Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Dual Independant Bus Architecture

Upgrading And Repairing PCs 21st Edition: Processor Features
By

The Dual Independent Bus (DIB) architecture was first implemented in the sixth-generation processors from Intel and AMD. DIB was created to improve processor bus bandwidth and performance. Having two (dual) independent data I/O buses enables the processor to access data from either of its buses simultaneously and in parallel, rather than in a singular sequential manner (as in a single-bus system). The main (often called front-side) processor bus is the interface between the processor and the motherboard or chipset. The second (back-side) bus in a processor with DIB is used for the L2 cache, enabling it to run at much greater speeds than if it were to share the main processor bus.

Two buses make up the DIB architecture: the L2 cache bus and the main CPU bus, often called FSB (front side bus). The P6 class processors, from the Pentium Pro to the Core 2, as well as Athlon 64 processors can use both buses simultaneously, eliminating a bottleneck there. The dual bus architecture enables the L2 cache of the newer processors to run at full speed inside the processor core on an independent bus, leaving the main CPU bus (FSB) to handle normal data flowing in and out of the chip. The two buses run at different speeds. The front-side bus or main CPU bus is coupled to the speed of the motherboard, whereas the back-side or L2 cache bus is coupled to the speed of the processor core. As the frequency of processors increases, so does the speed of the L2 cache.

DIB also enables the system bus to perform multiple simultaneous transactions (instead of singular sequential transactions), accelerating the flow of information within the system and boosting performance. Overall, DIB architecture offers up to three times the bandwidth performance over a single-bus architecture processor.

Display all 18 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 13 Hide
    ta152h , October 31, 2013 12:30 AM
    Ugggh, got to page two before being disgusted this time. This author is back to writing fiction.

    The Pentium (5th generation, in case the author didn't know, thus the "Pent"), DID execute x86 instructions. It was the Pentium Pro that didn't. That was the sixth generation.

    CISC and RISC are not arbitary terms, and RISC is better when you have a lot of memory, that's why Intel and AMD use it for x86. They can't execute x86 instructions effectively, so they break it down to RISC type operations, and then execute it. They pay the penalty of adding additional stages in the pipeline which slows down the processor (greater branch mispredict penalty), adds size, and uses power. If they are equal, why would anyone take this penalty?

    Being superscalar has nothing to do with being RISC or CISC. Admittedly, the terms aren't carved in stone, and the term can be misleading, as it's not necessarily the number of instructions that defines RISC. Even so, there are clear differences. RISC has fixed length instructions. CISC generally does not. RISC has much simpler memory addressing modes. The main difference is, RISC does not have microcoding to execute instructions - everything is done in hardware. Obviously, this strongly implies much simpler, easier to execute instructions, which make it superior today. However, code density is less for RISC, and that was very important in the 70s and early 80s when memory was not so large. Even now, better density means better performance, since you'll hit the faster caches more often.

    This article is also wrong about 3D Now! It was not introduced as an alternative to SSE, SSE was introduced as an alternative to 3D Now!, which predated SSE. In reality, 3D Now! was released because the largest difference between the K6 and Intel processors was floating point. Games, or other software that could use 3D Now!, rather than relying entirely on x87 instructions, could show marked performance improvement for the K6-2. It was relatively small to implement, and in the correct workloads could show dramatic improvements. But, of course, almost no one used it.

    The remarks about the dual bus are inaccurate. The reason was that motherboard bus speeds were not able to keep up with microprocessors speeds (starting with the 486DX2). Intel suffered the much slower bus speed to the L2 cache on the Pentium and Pentium MMX, but moved the L2 cache on the same processor package (but not on the same die) with the Pentium Pro. The purpose of having the separate buses was that one could access the L2 cache at a much higher speed; it wasn't limited to the 66 MHz bus speed of the motherboard. The Pentium Pro was never intended to be mainstream, and was too expensive, so Intel moved the L2 cache onto the Slot 1 cartridge, and ran it at half bus speed, which in any case was still much faster than the memory bus.

    That was the main reason they went to the two buses.

    That was as far as I bothered to read this. It's a pity people can't actually do fact checking when they write books, and make up weird stories that only have a passing resemblance to reality.

    And then act like someone winning this misinformation is lucky. Good grief, what a perverse world ...

Other Comments
  • 2 Hide
    k1114 , October 30, 2013 10:11 PM
    Keep it coming.
  • 1 Hide
    renzhe , October 30, 2013 10:39 PM
    9412 pins; imagine that.
  • 13 Hide
    ta152h , October 31, 2013 12:30 AM
    Ugggh, got to page two before being disgusted this time. This author is back to writing fiction.

    The Pentium (5th generation, in case the author didn't know, thus the "Pent"), DID execute x86 instructions. It was the Pentium Pro that didn't. That was the sixth generation.

    CISC and RISC are not arbitary terms, and RISC is better when you have a lot of memory, that's why Intel and AMD use it for x86. They can't execute x86 instructions effectively, so they break it down to RISC type operations, and then execute it. They pay the penalty of adding additional stages in the pipeline which slows down the processor (greater branch mispredict penalty), adds size, and uses power. If they are equal, why would anyone take this penalty?

    Being superscalar has nothing to do with being RISC or CISC. Admittedly, the terms aren't carved in stone, and the term can be misleading, as it's not necessarily the number of instructions that defines RISC. Even so, there are clear differences. RISC has fixed length instructions. CISC generally does not. RISC has much simpler memory addressing modes. The main difference is, RISC does not have microcoding to execute instructions - everything is done in hardware. Obviously, this strongly implies much simpler, easier to execute instructions, which make it superior today. However, code density is less for RISC, and that was very important in the 70s and early 80s when memory was not so large. Even now, better density means better performance, since you'll hit the faster caches more often.

