Dresdenboys' blog: AMD Bulldozer - Patent based research part 2

[god_43]

it seems the first thread was closed, apparently i was partly to blame . it was a good thread, and i really did not mean for it to be closed down, so here is a new thread....with some new info from Dresdenboy's!


Dresdenboy's Blog

According to AMD's CEO Dirk Meyer, there exist prototypes of two Fusion designs with one of them (obviously Llano) being sampled to customers. The other one according to following roadmap could only be Ontario, which contains two Bobcat cores (see CC transcript) He also talks about Bobcat explicitly, mentioning that the Ontario chip based on Bobcat will focus on value PCs and netbooks, while other products based on Bobcat might also be used for pads.

[haylui]

let the saga continues.....

[demonkevy666]

that road map is missing Thuban, and is a really old one too.

[zir_blazer]

I still have a bit of issues attemping to put together all the "new" AMD codenames (Because they aren't that new at all), when, where, and how.


Processors based on just Bulldozer Modules MUST BE a drop in replacement to a K10 based Processor because AMD Server platforms seems to settle for a further one or two generations worth of upgrades (Around 3 years), and Socket C34 debuted just a month ago or so. However, this is possibily true only for an incarnation of Bulldozer that is composed by what we already are used to see with current Processors (Integrated Memory Controller + X amount of Cores), this means that those Bulldozer based Processors that can be pin compatible should not be based on Fusion integration (With a GPU on the Processor, Core, or whetever it is). I don't know if a Bulldozer could be Socket AM3 compatible or not, but chances are that possibily yes (But ONLY with Socket AM3, if anything, because we don't know if the IMC works with DDR-II too).


Processors based on Fusion (CPU + GPU on the same piece) seems to requiere new Sockets because you are supposed to need more Pins for the GPU, and this is where the majority of the deal is at. This is different than Intel that at least had a Socket prepared for that purpose but not the entire platform, as Clarkdale (An MCM with a Nehalem based CPU and GPU in the same package) Core i3 and i5 were Socket compatible, even though they requiered a new series of Chipsets to actually use the GPU. I don't know if they are compatible with previous Chipsets that don't support the GPU, or they work as a normal Processor while requiering the Chipset IGP or a PCIe Video Card, or simply don't work at all with non compatible Chipsets. I don't know if Socket AM3 could work in a similar fashion, meaning that if there is a successor socket for Fusion based parts, it remain in some way pin compatible so you can plug a new Processor in Socket AM3 and it should work but with no GPU. If anything, it seems to be all new Sockets that we don't know if they are actually going to have any sort of compatibility, or even be physically different.
Llano is supposed to be a Dual Core K10 with a GPU, all in the same piece, and obviously seems that a new Socket is requiered, as previously stated. If there is going to be a new Socket for these Fusion based Processors, expect Bulldozer to succeed it in that Socket with none for Socket AM3. Llano GPU should be faster than current AMD Chipsets IGPs, but we don't know by how much. If they effort too much, they would eat the low end Video Cards market, that as a consumer isn't a bad idea because these parts rarely brings price performance, as in the Video Card market the best parts for that are usually in the mainstream segment. Besides, the fact that a platform guarantees you a minimum of GPU performance, is good as a baseline for game design (Meaning that at low settings and all, a game should work at more than decent FPS, if not entirely fluid at the sacrifice of graphic quality). Besides, the fact that we don't know if they would support any sort of Hybrid Crossfire (Like some Chipsets and low end Video Cards) should also be slighty important, because if the Llano GPU is respectable enough, it would be a shame to leave it doing nothing if you use a not so vastly superior Video Card. The best case could be that Llano GPU is compatible with the different ways that you can scale with multiple Video Cards (Either Crossfire, or physics calculation, or whatever). However, if AMD doesn't effort with Llano GPU, they risk to lose platform superiority against the Sandy Bridge GPU.
Then we have Orochi, that I don't recall having hear about it a lot. According to your Roadmap it does NOT have a GPU, what means that if it is a standalone Bulldozer like the server ones are going to be, then possibily would be Socket AM3 compatible if AMD wants to. However, if it arrives LATER than Llano, then it makes sense that it is platform compatible with it more than Socket AM3.


I don't know anything about Bobcat to speculate into, but I hope than it can scale down to be an Atom competitor.

[JF-AMD]

Bulldozer-based products (Interlagos and Valencia) will plug into G34 and C32 sockets respectively.

We designed the new sockets around the needs of Bulldozer first.

[FlanK3r]

We designed the new sockets around the needs of Bulldozer first.
So, thats mean, Bulldozers not AM3+? Or there are two sockets? Some AM3+ and something new?

