Wednesday, August 26th 2009

AMD Demos 48-core ''Magny-Cours'' System, Details Architecture

Earlier slated coarsely for 2010, AMD fine-tuned the expected release time-frame of its 12-core "Magny-Cours" Opteron processors to be within Q1 2010. The company seems to be ready with the processors, and has demonstrated a 4 socket, 48 core machine based on these processors. Magny Cours holds symbolism in being one of the last processor designs by AMD before it moves over to "Bulldozer", the next processor design by AMD built from ground-up. Its release will provide competition to Intel's multi-core processors available at that point.

AMD's Pat Conway at the IEEE Hot Chips 21 conference presented the Magny-Cours design that include several key design changes that boost parallelism and efficiency in a high-density computing environment. Key features include: Move to socket G34 (from socket-F), 12-cores, use of a multi-chip module (MCM) package to house two 6-core dies (nodes), quad-channel DDR3 memory interface, and HyperTransport 3 6.4 GT/s with redesigned multi-node topologies. Let's put some of these under the watch-glass.
Socket and Package
Loading 12 cores onto a single package and maintaining sufficient system and memory bandwidth would have been a challenge. With the Istanbul six-core monolothic die already measuring 346 mm² with a transistor-load of 904 million, making something monolithic twice the size is inconceivable, at least on the existing 45 nm SOI process. The company finally broke its contemptuous stance on multi-chip modules which it ridiculed back in the days of the Pentium D, and designed one of its own. Since each die is a little more than a CPU (in having a dual-channel memory controller, AMD chooses to call it a "node", a cluster of six processing cores that connects to its neighbour on the same package using one of its four 16-bit HyperTransport links. The rest are available to connect to neighbouring sockets and the system in 2P and 4P multi-socket topologies.

The socket itself gets a revamp from the existing 1,207-pin Socket-F, to the 1,974-pin Socket G34. The high pin-count ensures connections to HyperTransport links, four DDR3 memory connections, and other low-level IO.

Multi-Socket Topologies
A Magny-Cours Opteron processor can work in 2P and 4P systems for up to 48 physical processing cores. The multi-socket technologies AMD devised ensures high inter-core and inter-node bandwidth without depending on the system chipset IO for the task. In the 2P topology, one node from each socket uses one of its HyperTransport 16-bit links to connect to the system, the other to the neighbouring node on the package, and the remaining links to connect to the nodes of the neighbouring socket. It is indicated that AMD will make use of 6.4 GT/s links (probably generation 3.1). In 4P systems, it uses 8-bit links instead, to connect to three other sockets, but ensures each node is connected to the other directly, on indirectly over the MCM. With a total of 16 DDR3 DCTs in a 4P system, a staggering 170.4 GB/s of cumulative memory bandwidth is achieved.

Finally, AMD projects a up to 100% scaling with Magny-Cours compared to Istanbul. Its "future-silicon" projected for 2011 is projected to almost double that.

Source: INPAI
Add your own comment

104 Comments on AMD Demos 48-core ''Magny-Cours'' System, Details Architecture

#1
suraswami
How much power does this monster suck? Will my neighbours loose power when this thing is turned on :roll:
Posted on Reply
#2
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
suraswami said:
How much power does this monster suck?
Running costs will be pocket-change for a datacenter.
Posted on Reply
#3
Unregistered
Just based on cruncher interest, this chip will be responsible not only for the melting of the ice caps, the collapse of the N. Atlantic thermohaline circulation and the corruption of our youth, but it will transform our lovely blue planet into a searing hellscape that will make the sunny side of Mercury feel like a vacation. It is the product of evil men with evil intentions and I want at least a dozen!:cool:
Posted on Edit | Reply
#4
a111087
the slide says: "same power envelope"
Posted on Reply
#5
mdm-adph
El Fiendo said:
Intel's market share: 79.1% in the fourth quarter of 2008
AMD's market share: 12.8% in the fourth quarter of 2008


I wish I could lose at girls as well as Intel is said to be losing to AMD. I'd be rolling on a pile of women whilst giggling with glee every night.
Well, let's compare girls to GPU's -- yeah, you'd have 79.1% of the girls compared to AMD's 12.8%, but you'd be getting all the fat, slow, ugly ones. :laugh:
Posted on Reply
#6
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
It's probably upwards of 230w (double Istanbul) per socket.

Intel going to MCM a Dunnington too?
Posted on Reply
#7
YinYang.ERROR
I'm taking it these are server processors, not home processors; Which will probably cost thousands of dollars.
Posted on Reply
#8
Jizzler
Depends... I've had a couple 4P machines in my home before :)
Posted on Reply
#9
El Fiendo
mdm-adph said:
Well, let's compare girls to GPU's -- yeah, you'd have 79.1% of the girls compared to AMD's 12.8%, but you'd be getting all the fat, slow, ugly ones. :laugh:
To GPUs? Erm, alright? Yes Intel's on-board graphics suck but I fail to see how that relates to what I said.

