Intel Core i7 (Nehalem): Architecture By AMD?

Conclusion

Conroe laid strong foundations and Nehalem builds on them. It has the same efficient architecture, but it’s now much more modular and scalable, which should guarantee success in the different market segments. We’re not saying that Nehalem revolutionizes the Core architecture, but it does revolutionize the Intel platform, which has now once again become a formidable match for AMD in terms of design and surpassed its competitor in terms of implementation.

With all the improvements made at this level (integrated memory controller, QPI), it’s not really surprising that the changes to the execution core are purely incremental. But the return of Hyper-Threading is significant and there are several little optimizations that should guarantee a notable gain in performance compared to Penryn at equal frequencies.

Clearly, the greatest gains will be in situations where memory was the main bottleneck. In reading this article, you’ve probably noticed that this is the area the engineers have focused their attentions on. In addition to the integrated memory controller, which will undoubtedly produce the biggest gains where memory access is concerned, there’s a raft of other improvements, both big and small—the new cache and TLB hierarchies, unaligned memory access and prefetchers.

After all these theoretical considerations, the next step will be to see if the improvements in actual applications will live up to the expectations that the new architecture has aroused. We’ll look into that in a series of upcoming articles, so stay tuned!

Create a new thread in the US Reviews comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
30 comments
    Your comment
  • good write-up, cant wait for the new architecture , plus the "older" chips are going to become cheaper/affordable. big plus.
    3
  • No explaination as to why you can't use performance modules with higher voltage though.
    0
  • AuDioFreaK39TomsHardware is just now getting around to posting this?Not to mention it being almost a direct copy/paste from other articles I've seen written about Nehalem architecture.

    I regard being late as a quality seal really. No point being first, if your info is only as credible as stuff on inquirer. Better be last, but be sure what you write is correct.
    4
  • AuDioFreaK39TomsHardware is just now getting around to posting this?Not to mention it being almost a direct copy/paste from other articles I've seen written about Nehalem architecture.


    Perhaps, if you count being translated from French.
    6
  • Yea, 13 pages is quite alot to translate. You could always use google translation if you want it done fast :kaola:
    0
  • Speaking of french... That link on page 3 goes to a French article that I found fascinating... Would be even better if there was an English version though, cause then I could actually read it. Any chance of that?

    Nice article, good depth, well written
    0
  • randomizerYea, 13 pages is quite alot to translate. You could always use google translation if you want it done fast

    I don't know french, so no idea if it actually works. But I've tried from english to germany and danish, and viseversa. Also tried from danish to german, and the result is always the same - it's incomplete, and anything that is slighty technical in nature won't be translated properly. In short - want it done right, do it yourself.
    -1
  • I don't think cangelini meant to say, that no other english articles on the subject exist.
    You claimed the article on toms was a copy paste from another article. He merely stated that the article here was based on a french version.
    0
  • Good article.
    I actually read the whole thing.
    I just don't get TLP when RAM is cheap and the Nehalem/Vista can address 128gigs. Anyway, things have changed a lot since running Win NT with 16megs RAM and constant memory swapping.
    0
  • I can't speak for the author, but I imagine neiro's guess is fairly accurate. Written in French, translated to English, and then edited--I'm fairly confident they're different stories ;)
    5
  • Questions to the author (or anyone else who's understood what I have not)
    1) How's the loop detection feature know when it is a loop ? The diagrams posted don't show any connection between it and the 'front' of the pipeline, so how can it know that the next operation is the same if it hasn't yet entered the loop?
    2) On page 8 there's a diagram with a 4 socket setup showing 2 io hubs. Are they connected to the same pcie bus and whatever else they interface with? or are only 2 of the sockets able to directly access a given resource?
    3) With the modular design, would one risk buying a cpu that doesn't work in a motherboard because it is intended for a 2 or 4 socket system? or are they all the same, simply with some qpi's disabled?
    4) Am I right assuming that qpi replaces fsb when it has to communicate with an i/o hub only? (as shown in one of the top diagrams on page 8) Or is it used for every one of the 'blue' lines on the lower diagram (10 total in a 4 socket layout). The latter would mean 4 qpi's are barely enough to satisfy bandwidth needs in a server enviroment. I imagine an esx server with 4 processors (32 threads) can easily demand memory from dram pools not linked to the local core the threads are running on, and use 96GB/s (3x32) of the 102GB/s (4x12,8x2) total theoretical bandwidth in addition to some of the local 32GB/s bandwidth from the socket a given core/thread is running on. So if this scenario is correct, is it possible to increase the speed of the qpi (read: oc the link) to increase available bandwidth? And what happends if one would successfully find ddr3-1600 modules that would run within the 1,65v limitation? Wouldn't that mean the qpi was already at its limit? (38,4GB/s per dram pool x 3 sockets not local to the core that runs a thread). I know memory isn't truely the bottleneck in modern computers, but I still find it wierd that they put so much effort into the memory controller if it isn't actually the problem. Simply adding a few qpi links between the sockets and the chipset would've solved the bandwidth issue without limiting usable memory types by choosing a certain cpu. Sure it wouldn't have improved latencies, but honestly, who cares? neither in a gaming pc, netbook or any number of common server configurations is it the memory lantecy that is the bottleneck.
    5) How much time should one assume is wasted when a core on conroe flushes the l2 cache? they seem to have solved the issue and as consequence increased cache latency (which should turn into slower overall cache performance). In english : can we expect any gain from this change?
    6) Would the immensely increased tlb size improve performance in newer games which precache loads of data? (thinking quicker retrieval of texture data etc)
    7) Page 12 mentions unalligned memory access, which I've never heard of before. Appearently compilers already try to avoid this situation, so can we expect the improvement to handling such to be of interest? What's the point of improving a feature to handle a situation that hardly ever arises in the first place?
    2
  • Is the loop stream detector to stop the sorts of problems that were occuring with the long pipes in the P4 with REPLAY ... causing major IPC problems despite the high clock frequency?