[Thraxis]

I believe he's just talking about the server side sockets. Not consumer side.

[zir_blazer]

We designed the new sockets around the needs of Bulldozer first.
So, thats mean, Bulldozers not AM3+? Or there are two sockets? Some AM3+ and something new?

He is talking about the two Server Sockets. I don't recall him ever making a statement about the consumer platforms in any of his Post here that I saw. But the point is that Bulldozer based Processor support in the Server Sockets is already written on stone, what we don't know is about Bulldozer and/or Fusion products in consumer space.

[JF-AMD]

Correct, those are server only statements.

[madcho]

Is there in preparation new FX system with dual socket for high end coming a day ?

[Helmore]

We designed the new sockets around the needs of Bulldozer first.
So, thats mean, Bulldozers not AM3+? Or there are two sockets? Some AM3+ and something new?

Bulldozer is going to be using the AM3 socket, just look at the roadmap over here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2871/2
Zambezi is the name of an implementation of Bulldozer meant for the consumer market.

[AliG]

Is there in preparation new FX system with dual socket for high end coming a day ?

I don't see any use for one. If you buy a top end bulldozer chip with 8 modules, that's a total of 16 threads. I'd be shocked if any games will support even 8 threads, let alone 16.

[madcho]

I don't see any use for one. If you buy a top end bulldozer chip with 8 modules, that's a total of 16 threads. I'd be shocked if any games will support even 8 threads, let alone 16.

I don't think 8 modules to go out in the first chips. I think AMD will realease a 4 mods and a 6 mods after or in same time but only FX. 8 is not for 2011.

Dual socket is interesting in massive multi apps running, with 8 dimm of ram to have a great bandwith and pool of ram.

i have 4*2GB of rams. A larger dimms are not very available on market.

i hope do 8*2 or 8*4GB.

[Helmore]

I don't see any use for one. If you buy a top end bulldozer chip with 8 modules, that's a total of 16 threads. I'd be shocked if any games will support even 8 threads, let alone 16.

I don't think there will be an 8 module Bulldozer made on the 32 nm node, not as a single die at least. I expect an 4 module version to be the biggest version for consumers, at least initially.

[zir_blazer]

Bulldozer is going to be using the AMD3 socket, just look at the roadmap over here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/2871/2
Zambezi is the name of an implementation of Bulldozer meant for the consumer market.

Your AMD3 typo caused me to think that it was actually a NEW Socket. Then I saw this, and figured than that was indeed a typo.

In 2011 we get Bulldozer and it comes in the form of the Zambezi CPU (AMD’s codenames are such fun). You’ll see four and eight core versions of Zambezi. Both will support DDR3 and both will work in Socket-AM3. Obviously guaranteeing motherboard support this early in the game is difficult, but AMD is usually good about maintaining socket compatibility. You may be able to slip a Zambezi into your current day Socket-AM3 motherboards.

Zambezi specifies that its going to fit in Socket AM3 in these slides, but Llano is not specified. However...

The 2011 mainstream desktop platform is called Lynx, purr. It comes with the Llano APU, which as I mentioned before, doesn’t use Bulldozer. Instead Llano is made up of as many as four 32nm Phenom II-like cores. Llano also features an integrated DX11 GPU. Llano will require a new socket as the pinout will have to support video out just like Intel’s Clarkdale.

This means that I was right about Bulldozer being possibily compatible with Socket AM3, and Llano being a new Socket with no defined name. Too bad that my speculations are a few months after official info has been released, but was accurate enough nonetheless.

I don't think there will be an 8 module Bulldozer made on the 32 nm node, not as a single die at least. I expect an 4 module version to be the biggest version for consumers, at least initially.

Two pieces of four Bulldozer Modules is entirely possible and looks realistic. Socket C32 is designed for using Cores the MCM way.

[Helmore]

Your AMD3 typo caused me to think that it was actually a NEW Socket. Then I saw this, and figured than that was indeed a typo.

Oops. Yeah, that's a typo and I just corrected it .

Zambezi specifies that its going to fit in Socket AM3 in these slides, but Llano is not specified. However...

This means that I was right about Bulldozer being possibily compatible with Socket AM3, and Llano being a new Socket with no defined name. Too bad that my speculations are a few months after official info has been released, but was accurate enough nonetheless.

It was known from the moment that AMD started revealing more information regarding Fusion that they would need a new socket for that. As your quote says, you need a way to get that display signal from the APU to the motherboard and that requires a new socket.

Two pieces of four Bulldozer Modules is entirely possible and looks realistic. Socket C32 is designed for using Cores the MCM way.

