Results 1 to 25 of 713

Thread: K10 Scores starting to surface

Threaded View

  1. #11
    Xtreme Mentor
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Devon
    Posts
    3,437
    Quote Originally Posted by JumpingJack View Post
    Informal, becareful and read Kanter's note carefully, this is beginning to focus up .... it was a good link... but you may be misinterpreting what Kanter is saying....

    I am, myself, trying to understand at a detail that makes sense, this is much more complicated than what we are assuming....

    Each core (that is execution core and the dedicated cache) will be clocked independently, a major power saving feature of K10. So in order to share a cache at L3 level, it will need to send data asynchronously to differently clocked cores... wow, this is complicated.... so what AMD has done (per Kanter) is build a 'translator', or a FIFO buffer to send data to and from the L3 -- this is not the same as dynamically adjusting L3 clock or latency, what it is doing is dynamically adjusting a clock divider to synch L3 with variable speed cores, now this variable L3 latency makes much much more sense.

    Any asynchronous communication will incur extra latency (over a simple 1:1) simply as a result of clock mismatch ... this is a given ... (this is why C2D shows a dip in performance in DDR2-533 to DDR2-667 to DDR2-800 as dividers beyond 1:1 introduce extra latency).

    So with this understanding, the observed latency (which is actually the important part) will be variable, not because L3 cache has variable latency but because it has to be sychronized through the FIFO buffers to cores of variable clocks.

    Damn should have paid more attention to Kanter's article too....

    Guys I am learning a lot here... thanks.

    Jack
    This is not entirely true...

    I read somewhere long time ago that L3 in K10 is acting more like memory layer. In other words it is clocked by IMC independently from all 4 cores and on diagram I would put it after CrossBar...
    That's why L3 latency can vary from core point of view (cache latency itself is probably constant). It is similar to how DDR2-800 latency (again from CPU point of view) is different compared to DDR2-667 (same timings of course ).


    Edit: JumpingJack you typing too fast I barely read page 16 and typed my response and here surprise! another page with new info making my post partially obsolete
    Last edited by Lightman; 09-01-2007 at 02:11 PM.
    RiG1: Ryzen 7 1700 @4.0GHz 1.39V, Asus X370 Prime, G.Skill RipJaws 2x8GB 3200MHz CL14 Samsung B-die, TuL Vega 56 Stock, Samsung SS805 100GB SLC SDD (OS Drive) + 512GB Evo 850 SSD (2nd OS Drive) + 3TB Seagate + 1TB Seagate, BeQuiet PowerZone 1000W

    RiG2: HTPC AMD A10-7850K APU, 2x8GB Kingstone HyperX 2400C12, AsRock FM2A88M Extreme4+, 128GB SSD + 640GB Samsung 7200, LG Blu-ray Recorder, Thermaltake BACH, Hiper 4M880 880W PSU

    SmartPhone Samsung Galaxy S7 EDGE
    XBONE paired with 55'' Samsung LED 3D TV

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •