i think so... if intel don't patent troll them
amd already supports fma-3, F16C and XOP*
XOP, is like a baby brother of avx-2....
For AVX2 the IP isn't exactly new. It comes straight from GPU technology and AMD has plenty of that. The only things that I imagine are patented is Intel's use of two 128-bit SIMD execution stacks, and their one-cacheline-per-cycle gather implementation. AMD needs neither verbatim to implement AVX2.i think so... if intel don't patent troll them
Only in the sense that 3DNow! is a baby brother of SSE: worthless. Some of the XOP instructions are only 128-bit, while AVX2 is all about using the SPMD programming model using 256-bit vectors. Also, the number one feature of AVX2 is the gather instructions, which replace a sequence of 18 legacy instructions! Without it you can't do SPMD in many cases.XOP, is like a baby brother of avx-2....
Only in the sense that 3DNow! is a baby brother of SSE: worthless. Some of the XOP instructions are only 128-bit, while AVX2 is all about using the SPMD programming model using 256-bit vectors. Also, the number one feature of AVX2 is the gather instructions, which replace a sequence of 18 legacy instructions! Without it you can't do SPMD in many cases.
TSX is a different story, although AMD's ASF experiments might help them a bit.
In this paper we develop an out-of-order hardware design to implement ASF on a future AMD processor and evaluate it with an in-house simulator.
AMD support FMA4, not FMA3 yet. FMA3 is what Haswell and Piledriver will use. BD has FMA4. Minor detail I know, but the only one that will be used by developers is the one that both CPUs support (FMA3).
AMD seems to be ahead of Intel on the ISA side. I wouldn't worry about it either.
What did nV do to piss off all the console makers? Or is more that they are all planning to put in a single APU to handle both CPU + GPU duties? In which case it makes perfect sense, as nV doesn't have anything suitable.
What did nV do to piss off all the console makers? Or is more that they are all planning to put in a single APU to handle both CPU + GPU duties? In which case it makes perfect sense, as nV doesn't have anything suitable.
What looks to be a "done deal" at this point is that AMD will be the GPU choice on all three next generation consoles. Yes, all the big guns in the console world, Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony, are looking very much to be part of Team AMD for GPU. That is correct, NVIDIA, "NO SOUP FOR YOU!" But NVIDIA already knew this, now you do too.
There are going to be game spaces that NVIDIA does succeed in beyond add in cards and that will likely be in the handheld device realm but we do not see much NVIDIA green under our TV sets. NVIDIA was planning to have very much underwritten its GPU business with Tegra and Tegra 2 revenues by now, but that is moving much slower than the upper brass at NVIDIA wishes. Tegra 2 penetration has been sluggish to say the least.
AMD has always been easier to work with than NVIDIA on the console front. Well that may not be exactly true, but Microsoft did not spend months in arbitration with NVIDIA over Xbox 1 GPU and MCP costs back in 2002 and 2003. I always felt as though that bridge was burned.
FMA4 is Intel's fault. Intel was going to use FMA4 then changed their mind "which we found we could not accommodate without unacceptable risk to our product schedules". Like 3DNow! I wouldn't be surprised if AMD drops FMA4.
I don't think that'll happen, at least not with FMA4 > FMA3. The only reason AMD is adopting FMA3 is because Intel isn't using FMA4 so they've got to do what chipzilla does. You can't exactly dictate ISAs with a measly market share
X86 already relies on moves for everything (IA32 has no true GPRs, x86-64 only has 8, and the old SFRs are still used, so op+move and move+op is everywhere), and they've been optimized to no end by Intel and AMD. For the small amounts of code that would be benefited by FMA4, over FMA3, the extra code for FMA3 will be very small, and any performance penalty likely completely removed or hidden by the time it gets executed.Yes, I agree. And it is a shame: FMA4 is a non-destructive implementation, so it is somewhat more flexible than FMA3.
Regards.
X86 already relies on moves for everything (IA32 has no true GPRs, x86-64 only has 8, and the old SFRs are still used, so op+move and move+op is everywhere), and they've been optimized to no end by Intel and AMD. For the small amounts of code that would be benefited by FMA4, over FMA3, the extra code for FMA3 will be very small, and any performance penalty likely completely removed or hidden by the time it gets executed.
The same is true for scalar: 2-operand ISAs use only a few more instructions than 3-operand, usually well under 5% (often <1%, but it's going to vary), for the rare case where a destructive operation is suboptimal. It's important to remember than most in-register data is backed by memory, and naturally short-lived.
It is true, but the ones needing FMA are anyway a small niche, as we are basically speaking of the HPC guys.
Yes, I agree. And it is a shame: FMA4 is a non-destructive implementation, so it is somewhat more flexible than FMA3.
Regards.
I believe (my opinion) is that Intel will add FMA4 support sometime in the near future (after Haswell).
It is true, but the ones needing FMA are anyway a small niche, as we are basically speaking of the HPC guys.