Inside AMD's Phenom Architecture 191
An anonymous reader writes "InformationWeek has uncovered some documentation which provides some details amid today's hype for AMD's announcement of its upcoming Phenom quad-core (previously code-named Agena). AMD's 10h architecture will be used in both the desktop Phenom and the Barcelona (Opteron) quads. The architecture supports wider floating-point units, can fully retire three long instructions per cycle, and has virtual machine optimizations. While the design is solid, Intel will still be first to market with 45nm quads (the first AMD's will be 65nm). Do you think this architecture will help AMD regain the lead in its multicore battle with Intel?"
Re:Begging the question (Score:5, Informative)
Tom
Re:Begging the question (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Begging the question (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sorry what? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Support? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sorry what? (Score:5, Informative)
So there are plenty of workstation uses for a quad core, but I agree that at the moment it's overkill for a home desktop.
Hey Einstein (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sorry what? (Score:5, Informative)
AMD's cool & quiet tech will shut down individual cores when you are not using them. I believe this is all new for the Barcelona. It idles down cores when you are not using them fully. It shuts off parts of cores that you aren't using (eg the FPU if you are only using integer instructions).
Re:Watch the pretty assistant while.... (Score:3, Informative)
They have a good chance. For one, their market share is rather higher than you make it out to be: about 20% of the 80x86 market vs Intel's 80%. Also, the computer manufacturers have an interest in keeping the competition between Intel and AMD alive. Unless they behave irrationally, they will help AMD to fully break the monopoly.
But the main thing that is pending for AMD is the antitrust lawsuit. Assuming there will be a just judgment, which is not a given with the US justice system led by the likes of Alberto Gonzales, a multi-billion dollar compensation for anti-competitive practices will fall to AMD. They have enough debt financing to last until then.
Re:Yeah, but when can I buy quadcores from AMD? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Support? (Score:5, Informative)
Prevailing wisdom and personal experience suggest using "-j N+1" for N CPUs. I have a 4 CPU setup at home (dual dual-core Opterons). Here's are approximate compile times for jzIntv + SDK-1600, [spatula-city.org] which altogether comprise about 80,000 lines of source:
Now keep in mind, everything was in cache, so disk activity didn't factor in much at all. But, for a typical disk, I imagine the difference between N+1 and N+2 to be largely a wash. N+1 seems to be the sweet spot if the build isn't competing with anything else. Larger increments might make sense if the build is competing with other tasks (large background batch jobs) or highly latent disks (NFS, etc). But for a local build on a personal workstation? N+1.
--JoeRe:AMD IS Doomed to Always Be a Follower Unless... (Score:2, Informative)
Following? Hardly.
Uh... (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, doesn't "make -j 3" gives you a good speedup? I'd imagine multi-core being great for development, at least for compiled languages.
Re:AMD IS Doomed to Always Be a Follower Unless... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Sorry what? (Score:3, Informative)
Expect the first mass-market software that takes advantage of these processors to really start picking up within the next 12-24 months in the games industry. In fact, I do believe that FEAR was one of the first PC games built with MT in mind, and I'd wager that you can see significant performance differences with that game between a single and dual core PC.
Re:Support? (Score:3, Informative)
Happy to. At various points, one or more of the processes will be blocked in I/O. With N+1 tasks running, there's a higher likelihood that all N CPUs will be busy, despite the occasional I/O waits in individual processes. With only N tasks running, an I/O wait directly translates into an idle CPU during that period.
--Joe