Beyond3D Forum

phynicle · 10-May-2002, 07:27

i remember off somewhere before the offical annoucement of the AMD K8 family processors , that the core had undergone major design changes due to some reason and the hammer we've come to recognise now wasn't the one originally intended but actually a crippled version of a more glorified dream

can anyone tell me if i'm right or not?

Saem · 10-May-2002, 08:37

I believe you are.

The original design wasn't the K7 on steriods. It was a RISC/CISC/VLIW architecture. I don't know anything else about it, except that is what we'll be seeing in K9 most likely. The person who was heading this -can't remember the name- left AMD - I think.

Vince · 11-May-2002, 06:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saem

The original design wasn't the K7 on steriods. It was a RISC/CISC/VLIW architecture. I don't know anything else about it, except that is what we'll be seeing in K9 most likely. The person who was heading this -can't remember the name- left AMD - I think.

Hmm.. I seem to remember that the design for the K8 was based on the K6 core and was CMP.. The name Raza Atiq is in my head for some reason.. not 100% sure, but I am sure that origionally the K8 wasn't based on the K7 core.

phynicle · 11-May-2002, 07:20

hmmm based on the K6 core...i really don't think so
as far as i can remember the hammer we're hearing now is more or less a cippled version of AMD's roiginal intensions.....in fact i think ....ahhh can't remember

Gubbi · 11-May-2002, 12:23

The only things that are crippled is the register based (as opposed to the stack based x87) FPU instructions, which originally were supposed to be 3-address. AMD probably realised that SSE-2 compatibility is more important than the extra 10-20% performance. And of course they also added extra registers in 64bit mode.

Cheers
Gubbi

Vince · 11-May-2002, 20:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by phynicle

hmmm based on the K6 core...i really don't think so
as far as i can remember the hammer we're hearing now is more or less a cippled version of AMD's roiginal intensions.....in fact i think ....ahhh can't remember

Wanta bet?

The K8's origional core engineering group was the same group that designed the K6. They eventually, and obviously, moved to the K7 for a technical foundation, but advanced planning - AFAIK - was based on the K6 core.

What I'm talking of predates the downgrade in preformance that their speaking of.

Gunhead · 21-May-2002, 14:17

Hey phynicle, Vince, keep looking. I'm interested, and I believe many others are too.

phynicle · 22-May-2002, 14:09

i can remeber that one of the main engineer walked off and if you look through the patents AMD put through
alot of the ones relating to the Hammer technology was under his name

and i'm still convinced that the original design was surprior coz i remember hearing th official annoucement of the hammer and was disappointed since i've already seen some features of what they were originally gonna implement....i know what i saw was the real thing because what they sed was going to be in the final version of hammer really did appear at the day of the annoucement...so credibility was there

but none the less i really like to know for sure from someone who really did know about this issue

phynicle · 23-May-2002, 15:18

guys take a look for yourselves i finally found the link
http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2...hitecture.html

Saem · 24-May-2002, 06:00

That is a bunch of speculation based on a few patents AMD has.

Like I said before, the original K8 was a hybrid VLIW/CISC/RISC MPU. This is what I got from RWT, the posters there tend to be in the know. I haven't seen anything beyond that.

Gunhead · 30-May-2002, 02:46

Good post, phynicle!

phynicle · 30-May-2002, 06:51

thanx gunhead

just a thought practical would it be to apply optical technology to replace current hd's?

Vince · 01-Jun-2002, 05:46

Ok, I appologize, I was wrong... I asked Josh - who runs Penstarsys.com - what it is that he knew and he replied:

Quote:

From what I remember, the initial groundwork was laid by the K6 team, but it has always been based on the then new K7 core. Once the K7 was done, the design teams were mixed around, with some of the K7 people going to K8 and vice versa (or so I hear). But you are correct, the K6 team laid the groundwork based off of the K7. Now, the old K7 teams are probably laying down the groundwork for the K9, and I have a feeling that it will be a totally new architecture. What all it will be, I have no idea, but it should be interesting to say the least.

So, I remembered the K6 was in there somewhere

Kinda interesting none-the-less

phynicle · 01-Jun-2002, 13:58

i knew it i was half right...well thanx for the info anyways....hmmm k9's in development already...interesting
oh btw would it be a major core change to the K8 if they decide to support an extra memory interface?

Saem · 01-Jun-2002, 20:55

Do you mean drop in a new memory controller? Or drop in an additional memory controller?

phynicle · 02-Jun-2002, 02:36

i mean say if they were to add ...say support for DDRII , then the amount of changes they would have to implement into their memory controller...would be like alot?????

Saem · 02-Jun-2002, 06:19

To my knowledge DDR-II specs haven't been finalized, so they would likely have a lot of trouble supporting it at this point in the game, besides, you'd have to verify all over again. =(

In the future, well I don't think it'll be as difficult, but I see it taking more time than simply coming out with a Northbridge revision and new motherboards.

Which leads me to think, how smart this entire integrated memory controller implementation really is.

phynicle · 02-Jun-2002, 13:11

i wonder the same thing
how good is this integrated mem controller
since the k8 will derive most of it's speed from it ite better be good
btw anyone have any ideas about the latency of on die controller compared to ones on motherboards?

