Who cares? Everything is built using technology from somewhere else? You think Zen isn't going to have some best practices from Apple's Swift core? People "borrow" ideas all the time. Intel borrows ideas from AMD.. and vice versa.
Who cares? Everything is built using technology from somewhere else? You think Zen isn't going to have some best practices from Apple's Swift core? People "borrow" ideas all the time. Intel borrows ideas from AMD.. and vice versa.I didnt say they bough a firm with K7 design. What a strawman.
K7 is build using technology from Dec and the alpha processors with Dirk Meyers as lead engineer.
Who cares? Everything is built using technology from somewhere else? You think Zen isn't going to have some best practices from Apple's Swift core? People "borrow" ideas all the time. Intel borrows ideas from AMD.. and vice versa.
Licensing agreement for specific instructions, but general design ideas like in any industry come in vogue or fall out of it from time to time. For instance when Hammer moved the memory controller to the CPU.. Intel followed suit on Nehalem.Intel and AMD have a patent cross-licensing agreement in place. There's no "borrowing" taking place.
If AMD doesn't have a licensing agreement with Apple they aren't borrowing anything from Swift.
Who cares? Everything is built using technology from somewhere else? You think Zen isn't going to have some best practices from Apple's Swift core? People "borrow" ideas all the time. Intel borrows ideas from AMD.. and vice versa.
Nothing strawman about my argument. Most design has external influences. It's how design works. No one comes up with a from scratch design as complex as a CPU without getting there on shoulders of giants.Strawman in spades again.
If thinking K7 is similar to Zen fit your beauty narrative about AMD be my guest.
Nothing strawman about my argument. Most design has external influences. It's how design works. No one comes up with a from scratch design as complex as a CPU without getting there on shoulders of giants.
This isn't just true in microprocessors.. this is true for every design. From art, to mechanical engineering, software engineering.. period.
Was Bobcat an in-house design? I thought my C-50 netbook competed pretty well against my Atoms N570 netbook at the time, for graphics it was getting 6fps on 3d video when my Atom was getting less than 1fps, and my 10.1" Bobcat had 1280x720 resolution while my Atom had 1024x600. I guess buying ATi helped them while Intel was catching up on iGPU.If zen is good then its the first successfull inhouse ground up design in their history...
Well, that target keeps going up. Back in the Nehalem days, chips would typically see drastic power increases going above ~3.5GHz. SB/IB would do 4GHz pretty easy, spike in power above that point. Now we see 4.5GHz easily, pushing toward 5GHz. Given enough time and process improvements, I think clock speeds will continue climbing, albeit not as fast as during the 90's - mid 00's.
Indeed, at 40-50 pipeline stages it would have had an FO4 delay of 8~10. This would be encroaching on the FO4 delay of the double frequency ALU block of Wilamette / Northwood (~8?) and Prescott (~6?), so they would have likely had to cut the double frequency logic out from Tejas. I wonder if they would have just left it at 2 integer ops/cycle, it's not as if the P4 could make good use of 4 anyways...I hope we will someday get some details about the canceled Tejas.
Yep. Cpu bobcat core and gpu ip from Austin. Then a small team of aprox 70 in India Hyderabad collected all the ip into zakate e350. It was a highly synthesized design using tsmc 40nm.Was Bobcat an in-house design? I thought my C-50 netbook competed pretty well against my Atoms N570 netbook at the time, for graphics it was getting 6fps on 3d video when my Atom was getting less than 1fps, and my 10.1" Bobcat had 1280x720 resolution while my Atom had 1024x600. I guess buying ATi helped them while Intel was catching up on iGPU.
Nothing strawman about my argument. Most design has external influences. It's how design works. No one comes up with a from scratch design as complex as a CPU without getting there on shoulders of giants.
This isn't just true in microprocessors.. this is true for every design. From art, to mechanical engineering, software engineering.. period.
Sorry I don't see what you're driving at. All this is well known. It still doesn't mean K7 wasn't developed at AMD. Alpha was not even x86 for crying out loud."The K7 design team was led by Dirk Meyer, who had worked as a lead engineer at DEC on multiple Alpha microprocessors during his employment at DEC. When DEC was sold to Compaq Corporation in 1998, Compaq discontinued Alpha processor development. Sanders approached many of the Alpha engineering staff as Compaq/DEC wound down their semiconductor business, and was able to bring in nearly all of the Alpha design team. The K7 engineering design team was thus now consisted of both the previously acquired NexGen K6 team (already including engineers such as Vinod Dham) and the nearly complete Alpha design team."
