Slashdot Mirror
AMD Unveils SSE5 Instruction Set
mestlick writes "Today AMD unveiled its 128-Bit SSE5 Instruction Set. The big news is that it includes 3 operand instructions such as floating point and integer fused multiply add and permute.
AMD posted a press release and a PDF describing the new instructions."
So, where's the analysis by people who write optimized media encoders/decoders? How useful are these new instructions, or are they just toys? How well did they handle context switching? What's the CX overhead? Is there a penalty for all processes, or only when you are switching to/from a SSE5 process? Will this be safely usable under all operating systems, or will they need a patch?
It ROUNDSS! It ROUNDSS us! It FRCZSS! Nasty AMD added to it.
Read this interview with Dr Dobbs:
I believe this helps gaming and other simulations.
And then we have the "holy shit" moment:
If I get one of these CPUs, I'll almost certainly be encrypting my hard drives. It was already fast enough, but now...
As for existing OS support, it looks promising:
So, if you're really curious, you can download SimNow and emulate an SSE5 CPU, try to boot your favorite OS... even though they say they're not planning to ship the silicon for another two years. Given that they say the GCC patches will be out in a week, I imagine two years is plenty of time to get everything rock solid on the software end.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I'm not really qualified to make an opinion on this, but my guess is that these instructions will prove increasingly useful as AMD integrates the GPU and CPU. To me, it looks like they plan to make accessing what was traditionally part of the GPU a simple process (relative to accessing a GPU directly through their own pseudo CPU api's).
It'll take a couple years for "SSE5" to show up in AMD chips... which happens to coincide nicely with their Fusion (combined CPU+GPU) product line plans.
Will Intel pick up on these instructions? Maybe not. Does that mean they die? No, the performance benefits for those areas where this will make the most difference will make it worthwhile. At the very least, AMD can sponsor patches to the most popular bits of OSS to earn a few PR points (and benchmark points).
Technically, the "bit designation" of a platform is defined as the largest number on the spec sheet which marketing is convinced customers will accept as truthful. Seriously, over the years different processors and systems have been "16 bit" or "32 bit" for any number of odd and wacky reasons. for example, the Atari Jaguar was widely touted as a 64 bit platform, and the control processor was a Motorola 68000. The Sega Genesis also had a 68k in it, and was a 16 bit platform. The thing is, Atari's marketing folks decided that since the graphics processor worked in 64 bit chunks, they could sell the system as a 64 bt platform. C'est la vie. It's an issue that doesn't just crop up in video game consoles -- I just find the Jaguar a particularly amusing example.
But, yeah, having a CPU sold as one "bitness" and being able to work with a larger data size than the bitness is not unusual. The physical address bus width is indeed one common designator of bitness, just as you say. Another is the internal single address width, or the total segmented address width. Also, the size of a GPR is popular. On many platforms, some or all of those are the same number, which simplifies things.
An Athlon64, for example, has 64 bit GPR's, and in theory a 64 bit address space, but it actually only cares about 48 bits of address space, and only 40 of those bits can actual be addressed by current implimentations.
A 32 it Intel Xeon has 32 bit GPR's, but an 80 bit floating point unit, the ability to do 128 bit SSE computations, 32 bit individual addresses, and IIRC a 36 bit segmented physical address space. but, Intel's marketing knew that customers wouldn't believe it if they called it anything but 32 bit since it could only address 32 bits in a single chunk. (And, they didn't want it to compete with IA64!)