Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations Mike Lewis on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Processors ...?
- Thread starter roseusa
- Start date
I came across another good article that touches on future x86 markets AMD hopes to revolutionize starting with Fusion and going way beyond:
I'm not implying that AMD made a mistake with integrating the memory controller, but it does have its drawbacks in that the CPU must be redesigned when memory standards change. I foresee a similar issue with the Fusion; while the integrated GPU will probably be decent when it comes out, what about 6 months or a year later? I do not believe that AMD will keep updating the integrated GPU as usually the only way a CPU gets updated during its life-cycle is with higher clock speeds and a die shrink.
Two things to ponder:
First, the biggest reason that AMD didn't push to make the jump to DDR2 was that there was no benefit to it for them. They could have done it when they moved from socket 754 to 939 (single channel memory to dual channel) but at the time DDR2 was more expensive that DDR, and it's higher bandwidth was penalized by it's higher latency. With their integrated memory controller they could still use DDR and run circles around Intel systems using DDR2 on memory benchmarks. They did eventually integrate a DDR2 memory controller, but only after prices had come down. Even then, there wasn't a performance difference between DDR and DDR2 on Athlon 64 and X2 platforms. DDR3 is today where DDR2 was back then. It's less common, more expensive, and provides little (if any) performance improvement.
Secondly, Intel is moving to an integrated memory controller, so the "advantage" of being able to change memory technologies with a new chipset will be gone from the Intel line.
________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator
Two things to ponder:
First, the biggest reason that AMD didn't push to make the jump to DDR2 was that there was no benefit to it for them. They could have done it when they moved from socket 754 to 939 (single channel memory to dual channel) but at the time DDR2 was more expensive that DDR, and it's higher bandwidth was penalized by it's higher latency. With their integrated memory controller they could still use DDR and run circles around Intel systems using DDR2 on memory benchmarks. They did eventually integrate a DDR2 memory controller, but only after prices had come down. Even then, there wasn't a performance difference between DDR and DDR2 on Athlon 64 and X2 platforms. DDR3 is today where DDR2 was back then. It's less common, more expensive, and provides little (if any) performance improvement.
Secondly, Intel is moving to an integrated memory controller, so the "advantage" of being able to change memory technologies with a new chipset will be gone from the Intel line.
________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator
kmcferrin
1) DDR2 was released in 2003, it started to overtake DDR in performance in 2004 as DDR2's speed increased and latency decreased; AM2 was released in 2006. Yes, by the time AM2 was released DDR2 had fallen in price; largely due to the demand that was created by Intel. At the start of 2005; DDR2-533 (slightly better performance than DDR-400) was about 30% more than DDR while in mid-2005 DDR2-533 was about 1% more with DDR2-667 being a bit higher. AM2 at this point was still a year away.
2) I was aware that Intel was planning on switching to an integrated memory controller; as always there are advantages and disadvantages to both design choices. My point was not that one is always better than the other; but that the more modular the design, the easier/cheaper it is to update/upgrade whether it be a memory controller, GPU, or something else entirely.
In the quote, I am looking at AMD's history of releasing updated CPUs in response to new technology (3 years after DDR2 was released and 2 years after it became the performance choice) and drawing the conclusion that AMD will not be updating the Fusion every time they release a new GPU. As a PC enthusiast that dampers my excitement for the Fusion.
Let me repeat; I was not trying to argue the overall superiority of either memory controller design choice but merely pointing out one benefit of a non-integrated GPU or memory controller.
1) DDR2 was released in 2003, it started to overtake DDR in performance in 2004 as DDR2's speed increased and latency decreased; AM2 was released in 2006. Yes, by the time AM2 was released DDR2 had fallen in price; largely due to the demand that was created by Intel. At the start of 2005; DDR2-533 (slightly better performance than DDR-400) was about 30% more than DDR while in mid-2005 DDR2-533 was about 1% more with DDR2-667 being a bit higher. AM2 at this point was still a year away.
2) I was aware that Intel was planning on switching to an integrated memory controller; as always there are advantages and disadvantages to both design choices. My point was not that one is always better than the other; but that the more modular the design, the easier/cheaper it is to update/upgrade whether it be a memory controller, GPU, or something else entirely.
In the quote, I am looking at AMD's history of releasing updated CPUs in response to new technology (3 years after DDR2 was released and 2 years after it became the performance choice) and drawing the conclusion that AMD will not be updating the Fusion every time they release a new GPU. As a PC enthusiast that dampers my excitement for the Fusion.
Let me repeat; I was not trying to argue the overall superiority of either memory controller design choice but merely pointing out one benefit of a non-integrated GPU or memory controller.
