghz part in the $200-400 range. Assuming they don't OC and are 30% faster than Penyn clock for clock (generous assumption for the sake of argument), that still only makes the 2.4 Nehalem equivalent to a 3.2ghz Penryn which you can have right now for $300. Most of us here aren't memory bandwidth limited anyway (Nvidia wake the F up plz) so the IMC might not be enough of a reason to switch over if overclocking is bad.
Many people here OC to set records or to Fold, WCG, etc... They could probably use the memory bandwidth and SMT even if the chip doesn't overclock well. I do it to play games and save money. If the price/performance isn't there on Nehalem then it makes no sense for me to buy one. But if there is still room to OC despite the IMC, QPI, and PCIe on die then I'll be very happy :D.