If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 06:14:02 GMT, Wes Newell
wrote: On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:22:51 -0700, YKhan wrote: not only improve the design of chips, but it actually redesign some very basic concepts of its chips. One example is that the ubiquitous front-side bus (FSB), namely AMD got rid of it! The FSB was the method by which PC chips had connected to their peripheral devices and its memory ever since the first 8088 IBM PC-XT. AMD threw out the FSB, and replaced it with two seperate connections, one for the memory and one for the peripherals. For clearity, AMD didn't get rid of the FSB, they just stopped calling it a FSB, even though that's what it still is, by definition. The term FSB came about with Intel's Pentium Pro, where the dual chip CPU/L2 cache package contained a BSB (Back Side Bus) connection between the CPU chip and L2 cache chip. Until then the CPU system bus had carried CPU - L2 cache data as well as I/O and memory transfers. By definition, a FSB carried all CPU-memory and CPU-I/O transfers... but not CPU-L2 cache transfers. To me calling AMD's HT a FSB is about as valid as continuing to use North Bridge & South Bridge for the two chips normally used in a chipset - it's not really applicable any more but people will say it as a convenience term They did however move the memory controller onto the cpu, so that ram data now has it's own data path to the CPU. This move, and not the move to an HT link for the FSB is where the major performance gain was made. With the move to the seperate memory bus, the FSB (now a serial HT link, instead of a paralell bus) speed is of little importance. As recently discussed here, HyperTransport is not a serial bus - it *is* packetized and it is point-to-point/uni-directional but each byte-width path has a separate clock signal and the chip/system designers have to pay close attention to clock skew. As far as speed, with current Athlon64 systems, the 2-byte-wide down-link from CPU-chipset-PCI-e(x16) is, in theory, maxed out at the 1GHz clock rate. Put another way, the current PCI-e x16 graphics path has a max bandwidth of 4.1GB/s; the HT down-link has a max bandwidth of 4GB/s so in theory, at least, it would be possible for memory-graphics transfers to saturate the HT down-link. I don't think this is a problem for the moment but add in that the 4GB/s HT up-link for an integrated graphics chipset could be seriously stressed and cause HT traffic contention, it could lead to problems down the road... as well as supply ammo to anti-AMD marketing efforts. So yes, speed of HT is an issue and the integrated PCI-e that AMD is adding will help mitigate those err, concerns. -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Or, if your pockets allow for it, go for dual
dual-core Opteron, making it a quad. Maybe today's games can't take real advantage of multithreading, but I bet the games of tomorrow (and not only games) are already being coded to use multiple cores to their advantage. Forgive me, I have not read much about Opteron chips. Are you saying a system with dual 64 bit Opteron chips is about the same as what a QUAD A64 X2 would be ? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
wrote:
Or, if your pockets allow for it, go for dual dual-core Opteron, making it a quad. Maybe today's games can't take real advantage of multithreading, but I bet the games of tomorrow (and not only games) are already being coded to use multiple cores to their advantage. Forgive me, I have not read much about Opteron chips. Are you saying a system with dual 64 bit Opteron chips is about the same as what a QUAD A64 X2 would be ? No, A64 systems are limited to one and only one CPU socket. So if you have a dual-core A64, then that's all you're ever going to get: two cores. However, Opteron workstations often have dual sockets, and dual-core Opterons in each socket will mean that you have upto four cores. Yousuf Khan |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
To me, a bus would be a multi-drop access medium, with multiple devices
(including CPUs) all sharing a single data path between each other. Hypertransport is a point-to-point interface, you can only connect to one other device with each HT link. This would be much the same as old collision-based Ethernet vs. switched Ethernet. Yousuf Khan |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 06:09:35 -0400, George Macdonald wrote:
For clearity, AMD didn't get rid of the FSB, they just stopped calling it a FSB, even though that's what it still is, by definition. The term FSB came about with Intel's Pentium Pro, where the dual chip CPU/L2 cache package contained a BSB (Back Side Bus) connection between the CPU chip and L2 cache chip. Until then the CPU system bus had carried CPU - L2 cache data as well as I/O and memory transfers. By definition, a FSB carried all CPU-memory and CPU-I/O transfers... but not CPU-L2 cache transfers. To me calling AMD's HT a FSB is about as valid as continuing to use North Bridge & South Bridge for the two chips normally used in a chipset - it's not really applicable any more but people will say it as a convenience term FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset. HT link by definition is just that, any bus using HT technolog and is not limited to connections between a cpu and a chipset. So given the choice of calling the bus a FSB, or the HT link, FSB fits the bill while HT link only describes the type of bus, not the bus itself. IOW's using the term FSB specifically refers to the connection between the CPU and chipset, while using the term HT link could be any of many different type of connections an HT link is used for since it's used in many more applications than just a FSB. Some refer to the bus as a system bus, but that's generic in nature and could even refer to the memory bus since it's a part of the system. So, imo, the bus conncetion between the cpu and chipset is still a FSB, thus specifically stating what the two ends actually connect to. Simply calling it an HT link doesn't descibe any particular bus, and shouldn't be assumed that it means a conncetion between a xpu and its chipset, as HT links are currently being used for other purposes. Be it convenient or not, it's still there. They did however move the memory controller onto the cpu, so that ram data now has it's own data path to the CPU. This move, and not the move to an HT link for the FSB is where the major performance gain was made. With the move to the seperate memory bus, the FSB (now a serial HT link, instead of a paralell bus) speed is of little importance. As recently discussed here, HyperTransport is not a serial bus - it *is* packetized and it is point-to-point/uni-directional but each byte-width path has a separate clock signal and the chip/system designers have to pay close attention to clock skew. I'll go with you on this. Probably a paralell packet network would describe it better. -- KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233) Need good help? Provide all system info with question. My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 06:09:35 -0400, George Macdonald wrote: For clearity, AMD didn't get rid of the FSB, they just stopped calling it a FSB, even though that's what it still is, by definition. The term FSB came about with Intel's Pentium Pro, where the dual chip CPU/L2 cache package contained a BSB (Back Side Bus) connection between the CPU chip and L2 cache chip. Until then the CPU system bus had carried CPU - L2 cache data as well as I/O and memory transfers. By definition, a FSB carried all CPU-memory and CPU-I/O transfers... but not CPU-L2 cache transfers. To me calling AMD's HT a FSB is about as valid as continuing to use North Bridge & South Bridge for the two chips normally used in a chipset - it's not really applicable any more but people will say it as a convenience term FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset. Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side cache bus" of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB". HT link by definition is just that, any bus using HT technolog and is not limited to connections between a cpu and a chipset. Only in your mind. It is in no way an "FSB", since the term is now meaningless. The memory bus is elsewhere, so if there *IS* an "FSB" it's the memory bus(ses), not the HT channel. The caches are on the "back-side" of the memory interface, not other procesors or I/O. So given the choice of calling the bus a FSB, or the HT link, FSB fits the bill while HT link only describes the type of bus, not the bus itself. FSB doesn't describe it's function at all. What's the "back side" of the HT link? IOW's using the term FSB specifically refers to the connection between the CPU and chipset, No, it doesn't. I specifically refers to the fact that the caches are on the other side (back side) of the P6 memory bus. That architecture was around for a while, so it stuck. There was no "FSB" in the P5 architecture. It's an invention of the P6 and should stay there, since it no longer describes any function. while using the term HT link could be any of many different type of connections an HT link is used for since it's used in many more applications than just a FSB. Some refer to the bus as a system bus, "System bus" works for me. I/O bus makes more sense. but that's generic in nature and could even refer to the memory bus since it's a part of the system. Since it is the intervace from the processor to the "system", it still makes sense. "FSB" makes *no* sense, since it's not on the "front" side of anything. So, imo, the bus conncetion between the cpu and chipset is still a FSB, thus specifically stating what the two ends actually connect to. Simply calling it an HT link doesn't descibe any particular bus, and shouldn't be assumed that it means a conncetion between a xpu and its chipset, as HT links are currently being used for other purposes. Be it convenient or not, it's still there. Your opinion and $2 may be useful in a Starbuck's. They don't much care if you're wrong, as long as you have $2. They did however move the memory controller onto the cpu, so that ram data now has it's own data path to the CPU. This move, and not the move to an HT link for the FSB is where the major performance gain was made. With the move to the seperate memory bus, the FSB (now a serial HT link, instead of a paralell bus) speed is of little importance. As recently discussed here, HyperTransport is not a serial bus - it *is* packetized and it is point-to-point/uni-directional but each byte-width path has a separate clock signal and the chip/system designers have to pay close attention to clock skew. I'll go with you on this. Probably a paralell packet network would describe it better. Whatever, but it is *NOT* an "FSB". AMD has broken out of that system architecture. ...much like Intel broke into it by moving the L2 traffic to the *BACK-SIDE* bus. -- Keith |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
keith wrote:
Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side cache bus" of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB". Maybe in those days it was better known as the "local bus". Yousuf Khan |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:18:40 -0400, keith wrote:
On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote: FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset. Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side cache bus" of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB". Under your definition of FSB, then no AMD CPU's have ever had a FSB. Let's see just how many people you can convince of that.:-) While the term may have originated the way you say, it was then later used to indicate the connection between the CPU and the chipset. Now, that same connection is the HT link of the K8. So it only makes sense to use the same terminology for the very specific connection even though memory data now has own single use bus for the memory. The FSB still carries all other IO operations to/from the system. Once they move all this into the CPU, there will no longer be a FSB. Until then, a duck by any other name is still a duck. HT link by definition is just that, any bus using HT technolog and is not limited to connections between a cpu and a chipset. Only in your mind. It is in no way an "FSB", since the term is now meaningless. The memory bus is elsewhere, so if there *IS* an "FSB" it's the memory bus(ses), not the HT channel. The caches are on the "back-side" of the memory interface, not other procesors or I/O. And I thought only the government could take something so simple and fiubar. So given the choice of calling the bus a FSB, or the HT link, FSB fits the bill while HT link only describes the type of bus, not the bus itself. FSB doesn't describe it's function at all. What's the "back side" of the HT link? What HT link? Ht links are used everywhere. AFAIK, they don't need a backside. They function fully indepentant of other buses. If I assume you are talking about the HT link used to connect the K8 cpu's to the chipset, I'd just answer that it's in the same place as back side of the K7 CPU's FSB. You're really digging a hole for yourself here. IOW's using the term FSB specifically refers to the connection between the CPU and chipset, No, it doesn't. I specifically refers to the fact that the caches are on the other side (back side) of the P6 memory bus. That architecture was around for a while, so it stuck. There was no "FSB" in the P5 architecture. It's an invention of the P6 and should stay there, since it no longer describes any function. Why are you stuck on the Pentium Pro. FSB has been used for years to indicate the connection between the CPU and the chipset. while using the term HT link could be any of many different type of connections an HT link is used for since it's used in many more applications than just a FSB. Some refer to the bus as a system bus, "System bus" works for me. I/O bus makes more sense. Let's see, system buses. PCI, PCI-E, ISA, AGP, and others are all system buses. So how are you going to distinquish which one you are talking about if you just use system bus? Damn, I wonder if FSB would do that?:-) I/O bus. Ditto, and you can throw HTlink into the mix too since it is also an I/O bus. -- KT133 MB, CPU @2400MHz (24x100): SIS755 MB CPU @2330MHz (10x233) Need good help? Provide all system info with question. My server http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php Verizon server http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 05:59:41 GMT, Wes Newell
wrote: On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:18:40 -0400, keith wrote: On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote: FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset. Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side cache bus" of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB". Under your definition of FSB, then no AMD CPU's have ever had a FSB. Let's see just how many people you can convince of that.:-) No, the K7s had (the equivalent of) a FSB though I'm not sure AMD ever called it that IIRC. While the term may have originated the way you say, it was then later used to indicate the connection between the CPU and the chipset. Now, that same connection is the HT link of the K8. So it only makes sense to use the same terminology for the very specific connection even though memory data now has own single use bus for the memory. The FSB still carries all other IO operations to/from the system. Once they move all this into the CPU, there will no longer be a FSB. Until then, a duck by any other name is still a duck. NO - the HT is more akin to the Intel Hub interface or the VIA-Link interconnect between memory controller/AGP chip and the I/O chip; it was AMD's attempt to establish a standard for that type of traffic... since Intel had locked theirs up with licensing fees. Much of the old PC North Bridge arbitration logic is now in the K8 CPU - it has to be to route to the various memory address spaces and for DMA transfers. So given the choice of calling the bus a FSB, or the HT link, FSB fits the bill while HT link only describes the type of bus, not the bus itself. FSB doesn't describe it's function at all. What's the "back side" of the HT link? What HT link? Ht links are used everywhere. AFAIK, they don't need a backside. They function fully indepentant of other buses. If I assume you are talking about the HT link used to connect the K8 cpu's to the chipset, I'd just answer that it's in the same place as back side of the K7 CPU's FSB. You're really digging a hole for yourself here. The equivalent of FSB on a K8 CPU is inside the CPU die - anything that gets out to HT is already defined as I/O traffic. In no way is it a FSB. -- Rgds, George Macdonald |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"Wes Newell" wrote in message
newsan.2005.09.07.06.03.43.197405@TAKEOUTverizon .net... On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 22:18:40 -0400, keith wrote: On Tue, 06 Sep 2005 19:13:54 +0000, Wes Newell wrote: FSB by definition connects the CPU to the chipset. Nope. As George stated, it was in opposition the "back-side cache bus" of the P6. The P5 had no "FSB". Under your definition of FSB, then no AMD CPU's have ever had a FSB. Let's see just how many people you can convince of that.:-) Wes, are you saying no AMD chip ever had an L2 cache hung off the back of the CPU? Wow, is _my_ memory ever going south! ;-) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Intel found to be abusing market power in Japan | chrisv | General | 152 | March 26th 05 06:57 AM |
Basic Motherboard Upgrade Advice? | [email protected] | Homebuilt PC's | 27 | December 6th 04 01:21 AM |
Intel chipsets are the most stable? | Grumble | Homebuilt PC's | 101 | October 26th 04 02:53 AM |
Can anyone explain Intel's new cpu numbering | jaster | Homebuilt PC's | 10 | October 16th 04 08:07 AM |
Approx price difference between Intel & AMD systems | JAD | General | 23 | September 21st 04 06:19 PM |