Click

Showing posts with label CPU and Chipset Articles. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CPU and Chipset Articles. Show all posts

Friday, April 26, 2013

Intel's Return to DRAM: Haswell GT3e to Integrate 128MB eDRAM?

 We've known for a while now that Intel will integrate some form of DRAM on-package for the absolute highest end GPU configurations of its upcoming Haswell SoC. Memory bandwidth is a very important enabler of GPU (and multi-core CPU) performance, but delivering enough of it typically required very high speed interfaces (read: high power) and/or very wide interfaces (read: large die areas). Neither of the traditional approaches to scaling memory bandwidth are low power or cost effective, which have kept them out of ultra mobile and integrated processor graphics. 
The days of simple performance scaling by throwing more transistors at a design are quickly coming to an end. Moore's Law will continue but much like the reality check building low power silicon gave us a while ago, building high performance silicon will need some out of the box thinking going forward.
Dating back to Ivy Bridge (3rd gen Core/2012), Intel had plans to integrate some amount of DRAM onto the package in order to drive the performance of its processor graphics. Embedding DRAM onto the package adds cost and heat, and allegedly Paul Otellini wasn't willing to greenlight the production of a part that only Apple would use so it was canned. With Haswell, DRAM is back on the menu and this time it's actually going to come out. We've referred to the Haswell part with embedded DRAM as Haswell GT3e. The GT3 refers to the GPU configuration (40 EUs), while the lowercase e denotes embedded DRAM. Haswell GT3e will only be available in a BGA package (soldered-on, not socketed), and is only expected to appear alongside higher TDP (read: not Ultrabook) parts. The embedded DRAM will increase the thermal load of the SoC, although it shouldn't be as painful as including a discrete GPU + high speed DRAM. Intel's performance target for Haswell GT3e is NVIDIA's GeForce GT 650M. 
What we don't know about GT3e is the type, size and speed of memory that Intel will integrate. Our old friend David Kanter at RealWorldTech presented a good thesis on the answers to those questions. Based on some sound logic and digging through the list of papers to be presented at the 2013 VLSI Technology Symposium in Kyoto, Kanter believes that the title of this soon to be presented Intel paper tells us everything we need to know:
"A 22nm High Performance Embedded DRAM SoC Technology Featuring Tri-Gate Transistors and MIMCAP COB"
According to Kanter's deductions (and somewhat validated by our own sources), Haswell GT3e should come equipped with 128MB of eDRAM connected to the main SoC via a 512-bit bus. Using eDRAM vs. commodity DDR3 makes sense as the former is easier to integrate into Intel's current fabs. There are also power, manufacturability and cost concerns as well that resulted in the creation of Intel's own DRAM design. The interface width is a bit suspect as that would require a fair amount of area at the edges of the Haswell die, but the main takeaway is that we're dealing with a parallel interface. Kanter estimates the bandwidth at roughly 64GB/s, not anywhere near high-end dGPU class but in the realm of what you can expect from a performance mainstream mobile GPU. At 22nm, Intel's eDRAM achieves a density of around 17.5Mbit/mm^2, which works out to be ~60mm^2 for the eDRAM itself. Add in any additional interface logic and Kanter estimates the total die area for the eDRAM component to be around 70 - 80mm^2. Intel is rumored to be charging $50 for the eDRAM adder on top of GT3, which would deliver very good margins for Intel. It's a sneaky play that allows Intel to capture more of the total system BoM (Bill of Materials) that would normally go to a discrete GPU company like NVIDIA, all while increasing utilization of their fabs. NVIDIA will still likely offer better perfoming solutions, not to mention the benefits of much stronger developer relations and a longer history of driver optimization. This is just the beginning however.
Based on leaked documents, the embedded DRAM will act as a 4th level cache and should work to improve both CPU and GPU performance. In server environments, I can see embedded DRAM acting as a real boon to multi-core performance. The obvious fit in the client space is to improve GPU performance in games. At only 128MB I wouldn't expect high-end dGPU levels of performance, but we should see a substantial improvement compared to traditional processor graphics. Long term you can expect Intel to bring eDRAM into other designs. There's an obvious fit with its mobile SoCs, although there we're likely talking about something another 12 - 24 months out.
AMD is expected to integrate a GDDR5 memory controller in its future APUs, similar to what it has done with the PlayStation 4 SoC, as its attempt to solve the memory bandwidth problem for processor based graphics.


