Slashdot Log In
AMD Reveals Plans to Move Beyond the Core Race
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Thu Dec 14, 2006 08:41 PM
from the eye-to-the-future dept.
from the eye-to-the-future dept.
J. Dzhugashvili writes "The Tech Report has caught wind of AMD's plans for processors over the coming years. Intel may be counting on cramming 'tens to hundreds' of cores in future CPUs, but AMD thinks the core race is just a repeat of the megahertz race that took place a few years ago. Instead, AMD is counting on Accelerated Processing Units, chips that mix and match general-purpose CPU cores with dedicated application processors for graphics and other tasks. In the meantime, AMD is cooking up some new desktop and mobile processors that it hopes will give Intel a run for its money."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Same old. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Same old. (Score:5, Interesting)
AMD is smaller obviously, so it has fewer resources...but with those Alpha scientists, they're going to keep going strongly. It's just a matter of time with business directives like this before AMD takes over. They've been having some really cool ideas...and a few more over a few years, the innovators may win. And no, I'm not an AMD fanboi, but I have talked to some architects from IBM and Intel, and they do concur.
Parent
hyper transport (Score:5, Informative)
What is the point of having 32 cores with only one link to the chip
Even with the new Xeon's there still only one link per cpu and the cpus need to use it to get to ram
Amd chips right now have up to 3 newer ones will have up to 5 links
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:hyper transport (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:hyper transport (Score:5, Interesting)
The real issue is feature size. AMD is hurt badly by being consistently behind on that. Intel's been at 65 nm for a while now, and AMD is only now releasing 65 nm parts. Intel will be at 45 nm in some lines by this time next year, while AMD is a year behind them. Feature size brings with it higher yields (more chips per wafer) once you work the kinks out, lower heat, and more transistors per chip. That's the game winner right there, unless one of them shoots themselves in the foot again, like Netburst.
Parent
Re:Same old. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Correct. Intel still has the lion's share of the market, and they want to keep it that way. It's interesting how they "cheat" and lock two dies together and call it dual-core or quad-core just to come out with the technology "first" to keep the investors happy.
Cheat? The result is 4 cores in one socket. Things like "they cheated!", how many nm the process is etc is really irrelevant. What matters is the end result, like performance, power usage, memory bandwidth. That AMD can't do it yet and had gotten
Obviously a good thing. (Score:2)
Free Enterprise (Score:2)
Re:Free Enterprise (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Free Enterprise (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Yes, if those were competitors. (Score:3, Insightful)
I use Linux daily at work, but, I have no driving need to have a Linux box at home. I don't do that much worky stuff at home. I'm already burned out after doing it all day at work (and if I need to do more work, I can ssh in with Cygwin from home). And you really can't game on L
Free Reliant (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Free Enterprise (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Integrated graphics.. (Score:3, Interesting)
If anyone can give me any insight here...please speak up.
Thanks
- I post interesting things or short articles I write here [wi-fizzle.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You name the operations, and I'll tell you if it is optimized for it or not.
Or, in other words, that's the difference between genral-purpose and special-purpose.
Re:Integrated graphics.. (Score:5, Insightful)
What do want to run on a computer that isn't "mathematic operations"?
More specifically:
Are current CPUs optimised for physics simulations? No.
For image processing? No.
For data compression? No.
For encryption? No.
These are all areas where custom cores can provide enormous performance benefits (both in absolute terms, and in terms of performance per watt) over current CPUs, which are general purpose.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Integrated graphics.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Transputer (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Transputer? Don't think so. (Score:3, Informative)
It was a rather fascinating system (especially for its time) but it has died on the market.
(Sorry for the off-topic ranting, but I programmed these during my studies and quite liked the concept)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is what human minds do but CPU's are far from this goal, not to mention the nightmare of managing it as complexity increases.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Integrated graphics.. (Score:5, Insightful)
- database servers
- web servers
- CAD and 3d programs (rendering)
Basically, it's not much different than MMX or any other extension to a processor. The programmers can still code for the x86 (or whatever) architecture and the same operating system, but then shortcut those instructions when the additional instructions are found to be available. Or maybe they can work it transparently so programmers don't have to do anything additional - it'll optimize on the fly (provided they can figure out how to do that). Overall, I think the software headache will be worth it to companies, as they will be able to have substantial gains in performance in the hardware department, cutting cost while gaining performance. What datacenter wouldn't love to use half as many machines to provide access to the same amount of information; what animator wouldn't love to have their workstation be able to render things at twice the speed?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As for CAD, well I think that would be quite a waste. Remember that processor designers only have so many transist
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just as the floating point coprocessor became the FPU section of the processor, it makes sense to give future processors the ability to do the common operations that are now done by graphics cards.
Things like matrix multiplications (which is actually will be a single processor operation in SSE3) are used all over the place in graphics, sound, and well, virtually anything that eats up CPU power these d
Well... (Score:2)
np-hard optimization board (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Amiga? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like the Amiga's way of doing things...over 20 years ago! I'm glad it's catching on, and I'm glad AMD is doing it; AMD usually gets things right, and makes their products a lot more affordable than Intel...
/vjl/
Actually, this is simply the latest iteration of a well-documented pattern going back forty-odd years known as the Cycle of Reincarnation [jargon.net].
Dedicated processors for "other" tasks (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
And maybe not such specific tasks like "mp3 decode".. but what about an FFT/IFFT instruction set extension? A matrix-multiply or matrix-inversion instruction set extension? The operating system could see these instructions and ensure they're executed on the correct processing unit (fast interconnects are of course needed here, which I believe is what HT3 is all about!)
Hardware acceleration of these tasks would greatly
Re:Dedicated processors for "other" tasks (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Consider this, a smart version of IBm's cell chip, with the other cores designed for one task each. with two of the cores a generic CPU.
Naturally... not all processes are (Score:2, Interesting)
A lot of other software is not. Such as: Office productivity, operating systems...(these can benefit, but ultimately they'll reach a limit).
The other question is, when you put hundreds of cores on a chip, how do you handle logistics of accessing cache? Or cache coherency?(not required) They it'll go up to 16 or so
PPC called and wants its AltiVec back? (Score:2, Insightful)
What will the cost be in making it all work 'just' for AMD?
How locked in would any code be?
Over the life of a project, will it be worth 'porting' code to AMD?
Hybrid Graphics & the Cell roadmap. (Score:5, Interesting)
The most interesting thing for me was the mention of "Hybrid Graphics":It also looks like they're also extending the Fusion concept along Cell-like lines, with additional cores for non CPU or GPU purposes.
Their road map through 2008 only talks about up to quad core, although I assume this means CPU cores (I'm not sure that I would accept a CPU+GPU on a single die branded as a 'dual-core' chip). I think the Cell has eight cores, but due to yield issues not all are enabled in a PS3, and they are not all functionally equivalent. I don't know if this is the case for the Cell-based IBM blades, though.
The roadmap basically looks like periodic refreshing of the product line reducing power consumption with each iteration, which is where I think Intel have got a head-start on AMD. However, if AMD can sort out the yield issues, and compilers and developers begin to take advantage of these "associate" cores in Cell and future AMD architectures, then maybe Intel will have turned out to have missed a trick, as they did with x86-64.
Re:Hybrid Graphics & the Cell roadmap. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hybrid Graphics & the Cell roadmap. (Score:3, Interesting)
The cell has 8 SPUs which are stripped down vector processors and one PPU with is an only mildly stripped down PPC core. On the PS3 one of the SPUs are disabled to increase yield.
The problem with the cell is the the SPUs are hell to program if you have a problem that doesn't fit nicely in the 256k ram that an SPU has. And most programming tasks these days don't. If the programming is essentially DSP work then you are good to go, but hopefully AMD learns from Sony's mistake, and still allow all cores ran
Cue : (Score:5, Funny)
50 people replying "I encode video"
45 people replying "Games"
10 replying "Babes of course"
1 karma whore incapable of making a decent top 10 list.
most of them idle most of the time? (Score:3, Interesting)
The two big obstacles to getting better performance from parallelization are that (1) some problems aren't parallelizable, and (2) programmers, languages, and development tools are still stuck in the world of non-parallel programming. So from that point of view, this might make more sense than simply making a computer with a gazillion identical, general-purpose CPUs.
On the other hand, I'd imagine that most of these processors would sit idle most of the time. For instance, right now I'm typing this slashdot post. If I had a video card with a fancy GPU (which I don't), it would still be drawing current, but sitting idle 99.99% of the time, since displaying characters on the screen as the user types is something that could be done back in the days of 1 MHz CPUs. Suppose I have a special-purpose physics processor. It's also drawing current right now, but not doing anything useful. Ditto for the speech-recognition processor, the artificial intelligence processor, the crypto processor, ...
There are also a lot of applications that don't lend themselves to either multiple general-purpose processors or multiple special-purpose CPUs. One example that comes to mind is compiling.
On a server, you're probably either I/O bound, or you're running a bunch of CGI scripts simultaneously, in which case multiple general-purpose processors are what you need.
For almost all desktop applications except gaming, performance is a software issue, not a hardware issue. I was word-processing in 1982 with a TRS-80, and it wasn't any less responsive than Abiword on my current computer. Since I'm not into gaming, my priorities would be (1) to have a CPU that draws a low amount of power, and (2) to have Linux do a better job of cooperating with my hardware on power management. I would also like to have parallized versions of certain software, but that's going to take a lot of work. For example, the most common CPU-heavy thing I do is compiling long books in LaTeX; a massively parallel version of LaTeX would be very cool, but I'm not holding my breath.
Intel may be early (Score:3, Interesting)
Intel's standpoint seems to be that there's a world of data crunching lurking in all our computers (automated photo sorting, face recognition, and photo-realistic rendering), but none of these strike me as killer apps waiting to happen. All are things we could get used to and come to depend on, but I don't think any of them are being held back just because of our computing capacity, although photo-realistic rendering may be close. I'm pretty sure these aren't solved problems yet. Even if we were itching to do all this, one can only sort so many photos. It seems a bit wasteful to have all that power waiting around most of the time. Are we really nearly living in a world in which computing power is so plentiful that we can have that kind of ability even though we hardly ever use it?
On the other hand, AMD's approach seems to have more immediate application. Video/audio encoding and other parallel processes are things that many of us do do frequently. A couple hundred cores could be pressed into use for this, but that seems much less elegant than purpose-built hardware.
I don't know which approach will be best in the long-run. Probably both. It does seem to me that Intel is at best a few years to early to be hyping large numbers of cores.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
AMD loses and will continue to lose the manufacturing race with Intel. Intel will likely continue to develop smaller and smaller dies, and AMD could never hope to leapfrog them for lack of cash to do so. Of course, give Intel their due: they employ some pretty smart people as well.
Ultimately, making your CPU do more specialized tasking, or capable of programmatic specialized tasking (think FPGA) is the right kind of innovation for them. I would also loo