Friday, January 17th 2014
AMD Readies 16-core Processors with Full Uncore
AMD released developer documentation for a new processor it's working on, and the way it's worded describes a chip with 8 modules, working out to 16 cores, on a single piece of silicon, referred to as Family 15h Models 30h - 3fh. This is not to be confused with the company's Opteron 6300-series "Abu Dhabi" chips, which are multi-chip modules of two 8-core dies, in the G34 package.
What's more, unlike the current "Abu Dhabi" and "Seoul" chips, the new silicon features a full-fledged uncore, complete with a PCI-Express gen 3.0 root complex that's integrated into the processor die. In what's more proof that it's a single die with 8 modules and not an MCM of two dies with 4 modules each, the document describes the die as featuring four HyperTransport links; letting it pair with four other processors in 4P multi-socket configurations. Such systems would feature a total core count of 64. There's no clarity on which exact micro-architecture the CPU modules are based on. Without doubt, AMD is designing this chip for its Opteron enterprise product stack, but it should also give us a glimmer of hope that AMD could continue to serve up high-performance client CPU, only ones that can't be based on socket AM3+.
Source:
Planet3DNow.de
What's more, unlike the current "Abu Dhabi" and "Seoul" chips, the new silicon features a full-fledged uncore, complete with a PCI-Express gen 3.0 root complex that's integrated into the processor die. In what's more proof that it's a single die with 8 modules and not an MCM of two dies with 4 modules each, the document describes the die as featuring four HyperTransport links; letting it pair with four other processors in 4P multi-socket configurations. Such systems would feature a total core count of 64. There's no clarity on which exact micro-architecture the CPU modules are based on. Without doubt, AMD is designing this chip for its Opteron enterprise product stack, but it should also give us a glimmer of hope that AMD could continue to serve up high-performance client CPU, only ones that can't be based on socket AM3+.
92 Comments on AMD Readies 16-core Processors with Full Uncore
AMD is probably doing whatever is cost effective for them and the most beneficial to them in the long term, although we probably can't see it now their key shareholders sat in a meeting and agreed this strategy, and right or wrong this was their best solution.I agree. Improving single threaded performance should be secondary. There isn't a single game or application that the average desktop user can't do.
When the need for more cores becomes necessary the work AMD did on their multiple module design will pay off. Even Intel's hyper threading wasn't successful at first, it took lots of trial and error and a decade later we all see the benefits. Same thing with AMD module principle.
When I record PC games, more CPU core is required for x264VFW.
Seriousy though, newtekies idea with a unified socket is great. I'd buy into that.
No need to feel disappointed for me. You can have your disappointment back. Here.
Sure, I can get the same or even better MT performance with a 6-core HT'ed Intel. But for what? 2x the price or even more? Thanks, but no thanks.
P.S. +1 to what newtekie1 saidOkay, I kept deciding on not pointing this out, but I will. Since people tend to needlessly bash AMD for inefficient design when it comes to power consumption.
Example, sorted from most to least watts allocated to a single core:
OH SNAP it appears that if we consider how much TDP is allocated to a single core, it doesn't look like AMD CPUs are inefficient – the power per core is quite low, relatively. Which is only possible if the cores are efficient enough.>completely disappointed me and everyone else
>implying
>implying
You are implying too much, sir.
P.S. I totally love it.Yeah, what He said. When You, @RCoon, say "and everyone else", You take on quite a bit of responsibility, Ya know...
Let's not kid ourselves. Intel CPUs are more energy efficient than AMD CPUs, that's a given, but AMD CPUs aren't terribly inefficient considering their core count.
And my FX-8320 only goes close to TDP when overclocked, where it hovers around 120-123 W on full load, as reported by internal sensors or whatever sh*t.
And when I overclock More Than I Should™, it appears to drop my voltage on load to zealously keep the power consumption below 124.75W no matter what. Unless I disable lotsa stuff and turn on several overrides (can't find a better word) that my previous mobo didn't even have. (So my previous mobo was zealously keeping the power draw like this all the time)
So, from what I saw with my own eyes, saying that AMD's TDP is "average power draw" must be very much false.Real smooth. That just shows You are out of arguments and don't have anything genuinely useful to say. Aww well...
EDIT: That being said, AMD tests with lower binned parts so you could say that it's TDP is an average of the lowest binned CPUs.
It could be that your motherboard is undervolting your CPU, my GA-880GM-USB3 undervolts my 8350 to 1.28v when I set voltage on AUTO.
come on AMD
On Tpu most ardent members in actuality smash efficiency to the kerb in favour of Ghz or even Mhz gains , this is not Eco power up that's elsewhere and to the likes of me a few watts means nothing get over it.
Sdp is coming to Amd parts soon enough mark my words as intels subterfuge seams to have blinded their fans.
Far to busy kidding myself to rise to Rcoons Bs.
IMHO, HSA needs to be pushed from the ARM front too if it wants get full-scale traction.
1) AMD chips have a higher TDP than Intel, so they must be more efficient.
No. AMD and Intel do measure chips differently. Between chips being measured differently, and completely differing architecture, efficiency cases can be made for both sides. There is no clear winner here.
2) Intel chips don't clock as high as AMD ones, so AMD makes better chips.
This one is generally true. If you're looking for bragging rights about the highest clock, then AMD wins. The reality is that both manufacturers' chips take huge amounts of power to do this. You don't run a CPU at peak frequencies constantly, unless you want a huge bill and rapidly deteriorating chip. For every day use, either manufacturer produces a relatively solidly performing chip.
3) Intel and AMD don't measure cores the same.
Absolutely. Intel has traditional cores, while AMD decided to share a component among the cores. A four core Intel chip doesn't match the 4 core AMD chip, a two core with hyper-threading chip doesn't match a 4 core AMD chip, and none of this matters. This is not a move for the consumer CPU market. In that market only a handful of program use more than a couple of cores. People using more cores are doing server related work, crunching, or running encoding software.
Now that the silly arguments have been made, can we get back on topic? AMD looks to be firing for the server market, without any bashfulness. Assuming this is the case, it seems like they are making a large step back into competing with Intel. This bodes well for more reasonably priced servers, but more importantly could be parlayed into something interesting on the desktop CPU front. Anyone care to comment on that, rather than on how much they think the current parts are either awesome or terrible?