In the quote, I am looking at AMD's history of releasing updated CPUs in response to new technology (3 years after DDR2 was released and 2 years after it became the performance choice)
I disagree with this statement. It might have been 2 years after it had become the "performance choice" for Intel systems, but the reason why AMD didn't switch to DDR2 was because there was no performance benefit for it on the AMD platform. Because the Athlon 64 and X2 on socket 939 had an integrated and therefore very low latency memory controller, it was still able to outperform Intel solutions using DDR2 while only using regular DDR memory. If you read the early reviews of the AM2 Athlons, you'll see them say that there's no improvement in memory performance in going to AM2. The biggest benefit to AM2 at that time was Pacifica. Not to mention the fact that they were kicking Intel up and down the street both directions in any other performance metrics.
________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator
I disagree with this statement. It might have been 2 years after it had become the "performance choice" for Intel systems, but the reason why AMD didn't switch to DDR2 was because there was no performance benefit for it on the AMD platform. Because the Athlon 64 and X2 on socket 939 had an integrated and therefore very low latency memory controller, it was still able to outperform Intel solutions using DDR2 while only using regular DDR memory. If you read the early reviews of the AM2 Athlons, you'll see them say that there's no improvement in memory performance in going to AM2. The biggest benefit to AM2 at that time was Pacifica. Not to mention the fact that they were kicking Intel up and down the street both directions in any other performance metrics.
________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator
The following article from 2006 agrees with kmcferrin:
Indeed, the AM2 came out about a year after latency on DDR2 had improved. But as this article clearly shows, it wasn't what the Athlon architecture really needed at the time.
Being the first to adopt "new technology" is not always necessary and sometimes can come back to haunt you. Intel, for example, adopted Rambus as soon as RDRAM debuted in 1999 for their new upcoming Pentium 4. Had it been just a year later, DDR might have taken its place. In fact it was AMD that pushed the envelope bringing DDR to the mainstream almost a year and a half before Intel finally ditched Rambus (with lawsuits to follow).
The "benefit" of being able to adapt quickly to new technology isn't always something that plays to your advantage.
~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.
Anandtech said:
Indeed, the AM2 came out about a year after latency on DDR2 had improved. But as this article clearly shows, it wasn't what the Athlon architecture really needed at the time.
Being the first to adopt "new technology" is not always necessary and sometimes can come back to haunt you. Intel, for example, adopted Rambus as soon as RDRAM debuted in 1999 for their new upcoming Pentium 4. Had it been just a year later, DDR might have taken its place. In fact it was AMD that pushed the envelope bringing DDR to the mainstream almost a year and a half before Intel finally ditched Rambus (with lawsuits to follow).
The "benefit" of being able to adapt quickly to new technology isn't always something that plays to your advantage.
~cdogg
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein
[tab][navy]For posting policies, click [/navy]here.
cdogg said:
True, I agree with you on this one; Intel made a huge mistake with RAMBUS. They went with slower and more expensive RAM for their flagship product; but since the memory controller was not integrated (neither was AMD's at this time) they were able to correct the error fairly quickly.
I don't think that the jump from DDR to DDR2 could be compared to the one from SDRAM to DDR/RAMBUS. For one, their was no other competing standard for either Intel or AMD to worry about; DDR2 was the legitimate successor to DDR and there was never any doubt that DDR2 (not something like RAMBUS2) would replace DDR.
I agree that the performance increases of DDR2 were nothing to write home about when it was first released and the prices were much higher. Nevertheless, there are people that buy $1,000 processors and $700 video cards that don't offer (in my eyes) enough performance benefits to justify the higher price over their less expensive brethren. The point is that there is enough of these people who are willing to pay anything to have top bragging rights that it makes sense to release the hardware just for them.
I agree that the performance increases of DDR2 were nothing to write home about when it was first released and the prices were much higher. Nevertheless, there are people that buy $1,000 processors and $700 video cards that don't offer (in my eyes) enough performance benefits to justify the higher price over their less expensive brethren. The point is that there is enough of these people who are willing to pay anything to have top bragging rights that it makes sense to release the hardware just for them.
Right, but AMD wanted to sell to the entire market, not just the "more money than sense" crowd. With the integrated memory controller they didn't have an option. It was either move to DDR2 (no performance benefit at the time, but much higher cost) or stay with DDR (roughly the same performance).
________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator
Right, but AMD wanted to sell to the entire market, not just the "more money than sense" crowd. With the integrated memory controller they didn't have an option. It was either move to DDR2 (no performance benefit at the time, but much higher cost) or stay with DDR (roughly the same performance).
________________________________________
CompTIA A+, Network+, Server+, Security+
MCSE:Security 2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator
I guess I don't see why it should have been an either or proposition for AMD; create a small amount of DDR2 capable CPUs and leave the majority of fabs making the old one. Again, this is only my opinion.
I would also like to offer my sincere apologies for my role in hi-jacking this thread; I believe that it was originally about dual vs quad core.
I would also like to offer my sincere apologies for my role in hi-jacking this thread; I believe that it was originally about dual vs quad core.
- Status