Quote Originally Posted by terrace215 View Post
Even if they *could* support AVX in Llano, would AMD really want their first implementation of AVX to be crippled (128b exe units) vs the contemporaneous SB implementation?

I guess it would be a trade-off. A little better performance than not supporting it vs. bad marketing from head-to-head comparisons with SB on "AVX benchmarks". Might it not be better to wait for a 256b implementation? I suppose that depends on how long it will be for such a successor in the llano market space.
It's not that "crippled", not by a factor 2 (=256/128). For example:
If an SIMD FP add takes 4 clock cycles then:

128 bit: A+B+C takes 8 clock cycles.
256 bit: A+B+C takes 9 clock cycles. (using pipelined 128 bit hardware)

128 bit: A+B+C+D takes 9 clock cycles.
256 bit: A+B+C+D takes 11 clock cycles. (using pipelined 128 bit hardware)

It all depends on how many unused time-slots there are due to the data
dependencies. A bigger bottleneck for Llano would be the L1 cache access
bandwidth: 32 bytes/cycle for Llano versus 48 bytes/cycle for Sandy Bridge.


Regards, Hans