If you want to compare CPUs I still fail to see how Intel will be slower, fatter and uglier considering current Intel seems to be winning vs. current AMD. Fat bottomed girls make the rocking world go round, perhaps?
Posted on Reply
#10
suraswami
btarunr said:
Running costs will be pocket-change for a datacenter.
True, but there is this new trend about virtualizing and consolidating, saving energy, saving the planet thing going on. So if this monster is going to shut down say 24 dual-core servers then its a real change in the pocket.:D
Posted on Reply
#11
Cuzza
gotta heat your basement somehow
Posted on Reply
#12
pr0n Inspector
I loled at some people's routine anti-establishment comments.
Posted on Reply
#13
Chicken Patty
WCG Moderator
aj28 said:
I wouldn't say so, because these aren't designed to be desktop chips. Then again, if you ask me, i7 is a server chip too. It really has no place in the desktop market today because it provides such limited benefits to home users, at a huge increase in cost. AMD could release this thing on the desktop side if they wanted to, but the fact of the matter is it would be a bloated, power-sucking piece of junk which, while hella fast, gives no tangible advantage to the vast majority of users in that piece of the market... Just like i7.
Hi buddy, you mind explaining the above in bold and underlined text

Not trying to argue, just curious as to what made you think that. Thanks :toast:
Posted on Reply
#14
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
This is about a big development in the field of enterprise computing. That said, eventually everyone will need a 48-core machine/something this powerful to accomplish relatively "basic computing". If I'm wrong, 640K [of memory] should've been enough for anyone™.
Posted on Reply
#15
Flyordie
A Cheese Danish said:
Hooray for 12 core Opty's! :D
I may have to get a few :rolleyes:
I have 2x Istanbuls clocking in at 3.0Ghz each. 12 Cores total... ;-p Expect some good performing parts.
(loaded all 12 cores gives me 314W from the wall..... Everything else was idle... HDDs were sleeping... ect.. 2 highspeed 102CFM 120mm fans... )
Posted on Reply
#16
MKmods
Case Mod Guru
Now if AMD would allow the 4 Nvidia Tesla cards to run on it we would finally have a comp that may max out Crysis...
Posted on Reply
#17
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
the least they could do is set it up on a 52 inch hdtv. not some crappy 22 inch monitor...
Posted on Reply
#18
aj28
Chicken Patty said:
Hi buddy, you mind explaining the above in bold and underlined text

Not trying to argue, just curious as to what made you think that. Thanks :toast:
Fact of the matter is, unless you're dealing with video encoding and/or protein folding on a daily basis, the i7 is absolute overkill for desktop use. Given that both of these tasks are or soon will be more efficiently executed on modern GPU cores, I really don't see a place for i7 outside of server rooms.

It's a great chip, don't get me wrong. Intel has pretty much blown AMD away on the performance front, and I'm sure they're making a tidy profit doing it, but I just don't see it as having a practical use to the majority of the desktop market.

Bear in mind that this is all being said in response to the implied notion of Magny-Cours on desktop, not as any kind of forward attack on Intel and/or their products.
Posted on Reply
#19
Chicken Patty
WCG Moderator
aj28 said:
Fact of the matter is, unless you're dealing with video encoding and/or protein folding on a daily basis, the i7 is absolute overkill for desktop use. Given that both of these tasks are or soon will be more efficiently executed on modern GPU cores, I really don't see a place for i7 outside of server rooms.

It's a great chip, don't get me wrong. Intel has pretty much blown AMD away on the performance front, and I'm sure they're making a tidy profit doing it, but I just don't see it as having a practical use to the majority of the desktop market.

Bear in mind that this is all being said in response to the implied notion of Magny-Cours on desktop, not as any kind of forward attack on Intel and/or their products.
Thanks for the explanation, I just wanted to know what was behind this thought. You are correct, however even as a desktop, the performance it brings is nice man. In my case, I crunch two rigs 24/7. My i7 rig is my main everyday PC, but never stops crunching, the HT in this case helps tremendously. But then again that helps prove your point, which means I agree with you :D
Posted on Reply
#20
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
btarunr said:
This is about a big development in the field of enterprise computing. That said, eventually everyone will need a 48-core machine/something this powerful to accomplish relatively "basic computing". If I'm wrong, 640K [of memory] should've been enough for anyone™.
I don't know...

Most applications most people use do not make effective use of parallel processing. If a dual-core is more than enough for you, you might as well throw the difference away on a 48-core machine. Parallel processing really doesn't help anyone but the server/super computing market.

