1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

AMD to Redesign Memory Controller in Bulldozer Chips.

Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by Super XP, Sep 16, 2010.

  1. Super XP

    Super XP

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,773 (0.78/day)
    Thanks Received:
    539
    Location:
    Ancient Greece, Acropolis
    I don't know, can you see an enhanced Dual-Channel IMC feed 8 cores? I really think Quad-Channel is what AMD is going to use for both Desktop and server. It will keep the Bulldozer platform consistant and easy to work with.
     
  2. JF-AMD AMD Rep (Server)

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    163 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    229
    I can't comment on the client side, but on the server side we have absolutely no issue with the dual channel controller in Valencia keeping all 8 cores fed. I think people underestimate the capabilities of the memory controller.
     
  3. de.das.dude

    de.das.dude Pro Indian Modder

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    7,885 (4.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    2,111
    OMG! you work for AMD!!!! i am so jealous.
     
  4. wahdangun

    wahdangun New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2008
    Messages:
    1,512 (0.67/day)
    Thanks Received:
    114
    Location:
    indonesia ku tercinta

    hmm interesting, so basically why AMD redesign it if that was not the problem ?
     
  5. cadaveca

    cadaveca My name is Dave

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2006
    Messages:
    14,098 (4.47/day)
    Thanks Received:
    7,281
    Location:
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Nobody is underestimating anything...because the cpu cores from server to client are so similar, and I truly seem to be running into memory controller limitations with my own rig, and have posted many benchmarks showing this.

    So, currently, Phenom 2's memory controller seems in adequate. A simple increase of CPU-NB speed brings performance gains in 3D that raw clockspeed @ the core does not.

    If we actually make what I consider an accurate compare between the current AMD and Intel platforms, the differences in design are quite clear, but thier implementation is not.
    When it comes to high-end gaming, it seems that Intel really pulls ahead, and one of the most obvious differences is the difference in memory control.

    With that said, I don't really think you can blame people for coming to that conclusion.

    And this as well.


    Take a gander @ X4 970 news threads...there's always someone saying "I hope the NB speed would go up too..."

    People are asking for quad and duial channel for quite obvious reasons, if you ask me. It currently seems to be a large "flaw" in Phenom-based chippery.
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2010
  6. JF-AMD AMD Rep (Server)

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    163 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    229
    Why would you build a completely new chip, from the ground up, and throw on an old memory controller.

    The one in our current Opteron processors is built around a design from pre-2003 that was tweaked in 2005 and then again in 2009. Why would you keep this and not use the opportunity to completely redesign a brand new one?

    Oh, and when the story said "redesign" they were not talking about redesigning a bulldozer memory controller (like we had built it and decided to change it.)
     
  7. nt300

    nt300

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    868 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    159
    Location:
    Toronto, ON. Canada
    Good point AMD old memory controller was ok for the past but still was too slow and inefficient ever since 2008. It about time AMD completely design a brand new integrated memory controller for the new Bulldozer arch. Let me ask will be Dual-Channel or Quad-Channel? Many plan on get Bulldozer CPU with 12GB to 16GB of memory. :)
     
  8. JF-AMD AMD Rep (Server)

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2009
    Messages:
    163 (0.09/day)
    Thanks Received:
    229
    Slow and inefficient? Take a look at Xeon vs. Opteron benchmarks for memory throughput.

    2P Opteron ~54GB/s
    2P Xeon ~37GB/s

    4P Opteron ~104GB/s
    4P Xeon ~75GB/s

    If we are slow and inefficient I hate to think of what Intel is.
     
  9. nt300

    nt300

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2010
    Messages:
    868 (0.49/day)
    Thanks Received:
    159
    Location:
    Toronto, ON. Canada
    It is a well known fact AMDs IMC is the weakest link to there design, correct me if I am wrong. But you agree it a good thing to re-design it for Bulldozer.
     
  10. vagxtr

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2007
    Messages:
    180 (0.07/day)
    Thanks Received:
    5
    If you could do it you should offer them your help ;) but i know this aint possible without redesigning whole memory concept they been stuck ever since first K7 w/ ondie full speed L2 cache design came out.

    You should know why is that. Hint: Remember first Phenoms and why they had troubles It wasnt because IMC, rather because botched L3 cache behaviour ;)

    Unganged mode was brought to us as benefit AMD shares same die concept for servers and desktop, and going back to 128bit "fixing it" would be unsustainably stupid move.
    Only market where we could see ganged mode only parts are desktops and that means APUs. And i hope they wont do that performance wise. Thou there were already rumors about Trinity support only 128b ganged mode.
     
  11. drdeathx

    drdeathx

    Joined:
    May 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,132 (1.05/day)
    Thanks Received:
    479
    Location:
    Chicago burbs

    No need for Triple channel. Performance is pretty much equal with dual vs. triple.
     
  12. Novulux

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    150 (0.14/day)
    Thanks Received:
    30
    Holy thread revival Batman!
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page