+licensed ev6
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athlon
Now go look at the organization designing zen and all the fuzz about Keller - a single person It is a huge difference. It takes years to bring an organization to such a level you dont have to rely your entire design on new externals hires. Amd just didnt have the competences in the mid 90ties for good reasons.
Indeed, at 40-50 pipeline stages it would have had an FO4 delay of 8~10. This would be encroaching on the FO4 delay of the double frequency ALU block of Wilamette / Northwood (~8?) and Prescott (~6?), so they would have likely had to cut the double frequency logic out from Tejas.
Wasn't dual pumped ALU logic cut from Prescott already? I vaguelly remember it beeing the case.
These units do fully support the double pumped ALU's but they do so by doing things in parallel and not by operating at a double frequency. Now this is of course OK, but a number of articles I wrote based on this just don't make much sense. Such as in my first Prescott article from a year ago where I said that a 4GHz Prescott equipped with a double speed Data Cache should be called an 8 GHz processor.....
They existed, but were limited to the builders market. Even then, for gamers AMD still made way more sense. http://www.anandtech.com/show/1610/15Did a lot of people run Pentium-M on the desktop? I honestly don't remember seeing a lot of them, but at that point I think I was pretty heavy into AMD.
I was under the impression it remained, but the 1/2 cycle bypass was removed to make room for the 64 bit addition on the critical path.Wasn't dual pumped ALU logic cut from Prescott already? I vaguelly remember it beeing the case.
Interesting, although I wonder where he got his information from. The lack of the fast bypass would make it indistinguishable to an outside observer. Scheduling would be simpler in the fast frequency domain though, which is why I thought they would just leave it at 2 ALUs upon its removal.http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2003_04_20_Looking_at_Intels_Prescott_part2.html
Thanks Hans! From 13 years ago!
They existed, but were limited to the builders market. Even then, for gamers AMD still made way more sense. http://www.anandtech.com/show/1610/15
Anandtech said:With the CT-479, ASUS has effectively demolished all other desktop Pentium M solutions. There's no reason to even consider an 855GME motherboard from AOpen or DFI; the ASUS solution is cheaper, better performing and is even a much more stable overclocker.
As a gaming platform and as a general purpose/office machine, the Pentium M does fairly well, but it is in content creation, workstation and media encoding applications that the Pentium M continues to fall behind. Part of the problem is that the Pentium M needs clock speed to compete, which we saw when we overclocked it up to 2.56GHz. But even at 2.56GHz, the Pentium M wasn't a competitive CPU when it came to tasks like media encoding, indicating that if the Pentium M is to succeed on the desktop, it's going to need some architectural improvements.
PCPER said:At that level we saw the P-M out performing the Athlon 64 FX-55 processor in gaming and the Pentium 4 in some media tests. The power of this little mobile processor continues to impress me, and I am eagerly awaiting for Intel to adopt this basic architecture and expand on it for their entire line.
Tomshardware said:Additionally, we were able to raise the FSB from 133 to 160 MHz without any trouble at all. The result was that our 2.13 GHz Pentium M 770 ended up running at 2.56 GHz! At this clock speed, our two year old platform was able to beat the processor heavyweights Athlon 64 FX and Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition in all 3D games!
Prescott was the first Intel dual core desktop chip (for home users at least). That was its one big step forward over Northwood and probably it's only positive claim to fame.
Eh not really. You're thinking of Smithfield. Not quite the same thing as Prescott which launched a year earlier.
Anandtech said:All Smithfield processors were made of two 90 nm Prescott cores, next to each other on a single die with 1 MB of Level 2 (L2) cache per core. Hyper-threading was disabled in all Pentium D 8xx-series Smithfields with the exception of the Pentium Extreme Edition 840.
Was still curious about this, and found some Intel papers confirming the presence of double frequency ALUs in Prescott and Cedar Mill. The removal of support for dependent operations in consecutive 1/2 cycles rather defeats the point though. If they it down from 4 to 2 or even 1 ALU ops/cycle, ALU throughput would likely remain quite far down on the hierarchy of the P4's bottlenecks in most applications. Given how marketing-driven the P4's design was, I'm astonished they designed such a ridiculously overkill, cool-sounding, and ultimately pointless thing as the "Rapid Execution Engine" and didn't market it in any capacity.I was under the impression it remained, but the 1/2 cycle bypass was removed to make room for the 64 bit addition on the critical path.