    This article is also wrong about 3D Now! It was not introduced as an alternative to SSE, SSE was introduced as an alternative to 3D Now!, which predated SSE. In reality, 3D Now! was released because the largest difference between the K6 and Intel processors was floating point. Games, or other software that could use 3D Now!, rather than relying entirely on x87 instructions, could show marked performance improvement for the K6-2. It was relatively small to implement, and in the correct workloads could show dramatic improvements. But, of course, almost no one used it.

    The remarks about the dual bus are inaccurate. The reason was that motherboard bus speeds were not able to keep up with microprocessors speeds (starting with the 486DX2). Intel suffered the much slower bus speed to the L2 cache on the Pentium and Pentium MMX, but moved the L2 cache on the same processor package (but not on the same die) with the Pentium Pro. The purpose of having the separate buses was that one could access the L2 cache at a much higher speed; it wasn't limited to the 66 MHz bus speed of the motherboard. The Pentium Pro was never intended to be mainstream, and was too expensive, so Intel moved the L2 cache onto the Slot 1 cartridge, and ran it at half bus speed, which in any case was still much faster than the memory bus.

    That was the main reason they went to the two buses.

    That was as far as I bothered to read this. It's a pity people can't actually do fact checking when they write books, and make up weird stories that only have a passing resemblance to reality.

    And then act like someone winning this misinformation is lucky. Good grief, what a perverse world ...

  • 0 Hide
    Reynod , October 31, 2013 3:23 AM
    ta152h sir you are correct.

  • 0 Hide
    spookyman , October 31, 2013 5:47 AM
    Yes you are correct on the bus issue. VESA local bus was designed to overcome the limitations of the ISA bus.

    As for the reason Intel went with a slot design for the Pentium 2 was to prevent AMD from using it. You can patent and trademark a slot design.

    As for the Pentium Pro, it had issues from handling 16bit x86 instruction sets. The solution was to program around it. The was an inherent computational flaw with the Pentium Pro too.
  • 0 Hide
    Kraszmyl , October 31, 2013 5:54 AM
    I don't think there is a single page that isn't piled with inaccurate or incomplete information.......this is perhaps the worst thing I've ever read on tomshardware and I don't see how you let it get published.
  • 0 Hide
    therogerwilco , October 31, 2013 6:22 AM
    Kinda nice for generic info, was hoping for more explanation of some of the finer points of cpu architecture
  • 7 Hide
    Reynod , October 31, 2013 6:56 AM
    Perhaps the most important thing to note from this is just how clever some of our users are ... so get into the forums and help out the n00bs with their problems guys !!

    :) 
  • 1 Hide
    Sprongy , October 31, 2013 8:20 AM
    Not to be anal but aren't all Core i3 processors, dual cores (2). Some have Hyper-Threading to make it like 4 cores. The last chart above should read Core i3 - 2 cores. Just saying...
  • 0 Hide
    ingtar33 , October 31, 2013 8:37 AM
    Quote:
    Not to be anal but aren't all Core i3 processors, dual cores (2). Some have Hyper-Threading to make it like 4 cores. The last chart above should read Core i3 - 2 cores. Just saying...


    not on mobile. some mobile i3s are single core, same with the mobile i5s... those are all dual core... with hyperthreading.

    there are even dual core i5s in haswell on the desktop. (they are the ones with a (t) after the number)
  • 2 Hide
    rolli59 , October 31, 2013 9:15 AM
    Well although it is full of minor misinformation it is a good insight for a reader that does not know much about it.
  • -1 Hide
    ezorb , October 31, 2013 9:17 AM
    please stop putting this crap on the site, its better to post nothing on a slow Friday
  • 1 Hide
    Nintendo Maniac 64 , October 31, 2013 11:25 AM
    Llano is not based on Bulldozer but rather is based on a slightly improved K10 (typically dubbed "K10.5").
  • 0 Hide
    ronch79 , October 31, 2013 5:50 PM
    Do AMD processors also feature reprogrammable microcode? I'm using an FX-8350 and before it I was using a Phenom II X4 925 (unlocked X3 720).
  • 0 Hide
    turboflame , November 1, 2013 9:45 AM
    Yeah, this wasn't particularly well researched. Quite a few minor mistakes, not to mention it reads like an Intel advertisement, with AMD's contribution to modern PCs being either downplayed or omitted entirely.
  • 0 Hide
    Geef , November 1, 2013 4:16 PM
    After seeing that story they had up a couple days ago about HUBS where the person actually talked about what SWITCHES do, not hubs.
    Since then I make sure I come into Tomshardware articles expecting stuff to be incorrect. It makes me sad, I used to come here for new tech info but now I'm not so sure...
  • 0 Hide
    catfishtx , November 4, 2013 11:44 AM
    I worked for Intel during the time period that they released the Pentium MMX processors. They told us that MMX stood for Multi Media eXtensions.
  • 0 Hide
    falcosoft , November 17, 2013 11:54 AM
    "Note: Most applications that formerly used floating-point math now use MMX/SSE instructions instead. These instructions are faster and more accurate than x87 floating-point math."

    Quite the contrary, x87 CAN BE more accurate than SSE but not the way around. X87 knows and uses 80 bit floating point data internally while SEE (and AVX) can only use 64 bit floating point data. This sentence will be true if 128 bit precision is implemented in the future.