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/replay.html

    This was a very good article and is not a copy ... well done Fedy !!
    1
  • lol i barely understood a word of that..
    1
  • neiroatopelccNo explaination as to why you can't use performance modules with higher voltage though.


    perhaps it will burn out the IMC within the chip since its all done at 45nm, 1.6+v would be deadly, imagine air cooling a 3ghz quad core chip at ~2v? i take it it shares the rail even within the cpu so
    0
  • Perhaps so, but why does the supply voltage to the dram sockets have to pass thru the cpu then? (if that's what it does) Why can't that be supplied by the motherboard and only data sent from the dram be sent to the cpu? or better yet, pass thru a piece of hardware that stabilizes the signals at a lower voltage level, so the cpu doesn't fry even if one was to attempt booting with memory running at 2v or the like.
    -1
  • neiroatopelccPerhaps so, but why does the supply voltage to the dram sockets have to pass thru the cpu then? (if that's what it does) Why can't that be supplied by the motherboard and only data sent from the dram be sent to the cpu? or better yet, pass thru a piece of hardware that stabilizes the signals at a lower voltage level, so the cpu doesn't fry even if one was to attempt booting with memory running at 2v or the like.


    depends on how connected that ram is, there might be advantages etc this way, and it also makes you wonder if AMD suffers from this - iv heard of extreme overclockers killing ram channels on AMD's etc

    on the other hand who cares about high performance memory - 3 x 1333mhz is going to be better then 2 x 1600+mhz channels etc, along with the fact its an IMC based setup etc and average maximum bandwidths of ~32gb/s vs the current average maximum of ~12.8gb/s etc
    0
  • One interesting thing is L2 cache is quite low. Any one care to explain exactly why?
    0
  • L2 is low because it no longer needs to be bigger. It isn't shared between cores. It'll just full up from l3 cache later (which is plenty big)

    as for the memory issue. Who'd want to run 3x1333 if they could run 6x1600 ? any enthusiast will only be satisfied with the best, and 1333 just isn't it. Not even 1600 is. ddr3-1333 is basicly obsolete, and it's not even mainstream yet. It's a disaster really.
    0
  • Considering the title of this article, there's not much about the direct comparisons between nehalem and barcelona. It's basically just a break down of nehalem with AMD hardly mentioned at all. I expected more from the title.
    1
  • If the supply rail for the RAM is tied to the CPU then it is possibly to ensure there is minimal ripple or othere observable intereference which might limit the speed the ram is operated at ... not so much each indididual stick, but as it is triple channel, I imagine the cpu would be very intolerant of impedence mismatch ... causing signal processing degredation at the interconnect point.

    A case of perhaps minimising reflected impedence?

    Just my theory anyway ... remember ... I am only here for the humour ... not the technology.

    AMD4LIFE
    1