I was mainly talking about consumer chips, the ones that will actually be bought and used by gamers for example. The MCM that you are talking about is codenamed Interlagos, which will have 2×4 modules (16 cores) on a single package.

[JF-AMD]

Socket C32 is designed for using Cores the MCM way.

No, C32 is for SCM only, 8 total cores.

[zir_blazer]

No, C32 is for SCM only, 8 total cores.

Well, Socket G34, where you place the Magny Cours at. This time it was my typo, sorry

It was known from the moment that AMD started revealing more information regarding Fusion that they would need a new socket for that. As your quote says, you need a way to get that display signal from the APU to the motherboard and that requires a new socket.

Yeah, judging by the date of the article I'm almost half a year outdated. I wasn't active on the news and speculation business at that moment, that is why I missed it.


Besides the question about how powerful Llano's GPU is, how and when AMD will be introducing Fusion based Processors and Bulldozer ones is also an important point of speculation. If Fusion with K10 comes first (That is how things seems to be), then we are going to see a new Socket with its respective Motherboards and Chipsets launching at the same time. A new Chipset makes sense because we don't know if the current ones are compatible with the new platform architecture (Due to the new GPU location and its I/O requeriments), and if anything, considering that the GPU is already in the Processor, it would be wasted silicon even if they are compatible, as mainstream AMD Chipsets comes with IGP and only the highest end ones does not, but that is not where Llano is aimed at.
Llano was supposed to receive a Socket in Notebooks that was called Socket FS1 according to slides of AMD 2007 Financal Analyst Day (And it seems that they are quite late with Llano). Socket FS1 seems to be directly succeding Socket S1 (Low profile, Notebook oriented), so we're not talking about the Desktop Socket for Fusion Processors, that is another one. With FS1 for Fusion Notebooks, the unnamed one for Fusion Desktops, and C32 and G34 at the Workstation and Server for Bulldozer (With no Fusion it seems), we are already at the four Sockets count. But we are forgeting about Bulldozer on Desktop, that is for Socket AM3. So we are going to have five sockets/platforms at the same time this round.
For me, launching Llano on a new Socket then Bulldozer on the older one makes no sense, with the exeption that all currents users will be happy knowing that they have an upgrade patch, but Fusion early adopters wouldn't be that happy. The exception would be that AMD released both Bulldozer for AM3 and the Desktop Fusion Socket at the same time, that doesn't sounds bad as an idea except for making a horrible market segment overlap.
So, the future AMD vs Intel Socket comparision will look like this...


High end Servers
Intel LGA 1567 (8-Way) for Nehalem Xeons (Beckton)
AMD Socket G34 (4-Way) for K10 Opterons MCM (Magny Cours), future Bulldozer MCM


Low end Servers/Workstations
Intel LGA 1366 (2-Way) for Nehalem Xeons (Gulftown), possibily future Sandy Bridge
AMD Socket C32 (2-Way) for K10 Opterons (Lisbon), future Bulldozer


High end Desktop/Enthusiast
Intel LGA 1366 for Nehalem Core i7 9xx (Bloomfield, Gulftown), possibily future Sandy Bridge
AMD Socket AM3 for K10 Phenom II (Deneb, Thuban), future Bulldozer

LGA 1366 is 2-Way capable, but it isn't used like that for normal Desktop users. I suppose that Socket AM3 Should be phased out not so long after Bulldozer release, because we are supposed to see a Fusion Bulldozer that makes it irrelevant. It just segments in two the AMD Desktop market, something that was like that in the Socket 754 and 939 days until Socket AM2 joined them again. However, S939 superceded S754 (Dual Channel vs Single Channel), AM3 vs Desktop Fusion doesn't supercedes because they got different features, being the either integrated GPU or early Bulldozer the main difference.


Mid end Desktop/Mainstream
Intel LGA 1156 for Nehalem Core i5, i7 (Lynnfield)
AMD unnamed Socket for Fusion K10 (Llano), possibily future Fusion Bulldozer


Low end Desktop/Budget
Intel LGA 1156 for Nehalem Core i3, i5 (Clarkdale)
AMD unnamed Socket for Fusion K10 (Llano), possibily future Fusion Bulldozer

Intel market segmentation got the issue that you have in the same Socket platform, Processors with and without GPU that may requiere different Chipsets for proper support, different features, etc. AMD usually doesn't go rampage on similar-but-different Processor and Chipsets designs, so it could be safe to say that everything on a Socket is fully supported and as similar as possible, so I suppose that all the AMD Processors for that new Socket will have the GPU.
If there is a thing where AMD is vastly superior, is that they usually choose a straightforward way for its platforms with things that supercedes the previous one, without making you having to do choices about feature tradeoffs (Look a list of features enable/disable on Xeons Processors and attempt to understand if it makes sense. You are ready to get a VIP stance on a mental asylum) but just walk a simple stair. This segmentation would break in two that stair.

This is how I see the short term future from now up to the release of Llano, that is when we are supposed to hear the most of AMD giving away info.

[Zonker]

Won't triple or quad channel mem require a new incompatible socket?

AMD flagship remaining on dual mem would be unhappy.

[qcmadness]

I don't know if a Bulldozer could be Socket AM3 compatible or not, but chances are that possibily yes (But ONLY with Socket AM3, if anything, because we don't know if the IMC works with DDR-II too).

My thoughts:
Bulldozer having DDR-2 / DDR-3 IMC: Socket AM3 (938 pins)
Bulldozer having DDR-3 IMC: Socket AM3 (941 pins)

Llano is supposed to be a Dual Core K10 with a GPU, all in the same piece, and obviously seems that a new Socket is requiered, as previously stated.

Llano is a quad-core design with 480 shaders.
Brazos is a dual-core design.

[duploxxx]

Won't triple or quad channel mem require a new incompatible socket?

AMD flagship remaining on dual mem would be unhappy.

look at the BD design, it only has 2 MC for c32 platform for example, only when 2 BD are combined you get a 4MC model for G34 socket.
So BD AM3 will still be a 2MC model which will probably end up with 6-8 cores and perhaps a harvested 4 core. While LIano in a new socket will cover all CPU+GPU and up to 4 cores.

Remaining on dual channel unhappy if you want to follow the marketing hype sure.... If they are able to maintain the same high mem speed when 1 or 2 dimms are populated/MC then you don't need more MC it will only add cost.

[-Boris-]

I feel that AM3 and it's dual channel memory controller might make Bulldozer a bit memory starved.
But I do hope that AMD finally did something about the lousy IMC in the Phenoms. They simply can't use the bandwidth of DDR3. But that alone isn't good enough.
Benchmarks has showed us that higher IMC clock boosts performance alot, and an IMC at core speed would make even the Phenom II close to nehalem in many aspects.

A triple channel IMC which isn't broken as in Phenoms would be great. But the fact that AMD choose AM3 could be bad news about memory performance, and thereby lower overall performance.

[Behemot]

...

I believe AMDis focused primary on notebooks with Llano. New socket does not really matter for laptop, so where is the problem?

[zir_blazer]

Llano is a quad-core design with 480 shaders.
Brazos is a dual-core design.

Indeed, Llano is a Quad Core K10. I got the idea that it was just a Dual Core when looking at Hans de Vries individual Core size comparision.
However, where did you get the 480 Shaders from? It would make it slighty superior to the Radeon 5670 that got 400. If that is true, it would redesign the meaning of a decent low end machine if priced good enough, as with a Llano Processor and a pretty much generic Chipset you basically got a solid (And even outright overkill) platform for budget users, it could be a terribily strong baseline to settle on.
Possibily, Intel efforts on making a decent GPU starting on Clarkdale (That is a direct competitor for the Radeon 4200 on performance), and whatever Sandy Bridge got that must be at least equal or better, is because all the GPGPU had impact on Intel plans somehow. Intel IGP was always its worst weakness (Besides higher prices for the same performance on AMD, always) and never cared about it, but the fact that the GPU is starting to adquiere importance for everyday usage means that they can't stand still. If they did, AMD would simply run in circles around Intel with an inmense platform superiority mainly because it got a excellent balance (Good Processor, good GPU vs excellent Processor, worst GPU) even in its cheapest parts.

I believe AMDis focused primary on notebooks with Llano. New socket does not really matter for laptop, so where is the problem?

Fusion parts are good for either the Notebook market, and for the low end and mainstream Desktop (That is also where AMD is aiming them at), because getting more things integrated in the Processor piece is cheaper than having them separate.
The problem isn't the new Socket for Notebooks, but the fact that we will have again two Desktop Sockets coexist. And the idea of segmentating the market in both Fusion for low end and mainstream, then Bulldozer for high end desktop, doesn't sound very good if you want the features of both platforms. No one would like buying a Llano then hearing news that Bulldozer will come first to Socket AM3.

[Macadamia]

How about Bulldozer v1 in both AM3 and another socket which Llano uses.

Desktop will go from AM3 to "?" in the future, you get to choose either >2 channel memory/PCIe or pins for GPU usage.


Laptop for Llano will probably be S1g5/FS1.