Tuesday, April 23, 2013

Origin Genesis Review: Triple Titan Terror



As some of you might recall, as part of NVIDIA’s GTX Titan launch NVIDIA not only sent out individual cards, but also some custom concept systems to showcase the unique aspects of Titan. Specifically its high quality construction and how its blower-style cooler means it can be exploited to pack high performance systems into relatively small spaces. NVIDIA shipped us two such concept systems, a small form factor (SFF) Falcon Northwest Tiki, and at the opposite end of the spectrum was the obscenely powerful tri-SLI Origin Genesis.
Of course that was almost two months ago, and there’s no getting around the fact that as the reviewer assigned to the Genesis I’ve ended up turning in this review very late. An initial delay to focus on the Titan launch turned into a serious illness, followed by not one but two conferences, two more video card launches, and some other fun stuff in between. So living up to the motto “better late than never”, now that everything has settled down (relatively speaking) I can finally pick back up where I left off and finish our look at Titan with the final piece of the puzzle: Origin’s monster gaming machine.
With the Genesis the idea was that Origin would put together a triple Titan system to showcase just how quiet Titan’s blower-style coolers were even when the cards were tightly packed together. Instead Origin unexpectedly exceeded NVIDIA’s specifications and was able to get three Titans hooked up to water in time for the Titan launch. The end result somewhat defeats the original purpose of sending the system out – we can’t tell you what three stock Titans sounds like – but in the end we got something far more interesting: three Titans hooked up to water, creating a tri-SLI system effectively unrestrained by heat and cooled by one of the only things quieter than NVIDIA’s blowers. Ultimately if one Titan on its own is powerful, then three Titans is nothing short of obscene. This is the same sentiment behind the Origin’s Genesis system we’re reviewing today.
In Origin’s product lineup, Genesis is Origin’s brand for their line full-tower computers. As a boutique builder, Origin uses a number of different configurations on their Genesis lineup, offering multiple CPU/motherboard combinations and multiple cases under the same Genesis heading. As a result Genesis spans everything from relatively simple systems to XL-ATX monsters.
The Genesis system we’ll be looking at today is positioned at the top end of that lineup, and is intended to be the fastest thing that can be put together in an ATX form factor. Sparing no expense, Origin has assembled a Genesis system that packs in Origin’s best components, best cooling, greatest overclocks, and highest price tag. Based around the combination of a Corsair Obsidian 800D case, NVIDIA’s GTX Titan, and Intel’s X79/SNB-E platform, it’s a luxury computer like no other.
With that thought in mind, let’s take a look at just how a $9,000 luxury gaming computer is built and configured.



Origin Genesis (2013) Specifications
ChassisCorsair Obsidian 800D
ProcessorIntel Core i7-3970X
(6x3.5GHz + HTT, Turbo to 4.0GHz, 4.9GHz Overclock, 32nm, 15MB L3, 150W)
MotherboardIntel DX79SR(X79 Chipset)
Memory4x4GB Corsair Vengeance DDR3-1866 (expandable to 64GB)
Graphics3x NVIDIA GeForce GTX Titan 6GB in SLI
3x (2688 CUDA cores, 837/6008MHz core/RAM, 952/6208MHz Overclock, 384-bit memory bus)
Storage2x Corsair Neutron GTX 120GB SATA 6Gbps SSD (LAMD), RAID-0
Western Digital Caviar Black 1TB 7200-RPM SATA HDD
Optical Drive(s)Hitachi-LG 14x BD Burner
Power SupplyCorsair AX1200i
Networking2x Intel 82579L Gigabit Ethernet
AudioRealtek ALC892
Speaker, mic/line-in, surround jacks, optical out for 7.1 sound
Front SideOptical drive
40-In-1 Media Card Reader
2x USB 2.0
2x USB 3.0
IEEE 1394a
Headphone and mic jacks
4-channel fan controller
Koolance RP-401X2 Reservoir
Top-
Back Side4x USB 3.0
6x USB 2.0
Optical out
IEEE 1394a
2x Ethernet
Speaker, mic/line-in, surround, and optical jacks
6x DVI-D (3x GTX Titan)
3x HDMI (3x GTX Titan)
2x DisplayPort (3x GTX Titan)
Operating SystemWindows 7 Ultimate 64-bit SP1
Dimensions24" x 9" x 24"
(609.6mm x 228.6mm x 609.6mm)
ExtrasCard reader
Custom liquid-cooling loop, CPU & GPU
Custom LED lighting
80 Plus Platinum PSU
Warranty1-year parts, 45 days shipping, lifetime labor and 24/7 support
PricingAs configured: $8,499 (+$479 paint job)

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Puget Systems Serenity SPCR Edition: Blissful Silence

Introducing the Puget Systems Serenity SPCR Edition
This is our second review unit from the Washington-based Puget Systems (our first was several years ago when they were first starting out), and it's a doozy. While the P67/H67 chipset recall has proven to be a boot to the collective breadbasket of the industry, we were fortunate enough to get the Serenity SPCR Edition in before the recall hit, and Puget was kind enough to let us review it anyhow. That seems reasonable, since the SATA bug in the chipset isn't liable to affect any of our test results outside of PCMark, leaving us with an opportunity to show you a remarkable system that you'll be able to get your hands on in the near future.
Puget Systems' has also issued a post discussing how they'll handle systems with the SNB chipset bug. The short summary is that they'll let you continue to use your system and send it in for a replacement motherboard when those become available, or they'll ship you a PCIe SATA controller to use in place of the affected SATA ports. It's a nice change of pace from the motherboard side of things, as Puget Systems will let you use your new system now, and get the problem fixed in the next few months with a minimum of hassle. With that out of the way, let's look at the system we received for review.
Puget Systems' Serenity line of computers are designed to maximize silent operation, with the SPCR Edition being the quietest system in their lineup. This tower is designed in cooperation with Silent PC Review and independently certified by them to run at a staggeringly low 11db; the regular Serenity models have a noise ceiling of 20db, which is still impressively quiet. If you're wondering whether the Serenity SPCR lives up to that claim, we can't tell you: the unit is inaudible unless you put your ear against the side (even under heavy load), and operates below the noise floor of my apartment at any hour. Simply put, we're not equipped to measure the noise level of something this quiet. So how is our review unit outfitted?
Puget Systems Serenity SPCR Edition Specifications
Chassis Antec P183 (Customized)
Processor Intel Core i5-2500K @ 3.3GHz
(spec: 4x3.3GHz, 32nm, 6MB L3, 95W)
Motherboard ASUS P8P67 Pro Motherboard with P67 chipset
Memory 2x4GB Kingston HyperX DDR3-1333 @ 1333MHz (expandable to 16GB)
Graphics PowerColor Radeon HD 5750 1024MB GDDR5 with Passive Cooler
(720 Stream Processors, 700MHz Core, 4.6GHz RAM, 128-bit memory bus)
Hard Drive(s) Intel X25-M 34nm Gen 2 120GB SSD
Western Digital Caviar Green 1.5TB
Optical Drive(s) ASUS DVD+/-RW Combo Drive
Networking Intel Gigabit Ethernet
Bluetooth 2.1+EDR
Audio Realtek ALC892 HD Audio
Speaker, mic, line-in, and surround jacks for 7.1 sound
Digital and optical out
Front Side Optical Drive
2x USB 2.0
eSATA
Headphone and mic jacks
Top -
Back Side 2x PS/2
Digital and optical out
2x eSATA
6x USB 2.0
6-pin FireWire
Ethernet
2x USB 3.0
Speaker, mic, line-in, and surround jacks for 7.1 sound
Operating System Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit
Dimensions 19.9" x 20.25" x 8.1" (WxDxH)
Weight 31 lbs (case only)
Extras Antec CP-850 850W Power Supply
Gelid Tranquilo CPU Cooler
Scythe Silent Fans
Silent Case Modification
Warranty 1-year limited warranty and lifetime phone support
Pricing SPCR Edition starts at $1,550
Review system quoted at $2,149
For most of this review we were able to handpick and outfit the tower with the components of our choice; as a result the Intel Core i5-2500K we chose didn't ship overclocked and Puget Systems doesn't offer overclocking on this model (though you can still do it yourself). By now you already know that Sandy Bridge processors are the fastest clock-for-clock on the market, and also among the most efficient (which our thermal and power consumption testing will bear out).
If you're a little bit underwhelmed by the Radeon HD 5750 in our review unit, don't be. This 5750 is arguably the fastest passively-cooled card on the market (only the Sparkle GTS 450 really competes), and is included in this build for what should be obvious reasons. Our rep did tell us that a passively-cooled Radeon HD 6850 is in the works right now; when that becomes available expect it to be offered with the Serenity SPCR Edition. That said, just because it's fanless doesn't mean it's slower: this 5750 runs at spec.
As for the parts we didn't choose, most of them make sense, though the lack of a card reader is disappointing when most of the review units we've seen include one as a matter of course. An SSD is a shoo-in with no moving parts to produce noise—though you could argue for using a SandForce-based drive instead of the Intel one—and the inclusion of the Western Digital Caviar Green sacrifices some performance in the name of silent running. A basic DVD+/-RW combo drive instead of a Blu-ray drive was disappointing, but the upgrades are at least available for a reasonable price. Puget Systems claims on their website to test individual components and cherry pick them and I can believe it. And finally, a brief thumbs up for including 8GB of DDR3 instead of 4GB in the review unit. This really should be standard and it's perplexing why so many of our review towers don't ship with 8GB at this point.
Finally, wrapping everything up is the Antec P183 enclosure. The P183 is often regarded as among the quietest cases available, but as you'll see Puget Systems takes it a few steps further in the name of silent operation. If I could really complain about anything, the Antec CP-850 power supply seems like gross overkill for a machine with specs this modest. You'll see in our power consumption testing that it's not really an issue, though.

Saturday, December 25, 2010

AMD’s Radeon HD 6800 Series & Llano “Fusion” APU: A Story in Pictures

AMD’s Radeon HD 6800 Series & Llano “Fusion” APU: A Story in Pictures
We happen to have the AMD Radeon HD 6870 and Radeon HD 6850 in-house for testing at the moment. We wanted to play Show & Tell, but the nice people from AMD’s Legal Department say that we’re not allowed to tell you anything about these cards quite yet. But they are letting us go ahead and show you the cards, so without further ado:
Radeon HD 6870

 


 
Gallery: AMD Radeon HD 6870
Radeon HD 6850

 

 
Gallery: AMD Radeon HD 6850
Llano
While we were at AMD’s latest press event to see the Radeon HD 6800 series, we also had the opportunity to take a quick look at an AMD prototype board housing a Llano APU. AMD is publically showcasing the Llano demo board at the AMD Technical Forum & Exhibition in Taiwan this week, which means we’re finally allowed to discuss what we saw.
At this point AMD isn’t telling us much about Llano. Besides being on a prototype board, we don’t know much else about the hardware other than that there was a Llano APU running on the board. We don’t know the clockspeeds of the CPU or the GPU, but as with most prototypes we’d imagine both are lower than they will be when it ships. AMD had the Llano prototype running Windows 7, and on top of that running the Alien vs. Predator rolling demo. The demo was running with its default quality settings at a resolution of 1024x768. The framerate wasn't being displayed, but we'd guesstimate it to be in the mid-to-high 20's; not quite high enough to be smooth, but you could probably play on it in a pinch.

Llano Running the Aliens vs. Predator Benchmark

Note: Llano is the chip under the copper pipped heatsink; that's not a NB/SB chip
AMD is also showing additional applications at TFE that we didn't get to see, including SuperPi and Blu-Ray playback in order to showcase the APU's multitasking capabilities when it comes to stressing the GPU and CPU portions simultaniously.
And speaking of TFE and APUs, AMD is also showing off Zacate at the show, which we saw last month opposite to Intel's IDF.

AMD's Chris Cloran showing off a Zacate promotional video

Previewing AMD's Brazos, Part 1: More Details on Zacate/Ontario and Fusion

I hate to keep things from you all, but last week I was diligently working in a room at AMD’s new campus in Austin, Texas. You see, AMD wanted to give us more time with the Brazos/Zacate platform we tested at IDFahead of its official launch. It’s too early for production worthy OEM systems and AMD wasn’t too keen on these reference platforms leaving its offices so it did the next best thing: fly us out to test the systems on AMD’s campus.
The rules were simple. We couldn’t run anything that would harm the system, but other than that we were free to bring whatever we wanted and test however we wanted. AMD dropped by our private room to check to see if we needed anything but other than that, it was all hands off.

The Brazos test platform
While I’d love to share performance data with you today, I can’t. You’ll have to wait another week or so for that. What AMD is allowing us to talk about are the specific configurations AMD’s first Fusion APUs will ship in and general impressions from the testing. Specific benchmarks are off limits unfortunately.
The platform felt final as far as stability goes. I didn’t encounter any crashes during my several hours of non-stop testing. Performance is also indicative of what will ship early next year. The system felt quick (very 11-inch MacBook Air like if you catch my drift) but you have to keep in mind that Zacate and its lower powered sibling Ontario will be used in systems priced between $299 - $549.

VIA's Dual Core Nano & VN1000 Chipset Previewed

I haven’t had an official product briefing with VIA in years. The last time I met with a representative from the company was two years ago outside of IDF in San Francisco. Before then, it was probably around 4 years.
VIA was the first casualty of integration in the PC space. Today we’re all talking about moving graphics onto the processor die, but a few years ago we were having similar discussions about moving the memory controller and north bridge on die. As a manufacturer of chipsets (north and south bridges) for CPUs, VIA lost relevance in the x86 CPU market as the need for a third party chipset maker faded.
VIA’s recent visit to me in Raleigh, NC had two purposes according to the company. One, to remind me that VIA was still around and to give me some face to face time with a VIA representative (appreciated). And two, to showcase VIA’s dual-core Nano platform and brand new integrated graphics chipset (intriguing).
For those of you who don’t know, Nano is VIA’s answer to Atom, except it came along long before Atom did. Just like Atom, Nano was designed in Texas but by VIA’s Centaur team - a microprocessor company it acquired several years back. Centaur’s speciality was low power microarchitectures, and Nano is exactly that.
Compared to Atom, Nano is a bit of a beast. Both Atom and AMD’s Bobat core can fetch and issue up to two instructions. Nano can do three. Like AMD’s Bobcat, Nano has a full out of order execution engine. Atom, for the time being, is in-order.
The execution engine is well matched to the front end. Nano features seven dispatch ports and can retire up to three instructions per clock. In this sense, Nano is more like AMD’s Bobcat than Intel’s Atom. In fact, those two should be better matched than Atom vs. Nano.

VIA's Nano
Nano has other advantages over Atom. It features a hardware encryption engine. Something VIA introduced long before Intel’s AES-NI in Westmere. All of these features come at the expense of power consumption. Nano should be faster, but it draws more power than Atom.
VIA is a fabless semiconductor manufacturer, its Nano processor and associated chipset are both fabbed at TSMC in Taiwan. Nano is currently a 65nm design although VIA plans to take it to 40nm in 2011.
The dual-core Nano that VIA dropped off is architecturally identical to the existing Nano. Similar to the dual-core CPUs, DC Nano is literally two Nano die placed alongside one another. The L2 caches are private and all core-to-core communication happens externally via the Nano’s latest chipset: VIA’s VN1000. The dual-core die measures 8.5 mm x 16 mm (136mm^2 total area) on a 21 mm x 21 mm BGA package.
Ironically enough, VIA hasn’t integrated a memory controller into its own CPU design. Although to VIA’s credit, the CPU’s performance is competitive without it. I suspect VIA will deliver a more integrated version of Nano within the next 12 - 18 months.
While the dual core Nano improves competitiveness with Intel’s Atom, it’s the VN1000 that’s a huge step forward. These days everyone is talking about graphics and VIA is no exception. The VN1000 integrates S3’s Chrome 520, a brand new DirectX 10 GPU. VIA was light on architectural details other than to state that it has 32 stream processors and 4 texture sampling units. The VN1000 die is nearly as big as the CPU at 100mm^2 on a 65nm process. VIA claims that the 520’s performance is easily good enough for mainstream graphics.
Armed with a reference ATX motherboard, I was eager to verify those claims. Note that this review appears a lot later than expected as our original DC Nano reference board was damaged in transport. It wouldn't do anything beyond POST so what you're looking at is our second sample.

The Brazos Performance Preview: AMD E-350 Benchmarked

Last week I mentioned that I had recently spent some time with AMD down in Austin, TX, benchmarking its upcoming Brazos platform. The Brazos platform is composed of an AMD Zacate or Ontario APU and the Fusion Controller Hub (a South Bridge based on the SB800 series). Brazos systems will run the gamut of mainstream notebook, netbook and nettop segments ranging from $299 to around $500. While AMD let us reveal the fact that we tested Brazos, we weren't allowed to publish numbers last week. Today, we can.
I didn’t have much time with Brazos. The AMD briefing started at 9AM, but AMD wanted to go through some marketing slides and answer questions before letting us at Brazos. Going into this whole thing I was worried that I wouldn’t have enough time to run everything I wanted to run. You see, the system I had access to wasn’t pre-configured. It had Windows 7 x64 loaded on it, drivers installed and PCMark Vantage - but everything else was up to me. Despite having a 128GB Crucial RealSSD C300, installing a dozen applications and games still took hours on the system. I asked AMD if I could at least begin copying/installing some applications before we started the briefing, they gladly entertained my request.
I brought an SSD full of applications, games and benchmarks that I wanted to run on the Brazos platform. I purposefully avoided any large test suites (PCMark Vantage, SYSMark) because they would eat up a lot of time and I had no idea how long the rest of the benchmarking would take.

The Brazos test platform
I also didn’t run any of our media streaming suite. The Zacate/Ontario APUs feature AMD’s UVD3 engine and should, in theory, have similar media playback features to the Radeon HD 6000 series. Of course once we have final systems it’ll be easier to put this to the test. I was mainly interested in characterizing the CPU and GPU performance of Brazos, the two major unknowns.
I didn’t get into the full swing of testing until just before 11AM, and we had a hard stop at 5PM. That didn’t leave a ton of time, but I believe it left enough to get a good idea for what Brazos will perform like in the real world.
As I mentioned in Part 1 of our coverage, the system felt snappy. I had the 11-inch MacBook Air on hand (it served as my Excel-runner while I benchmarked) and interacting with the OS felt no different between the Brazos system and the 1.6GHz MBA. That being said, the MBA is technically much quicker (and more expensive).
AMD Brazos Lineup
APU ModelNumber of Bobcat CoresCPU Clock SpeedGPUNumber of GPU CoresGPU Clock SpeedTDP
AMD E-35021.6GHzRadeon HD 631080500MHz18W
AMD E-24011.5GHzRadeon HD 631080500MHz18W
AMD C-5021.0GHzRadeon HD 625080280MHz9W
AMD C-3011.2GHzRadeon HD 625080280MHz9W
The system I tested had AMD’s E-350 processor, the highest end APU you’ll find on a Brazos. This is the chip you’ll find in $400 nettops and notebooks in the $400 - $500 range. This puts its direct competition as really expensive Atom based netbooks, Pentium dual-core notebooks and low end Core i3 notebooks. While the latter two should easily outperform the E-350 in CPU intensive tasks, the GPU comparison is another story entirely. It’s also worth noting that the E-350 carries an 18W TDP (including graphics). During my testing I measured a maximum total system power consumption of around 30W (including the 1366 x 768 LCD panel) while playing games and around 25W while encoding H.264 on the two Bobcat cores. The system idled around 15W however AMD cautioned me that this number was unnaturally high. Final Brazos systems will be far more power optimized and AMD expects numbers to drop down to as low as 5.6W.
AMD is confident we will see Brazos based systems deliver well beyond 6 hours of battery life. AMD's goal is to deliver Atom like battery life and form factors, with a real GPU and hopefully better than Atom performance. We spent our time in Austin trying to find out if its goals were realistic.