• 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.

Joined
Mar 23, 2005
Messages
3,786 (0.67/day)
Location
Ancient Greece, Acropolis (Time Lord)
System Name RiseZEN Gaming PC
Processor AMD Ryzen 7 1700X @ stock - (ZEN3 v2.1 Prototype)
Motherboard ASRock Fatal1ty X370 GAMING X AM4
Cooling Corsair H115i PRO RGB, 280mm Radiator, Dual 140mm ML Series PWM Fans
Memory G.Skill TridentZ 32GB (2 x 16GB) DDR4 3200
Video Card(s) Sapphire Radeon RX 580 8GB Nitro+ SE + (RDNA2 v1.2 Prototype)
Storage Corsair Force MP500 480GB M.2 (OS) + Force MP510 480GB M.2 (Steam/Games)
Display(s) Asus 27" (MG278Q) 144Hz WQHD 1440p + 1 x Asus 24" (VG245H) FHD 75Hz 1080p
Case Corsair Obsidian Series 450D Gaming Case
Audio Device(s) SteelSeries 5Hv2 w/ ASUS Xonar DGX PCI-E GX2.5 Audio Engine Sound Card
Power Supply Corsair TX750W Power Supply
Mouse Razer DeathAdder PC Gaming Mouse - Ergonomic Left Hand Edition
Keyboard Logitech G15 Classic Gaming Keyboard
Software Windows 10 Pro - 64-Bit Edition
Benchmark Scores WHO? I'm the Doctor. The Definition of Gaming is PC Gaming...
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.
 

JF-AMD

AMD Rep (Server)
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
163 (0.04/day)
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.
 

de.das.dude

Pro Indian Modder
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
8,278 (2.20/day)
Location
Pune
System Name Biggest Investment | Dell OptiPlex
Processor FX 8320 | intel i7 8700
Motherboard ASRock 990FX Extreme 4 | Some OEM stuff
Cooling CM Hyper 212 EVO push:pull+ 1 panaflow 113CFM + 2 x 120mm NZXTs | Turbo Jet (sounds like it)
Memory 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair Vengeance 1600MHz CL9 | 16 x 2 GB DDR4 2666MHz
Video Card(s) Sappghire Pulse RX 580 8GB | Shit Inside
Storage 250GB Samsung EVO860 | 2x 1TB WD10EZEX | WD 500GB Green
Display(s) Dell 2240L | 2x Dell E1916H
Case NZXT Guardian 921RB(@home) and Antec ASK4000B U3(Current) | Teeny
Audio Device(s) Logitech Z333
Power Supply Corsair GS600 | Probably delta
Mouse Logitech G400, F310, F710
Keyboard Circle RGB gaming shitboard.
Software Windows 10 Professional
Benchmark Scores i dont have any marks on my bench
OMG! you work for AMD!!!! i am so jealous.
 
W

wahdangun

Guest
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.

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

cadaveca

My name is Dave
Joined
Apr 10, 2006
Messages
17,104 (3.24/day)
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.
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.

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

JF-AMD

AMD Rep (Server)
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
163 (0.04/day)
hmm interesting, so basically why AMD redesign it if that was not the problem ?
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.)
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
868 (0.22/day)
Location
Toronto, ON. Canada
System Name Gamers PC
Processor AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE @ 3.80 GHz
Motherboard MSI 790FX-GD70 AM3
Cooling Corsair H50 Cooler
Memory Corsair XMS3 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3-1333
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon HD 5770 1GB GDDR5
Storage 2 x WD Caviar Green 1TB SATA300 w/64MB Buffer (RAID 0)
Display(s) Samsung 2494SW 1080p 24" WS LCD HD
Case CM HAF 932 Full Tower Case
Audio Device(s) Creative SB X-FI TITANIUM -PCIE x 1
Power Supply Corsair TX Series CMPSU-650TX (650W)
Software Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
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. :)
 

JF-AMD

AMD Rep (Server)
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
163 (0.04/day)
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. :)
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.
 
Joined
Jan 20, 2010
Messages
868 (0.22/day)
Location
Toronto, ON. Canada
System Name Gamers PC
Processor AMD Phenom II X4 965 BE @ 3.80 GHz
Motherboard MSI 790FX-GD70 AM3
Cooling Corsair H50 Cooler
Memory Corsair XMS3 4GB (2x2GB) DDR3-1333
Video Card(s) XFX Radeon HD 5770 1GB GDDR5
Storage 2 x WD Caviar Green 1TB SATA300 w/64MB Buffer (RAID 0)
Display(s) Samsung 2494SW 1080p 24" WS LCD HD
Case CM HAF 932 Full Tower Case
Audio Device(s) Creative SB X-FI TITANIUM -PCIE x 1
Power Supply Corsair TX Series CMPSU-650TX (650W)
Software Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit
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.
 
Joined
Jul 5, 2007
Messages
180 (0.04/day)
Unganged, while not true 4-channel, splits the dual channel 128-bit controller into two 64-bit dual channel controllers. Most users are running 64-bit memorycontrol...and for some reason, it seems to be faster than 128-bit mode. They clearly need to fix 128-bit mode. Once they do, they should be on-par, if not better, than Intel's current solutions.
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.
 
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
2,132 (0.51/day)
Location
Chicago burbs
System Name Halloween Boo!
Processor Intel Core i7 3770K
Motherboard Gigabyte Z77-Up7
Cooling Custom Water/ Thermalchill TA 120.3/ Swiftech Apogeee XT/ MCP655/ Swiftech M icrores/ XSPC RX 240
Memory 16G G.Skill trident 2400MHz
Video Card(s) 3 x Radeon 7970
Storage OCZ Revo Drive 240G
Display(s) 24 inch Viewsonic
Case Phobia WayCoolIt Test Bench
Power Supply Nexus 1100 watt
Great to see them redesigning the memory controller for some faster access times.

Why still no move to triple channel though?, don't see anything wrong with more memory bandwidth.(though dual channel is still sufficient)

I also hope there 8 cores and mobo's are pretty cheap, may move up to Bulldozer if they are.:)

No need for Triple channel. Performance is pretty much equal with dual vs. triple.
 
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
149 (0.05/day)
Processor Intel i7-3770k
Motherboard Asus P8Z68-V LX
Cooling GeminII S524
Memory 16GB Corsair Vengeance LP 1600MHz
Video Card(s) R9 290 with NZXT G10
Storage OCZ Vertex 4 120Gb, 1.5 TB Seagate Barracuda, 3TB Seagate Barracuda
Display(s) 27" Achieva Shimian
Case NZXT Switch 810
Power Supply OCZ ModXStream Pro 600W
Holy thread revival Batman!
 
Top