Slashdot Mirror
AMD's x86-64 Moves Forward
MBCook writes "AMD Hammer line is definatly moving forward. The Inquirer has a supposidly leaked memo from MS saying that they have working x86-64 silicon that runs both 32 and 64-bit Win XP. Van's Hardware is reporting that MS is backing x86-64 over Intel's IA-64, and that MS has apparently convinced Intel to move to x86-64! There is an article over at Ace's Hardware from CeBIT that includes some coverage of AMD's Hammer line (including its NUMA). Last but not least is News.com's report that MS is preparing Windows to support NUMA." And it looks like the line will be named Opteron.
that would explain why AMD is backing M$ in the M$ trial that's going on!
It scares me to see huge companies like this, conspiring in court.
Honestly though, I thought it would have been Intel, not AMD doing this.
AirSpeak - http://itunes.com/apps/AirSpeak
Anyone here to give a good reason not to...
Intel MMX/SSE are 128-bits already.
But here are a few arguments against it--
1. bus widths at 256-bits are a friggin nightmare to design to run at multi-GHz...
2. To support 256-bits, every path needs to be this wide, which would blot the die so much that you couldn't meet gigahertz timing, not to mention how poor the yeilds would be
most game architectures pump graphics data around at 256,512,even 1k-bit wide busses... not the CPU core. But that kind of precision for the geometry processed in the CPU core is not necessary.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Looks like AMD is getting their end of the bargain. Whether windows will even run on intels new chips or not, AMD looks like they have a headstart and the backing of M$.
I suppose I should have expected this. AMD was staking it's whole future on their 64 bit solution support for which might have been iffy. With this they practically guarantee their future, maybe even take the lead from intel. We'll have to see how well prepared intel was with plan B (copying AMD if plan A failed).
Now we can re-do those bill gates phonecalls in the last story and fill in the proper information.
Bill Gates: Hello mr Sanders, I need a favour. How would you like M$ to back amd-64 over intel-64?
Sanders: Ok Bill. What can I do for you?
Bill Gates: We would like you to be our witness in this pesky antitrust trial. What do you think you could say in our support?
Liberty.
I can't say what's correct myself, but I think you may be jumping to conclusions.
Dear God! How fucking lame!
Another hacked on extention to the same old architecture that we've been using since the 4004 and 8080 (no, seriously). The basic 8-bit core, the bizarrely segmented registers, the warped-ass extentions, and the CISC instruction set... it all makes me sick. Not to mention that we're still using a fucking BIOS.
Have you ever used something with OpenBoot? It's incredibly nice.
But no, we're still using a system that's basically an overglorified 386DX.
Despite the speed hit, the IA64 architecture was a step in the right direction. A big step. In this case, AMD is going to be setting the industry back.
Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
I disagree from an architectural standpoint. In an ideal world, we'd all have 8-bit machines. All our arithmatic would be insanely fast; we'd be able to use combinational logic to allow two probagation levels for ANY operation (add, sub, mul, div, sqrt, log, etc). That's because it's cost effective to do so; a minimal set of possible outcomes. I'm not completely sure, but I'll speculate that it's possible to arbitrarily generate an arbitrarily sized number from just these 8 bits; though most likely it would be programatically (even if done via micro-code), and thus would be non-optimal for larger than 8-bit data-sets. So obviously, as we've been able to, we've increased the data-length throughout history as we've demonstrated a need.
Contrary to the impression that's given in these posts, a larger word size fundamentally is slower in calculating smaller values. Sticking with higher performance two-stage combinational logic requires an exponentially increasing number of transistors. Breaking the logic up into tiers allows designers to trade the number of transistors for the number of probagation delays. The more delays, the slower the clock; the more transistors, the less practical the design (due to heat, cost, and feasibility of fabrication). Pipelining somewhat helps aleviate the issue of extreme probagation delay, but it's impossible to achieve 100% efficiency, and thus you're practically garunteed slower operation for deeper pipelines. What's more, pipelining requires additional probagation layers for buffering, so you take an immediate performance hit; speculating that you'll achieve greater over-all performance.
In an ideal architecture, you'd minimize the probagation delays for each instructional unit, but practical measures say you must group most, if not all, of the CPU such that the slowest part drives the system. (P4's are nice in that they sub-divide the clock for the simpler integer units).
Combining the two ends, we can better appretiate the trade-off.. If we're performing large-valued arithmetic which is slow programatically (emulated 64bit), then it's worth the extra cost (towards the speed of each operation, and in terms of the number of transistors). In other words, one hardware 64bit add is most certainly faster than than several assembly language instructions that piece together 32bit values. BUT, now all your 32bit arithmetic is slower (unless you have separate 32bit/64bit logic cores).
It's possible to design 32/64bit cores that only take as many clock-ticks to complete as necessary, and thus 32bit arith isn't horribly slower, but there are definately additional probagation delays. The augmentation to 64bit can never increase the speed of a 32bit operation. (Any speed ups must be due to over-all advances in computational efficiency, which should benifit a pure 32bit core even more).
The trade-off must then be a statistical one. We cost out the largest word size that provides benifit. You're going to have arbitrarily large ALU operations (just look at encryption), so choose a cutoff where a certain percentage of all operations occur at that high of a word size. This is how we moved from 8 to 16 bit, and then the painful shift from 16 to 32 bits. And for server-targeted machines, the shift has already been cost-out to adopt 64bits. The desktop has not yet made sufficient requirements to adopt 64bits, though the underlying x86 CPUs are being shared in server-space which is nudging 64bit's acceptance.
Another important factor (which is presumably obvious in concept) is that a higher word-size has a greater probability of wasted space. A 1-bit boolean, for example, wasts 63bits.. Booleans are very common, and though they can easily be consolidated in c-struct's, such is rarely the case, since there are memory alignment issues (and flat-out laziness on the part of programmers). The wasted word-space also affects the instructions. Rarely do you actually see 64bit aligned CPU-instructions (except in VLIW or in places that the data-word-size was irrelevant). Such a situation would have massive implications towards performance. But one serious consideration is that the population of 64bit constants using a 32bit instructional word is expensive. Now you have to perform at least 3 (probably 4 or 5) instructions just to load a constant. Suddenly "a++" starts to look scary (at least when non-optimal compilers are used). In all cases sub-word-size'd instructional arguments are permissable to the delight of compiler designers, but there are still classes of problems that thwart this.. Namely memory addressing...
Memory addressing is arguably the strongest supporter of 64bit architectures. The 4GB limit is already apon us on desk-top machines (I have half a gig on all my home machines, and I don't need it). When you add swap-space, it's entirely possible for modern desk-tops to run enough apps to desire 4+Gig of memory. (Especially considering that large chunks of the address space are wasted). Aside from the various tricks designers have employed over the years to avoid augmenting the address space (8086's segment-registers, 80386's segment-selectors, OS's swapping out apps completely from memory, etc), it's arguably slower to emulate larger address spaces.
In addition to the above arguments against larger address spaces, there is massive cache polution; doubling the word-length, literrally halves the usefulness of a cache-line-load, unless you were previously emulating a larger word-size. You can only load 4 words on a pentium-class cache-line-fill instead of 8. Your bandwidth requirements litterally double (unless you don't standardize at one word-length).
Now in contrast, there are a few advantages. If your minimal word-size is larger, then the number of address pins that you need are reduced. But this is really independent of the core word-size. Pentiums have long required 64bits for their external bus, and use even larger cache-line sizes. Thus most of the advantages attributed to this argument are moot.
Theoretically, an architecture can be designed to split an ALU such that it acts as either 1 64bit unit or 2 32bit units. This is especially true for vector-cores (which are already up to 128bits for main-stream processors). In general, however, there is still the trade-off here, since additional logic-probagations are required which slow down the general case of only a single But comparing the X-box and the Nintendo 64, which were released many years apart won't buy you much of a conclusion other than current processors are generally faster than older processors.
I'd like to address the nature of large bit-sizes with respect to graphics. While this isn't my expertise to the extent of the above, this primarily affects the bus width. In graphics, you commonly have multi-integer structures (red, blue, green, alpha (opacity), Z-depth (the depth into the screen the geometrical object that drew this dot is), stencil, etc). The entire structure is usually just 16bits, 32bits, 64bits, etc. The larger the structure, both the more features you can pack into it, and the more accurate each individual number can be. Thus saying that an architecture is 128bits purely based on this is very misleading. What's even worse are labeling the bus-width numbers (e.g. 128, 256). That's like calling the Pentium I a 64bit CPU, just because it has a 64bit bus (used purely for cache-line burst fills). Yes it makes it go faster, but so does shortening the length of each wire; it's not really innovative. I'll throw this in, but I'm starting to get in over my head; Graphics units (especially the filtering parts) make heavy use of hard-wired combinational logic units. The number of bits going into these units is really meaningless (how many thousands of wires go into the control logic portion of a CPU?). Thus the ability of a custom pieces of hardware to utilize larger bit-depths is unimpressive. What would be impressive would be to say that a Graphics unit does it's integer / floating arithmetic in 128bits so as to minimize error (even though the input/output might only be 8 or 16bits per atomic unit).
-Michael
-Michael
Very simple. Lack of competition.. They held a monopoly on ALL OS / motherboards. The only real competition that I'm aware of were the 3'rd parties that sold the various chips / expansion cards.
When you have a vertical monopoly like that, you can coordinate an architectural shift. If Intel decided to start a new CPU line, and it turned out to not provide the best bang-for-the-buck, then AMD/Cyrix competitors could supply legacy and current MS-products a better alternative. Intel would have lost all that money. From the other side, MS is spread so thin that they don't have the time to rework their core to be optimal on multiple platforms (look at the death of NT on any non x86 platform). The lack of a compelling reason for someone to purcase the alternative platform says that MS shouldn't devote too many resources in that direction, which of course kills it off. Hense platform architects are at the mercy of software people, who must provide killer apps for that platform.. If any major killer app isn't immediately available, then a domino effect of lost support will occur; and more importantly, business people understand this a priori.
This is actually a lot more exciting then it might first appear. On the one hand, you have a controlling hand-of-God who enforces their will. So long as they can project a bottom line that benifits their customer, they can make radical changes (shedding virtually all of it's former self). On the other hand, we have multiple independant organizations, who each act in their own best interest. In monopolized environments, changes are swift and clean (but not always in the best interests of everyone). In independent environments, no organization can squander or otherwise take too great a risk. Efficiency is upheld, since only rational decisions can be made (involving the mutual benifit of progress). The side effects are a slowing of evolution, and an accumulation of "useless appendages". On the other hand, it provides an incredible level of trust on everbody's part that the architecture has staying power; that it'll weather the storm of change, instead of flippantly changing with the current mood; throwing 3'rd party interests aside when it's convinient (read Apple's resinding licences over the years).
Personally, I think an architecture that has "grown" over the years is more remarkable then one that simple borrows the best ideas that come out of universities.
Note that I'm not really advocating x86's. I'm just admiring it's successful history. The proliferation of UNIX and the general ability to recompile source could theoretically alleviate a "better" platforms' lack of killer apps, and thus perpetuate a radical acceleration of architectural designs.. Go Linux!!
-Michael
-Michael