I think it is only a matter of time before people catch on that more cores aren't necessarily better and focus will return to making each individual core faster. Even your most basic of word processors could benefit from a huge IPS, single core processor than it could from a multi-core processor.

The server market and the consumer market did clash for a while but I think it is only a matter of time before the go in different directions again.


Flyordie said:
I have 2x Istanbuls clocking in at 3.0Ghz each. 12 Cores total... ;-p Expect some good performing parts.
(loaded all 12 cores gives me 314W from the wall..... Everything else was idle... HDDs were sleeping... ect.. 2 highspeed 102CFM 120mm fans... )
What's the efficiency of the PSU and how much RAM is in it? I think my 230w estimate is pretty close. :eek:
Posted on Reply
#21
Mussels
Moderprator
FordGT90Concept said:
I don't know...

Most applications most people use do not make effective use of parallel processing. If a dual-core is more than enough for you, you might as well throw the difference away on a 48-core machine. Parallel processing really doesn't help anyone but the server/super computing market.

I think it is only a matter of time before people catch on that more cores aren't necessarily better and focus will return to making each individual core faster. Even your most basic of word processors could benefit from a huge IPS, single core processor than it could from a multi-core processor.

The server market and the consumer market did clash for a while but I think it is only a matter of time before the go in different directions again.



What's the efficiency of the PSU and how much RAM is in it? I think my 230w estimate is pretty close. :eek:
intel agrees with you. they're capping at four cores for their mainstream stuff (775/i5).

There are things that could use more than four cores for a regular user - but they're not something you do very often (encode videos, gaming, etc) - its not a common thing, and it doesnt happen often so most people dont need it.

There are two other points to go along with this: having two cores loaded on a tri or quad core with the last left to make the OS responsive for you to chat, use web browsing etc - thats useful to many people. an extra core can do wonders there.

I forgot the last one. cant have been that good.
Posted on Reply
#22
Easy Rhino
Linux Advocate
i doubt we will ever need a 48 core processor like this one for desktop use. more than likely when we will have successfully used biotechnology to enhance CPUs.
Posted on Reply
#23
Unregistered
FordGT90Concept said:
I don't know...

Most applications most people use do not make effective use of parallel processing. If a dual-core is more than enough for you, you might as well throw the difference away on a 48-core machine. Parallel processing really doesn't help anyone but the server/super computing market.

I think it is only a matter of time before people catch on that more cores aren't necessarily better and focus will return to making each individual core faster. Even your most basic of word processors could benefit from a huge IPS, single core processor than it could from a multi-core processor.

The server market and the consumer market did clash for a while but I think it is only a matter of time before the go in different directions again.
I do a lot of encoding, archiving and some editting. Even 4 cores feels a little tight, but I run into memory issues more often since most of my rigs are at a mere 4GB. This should improve as I get all the rigs on x64 and go to 8Gb as my new standard.

Also, I have at least a dozen windows open most of the time - 4-5 for firefox, file manager, archiving, parity checking, Thunderbird, word, Acrobat (usually at least 1-2), explorer (for the PITA sites), photo viewer, editor, manager, news reader, etc. Plus things like image burn, Virtual box, etc that I use occasionally.
#24
Mussels
Moderprator
twilyth said:
I do a lot of encoding, archiving and some editting. Even 4 cores feels a little tight, but I run into memory issues more often since most of my rigs are at a mere 4GB. This should improve as I get all the rigs on x64 and go to 8Gb as my new standard.

Also, I have at least a dozen windows open most of the time - 4-5 for firefox, file manager, archiving, parity checking, Thunderbird, word, Acrobat (usually at least 1-2), explorer (for the PITA sites), photo viewer, editor, manager, news reader, etc. Plus things like image burn, Virtual box, etc that I use occasionally.
aha!
you made me remember my point two!


you're often limited by your HDD speed as well, so a 48 core machine to be rendering one video task, would need a massive SSD RAID array to keep up anyway!
Posted on Reply
#25
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
twilyth said:
I do a lot of encoding, archiving and some editting. Even 4 cores feels a little tight, but I run into memory issues more often since most of my rigs are at a mere 4GB. This should improve as I get all the rigs on x64 and go to 8Gb as my new standard.

Also, I have at least a dozen windows open most of the time - 4-5 for firefox, file manager, archiving, parity checking, Thunderbird, word, Acrobat (usually at least 1-2), explorer (for the PITA sites), photo viewer, editor, manager, news reader, etc. Plus things like image burn, Virtual box, etc that I use occasionally.
That list is more taxing on your RAM than it is on your CPU. More memory would definitely help.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment