The Quest for More Processing Power, Part One: "Is the single core CPU doomed?"
by Johan De Gelas on February 8, 2005 4:00 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Magic stone
ADDs need to happen quickly (they are very common) and dependent instructions should not wait long for the results that they need. Otherwise, the whole superscalar machine comes to a grinding halt and is not used efficiently. Intel's engineers killed those two birds with one magic stone: the double-pumped adder combined with a very smart Store-to-Load forward mechanism.
Consider this:
Instruction 1: C := D+D
Instruction 2: A := B+C
One instruction (2) needs the result (variable "C") of a previous one (1). In theory, the load of the variables of the second instruction cannot happen before the store of the first one has been written back. x86 ISA rules demand that stores happen in program order.
So, the second instruction won't have the necessary data before the first instruction has completed almost the entire pipeline (about 30 stages). That means that for 30 clock pulses, other independent instructions need to be found to keep the pipelines working. Modern CPUs try to offset this problem with Store-to-Load Forwarding. The forwarding mechanism kicks in as soon as the execution engine has calculated the result of the first instruction, and doesn't wait until all pipelines stages after the execution are done. The data is "forwarded" to the waiting instruction after a few clock cycles (as long as the calculation/execution takes), and way before the result has been written back to the L1 cache. Prescott's Store-to-Load Forwarding handles many store-forward situations, which are not forwarded by other "less intelligent" CPUs.
Cool & double pumped
If ADDs need to be executed fast, and store-to-forwards must happen very early in the pipeline, you need low latency ADD ALUs (Arithmetic and Logical Unit). Therefore, Intel designed a double-pumped ALU. This very simple and small ALU can only perform ADDs runs at no less than 7.6 GHz (!) on a 3.8 GHz Prescott. The advantage is that ADDs are done very quickly and the results can be forwarded quickly. So, while two double-pumped adders can perform up to four ADD operations per clock cycle, that is not really the point as the Trace cache can sustain, at the very best, about 3 ADD operations per clockcycle; the point is quick store-to-load forwarding. Dependencies are solved a lot faster, and cause a lot less trouble.
The fact that the most common instruction happens very quickly (ADD) is an extra bonus.
So, the problem is solved, right? Those 7.6 GHz ADDers produces a lot of heat and that is why Prescott failed? Wrong. Back in 2004, Intel published a PDF [6] , which explains that those supercharged ALUs use Low Voltage Swing. The PDF is written for experts, but simplified, we can say that the ALUs achieve incredible clock speeds by using a technique similar to the one that allows for example S-ATA to run at high speeds.
Low Voltage Swing means that instead of using one voltage measure point (and the ground), you calculate the voltage by subtracting one voltage line (or rail) from another one. The reasoning is that using the differential between two voltages (SCSI LVD might also be similar), errors are cancelled out. For example, if you have an error of +0.3V, and your core voltage is 0.5V, the voltage (0.8V) will not be read correctly (not within limits). But if you have two rails/lines one of 2V and 1.5V (0.5 V is the logical 1) very close to each other, both will be affected by the error, but 2.3V – 1.8V is still 0.5V. This is simplified of course, but it should give you an idea.
The end result is that voltage readings are much more precise and you can get away with much smaller voltage swings. S-ATA, for example, gets away with a voltage swing of about 0.2V (0.6V – 0.4V), while P-ATA needed no less than 3.3V (vs the ground). You can understand that it is much easier to make a voltage change quickly if the voltage swing is low.
This is most likely very similar to what happens in the double-pumped ALUs. So, while the rest of the core uses something like 1.2 – 1.4V, the double-pumped ALUs work with +/- 0.2V (page 6 of the PDF). Thus, the double-pumped ALUs are one of the coolest spots on the CPU.
Heat?
So, from where does all the heat come? First of all, those complex LVS gates, which are the building stones of the double-pumped ALU, need very quickly switching transistors compared to a conventional ALU. Quickly switching transistors lose more leakage power. While the dynamic power of the double-pumped ALU might be low, power leaking is a serious problem.
Secondly, as the clock speed of the ALUs goes up, the voltage swing must be raised also. That means that the core voltage (the LVS derives the min and max voltages of the core voltage) rises too, which means that the rest of the CPU must cope with higher voltage. Higher voltage means quadratically higher power losses for the rest of the core.
Thirdly, a CPU that needs to run at 4 GHz and 8 GHz is limited by wire delays. The result is many repeaters and extra pipelines stages just to get the signal across the die. More pipeline stages and more repeaters mean more logic, more power.
The fourth problem is 64 bit. In order to handle 64 bit operations, it must have been an incredibly difficult job to redesign the ALUs without slowing them down. The result is extra logic, which consumes more power.
The fifth problem is, of course, the Branch Prediction Unit, which is much more complex and generates a lot of heat.
All the small tweaks, EM64T, more complex BPU and ALUs, probably some non-working functionality (Dynamic multi-threading), built-in self tests (BIST, making debugging easier) and the larger caches made sure that Prescott also had 125 million transistors, which of course increased leakage also.
65 Comments
View All Comments
AnnoyedGrunt - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link
It's possible that 22 was referring solely to the grammar of the sentence, which could potentially make more sense if it was rewritten as, "while other applications will REQUIRE exponential investments in develpment....."Very good article overall, but some portions could be polished a bit perhaps to make it easier for people only slightly familiar with processor details (people like myself) to understand.
Really looking forward to part 2!
-D'oh!
JarredWalton - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link
23 - Not at all. Have you ever tried writing multi-threaded code? If it take 12 months to write and debug a single-threaded program that handles a task, and you try to do the same thing in multi-threaded code, I would expect 24 to 36 months to get everything done properly.Let's not even get into the discussion of the fact that not all code really *can* benefit from multi-threadedness. I had a similar conversation with several others in the Dual Core AMD Roadmap article. You can read the comments there for additional insight, I hope:
http://www.anandtech.com/talkarticle.aspx?i=2303
cosmotic - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link
"while the other applications will see exponential investments in development time to achieve the same performance increase." Thats a really stupid statement.cosmotic - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link
That first image really sucks. You should at least make it look decent. It looks like crap now.IceWindius - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link
Math hurts, and thus my head hurts.......Either way, Intel finally admits they fucked up and AMD spanked them for it. Justice is served.
faboloso112 - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link
only about halfway through the article but this is a damn good article.not a fanboi of any sort but i certainly do hate intel's pr team.
i think the reason amd has done well for itself is because it doesn't pride itself nor relies of fake product specs and their exaggerated capabilities and scalability...unlike intel...and ill admit...i got cought up in the hype too with the whole 10ghz thing at the time because based on moore's law and how things had been going w/ the clock speed jumps...i thought one day it would be possible...but look at where the prescott stands now...and look at how instead of blabbing about 10ghz..they talk of multi-core cpu.
i think ill stop talking now and return to the article...
erikvanvelzen - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link
i eat these sort of articles about cpu's, memory and the like which have references to hardware which i actually use.If you like this, check out these articles by John 'Hannibal' Stokes @ arstechnica.com:
http://arstechnica.com/cpu/index.html
http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/cpu.ars
jbond04 - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link
AWESOME article, Johan. Good to see someone do some real research regarding the Prescott processor. Keep up the good work!Oxonium - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link
Johan used to write very good articles for Ace's Hardware. I'm glad to see him writing those same high-quality articles for Anandtech. Keep up the good work!BlackMountainCow - Tuesday, February 8, 2005 - link
Wow, very interesting read. Finally some stuff based on real facts and not some "Prescott just sux" stuff. Two thumbs up!