Saem · 03-Jun-2002, 04:10

Depends, if you're talking about how many MPUs, but it's roughly half. As the frequency of the clock scales the latency goes down, but it's by very, very little.

Gubbi · 03-Jun-2002, 11:04

The presentations I have seen suggests 140ns for an on die memory controller vs. 220ns for state of the art north bridge (kt266a/333). This should translate into 15-20% increased performance. This more than makes up for a possibly segmented MPU market, where you have to support two standards (DDR I & II). It may even be possible for AMD to make one controller that can use both.

Cheers
Gubbi

phynicle · 03-Jun-2002, 14:55

thanx gubbi
i seem to remember when via made the move to kt266A it boosted performance immensely...and if i remembered correctly it was because they imporved the latency of the controller which was only by <50n's
so amd's prediction could pretty powerful if they can produce that 140n sec

10-May-2002, 07:27	#1
phynicle Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 127	Anyone know what the original K8 core design was like? i remember off somewhere before the offical annoucement of the AMD K8 family processors , that the core had undergone major design changes due to some reason and the hammer we've come to recognise now wasn't the one originally intended but actually a crippled version of a more glorified dream can anyone tell me if i'm right or not?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Real or fake Anandtech article on Next Gen consoles ?	loekf2	Console Technology	5	05-Jul-2005 20:57
Good Dual Core or Better Single Core?	Rur0ni	Hardware & Software Talk	8	26-Jun-2005 06:42
Intel in a tangle over Tanglewood chip design	Megadrive1988	Hardware & Software Talk	6	23-Feb-2005 17:08
PS3's CPU, GPU, RAM and eDRAM configuration?	j^aws	Console Technology	81	19-Feb-2005 17:23
First NV31 Announcement Rumors...	Joe DeFuria	3D Architectures & Chips	63	02-Jan-2003 20:42

10-May-2002, 08:37	#2
Saem Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,532	I believe you are. The original design wasn't the K7 on steriods. It was a RISC/CISC/VLIW architecture. I don't know anything else about it, except that is what we'll be seeing in K9 most likely. The person who was heading this -can't remember the name- left AMD - I think.

11-May-2002, 07:20	#4
phynicle Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 127	hmmm based on the K6 core...i really don't think so as far as i can remember the hammer we're hearing now is more or less a cippled version of AMD's roiginal intensions.....in fact i think ....ahhh can't remember

11-May-2002, 12:23	#5
Gubbi Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 2,544	The only things that are crippled is the register based (as opposed to the stack based x87) FPU instructions, which originally were supposed to be 3-address. AMD probably realised that SSE-2 compatibility is more important than the extra 10-20% performance. And of course they also added extra registers in 64bit mode. Cheers Gubbi

21-May-2002, 14:17	#7
Gunhead Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: a vertex Posts: 354	Hey phynicle, Vince, keep looking. I'm interested, and I believe many others are too.

22-May-2002, 14:09	#8
phynicle Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 127	i can remeber that one of the main engineer walked off and if you look through the patents AMD put through alot of the ones relating to the Hammer technology was under his name and i'm still convinced that the original design was surprior coz i remember hearing th official annoucement of the hammer and was disappointed since i've already seen some features of what they were originally gonna implement....i know what i saw was the real thing because what they sed was going to be in the final version of hammer really did appear at the day of the annoucement...so credibility was there but none the less i really like to know for sure from someone who really did know about this issue

23-May-2002, 15:18	#9
phynicle Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 127	guys take a look for yourselves i finally found the link http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2...hitecture.html

24-May-2002, 06:00	#10
Saem Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,532	That is a bunch of speculation based on a few patents AMD has. Like I said before, the original K8 was a hybrid VLIW/CISC/RISC MPU. This is what I got from RWT, the posters there tend to be in the know. I haven't seen anything beyond that.

30-May-2002, 02:46	#11
Gunhead Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: a vertex Posts: 354	Good post, phynicle!

30-May-2002, 06:51	#12
phynicle Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 127	thanx gunhead just a thought practical would it be to apply optical technology to replace current hd's?

01-Jun-2002, 13:58	#14
phynicle Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 127	i knew it i was half right...well thanx for the info anyways....hmmm k9's in development already...interesting oh btw would it be a major core change to the K8 if they decide to support an extra memory interface?

01-Jun-2002, 20:55	#15
Saem Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,532	Do you mean drop in a new memory controller? Or drop in an additional memory controller?

02-Jun-2002, 02:36	#16
phynicle Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 127	i mean say if they were to add ...say support for DDRII , then the amount of changes they would have to implement into their memory controller...would be like alot?????

02-Jun-2002, 06:19	#17
Saem Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,532	To my knowledge DDR-II specs haven't been finalized, so they would likely have a lot of trouble supporting it at this point in the game, besides, you'd have to verify all over again. =( In the future, well I don't think it'll be as difficult, but I see it taking more time than simply coming out with a Northbridge revision and new motherboards. Which leads me to think, how smart this entire integrated memory controller implementation really is.

02-Jun-2002, 13:11	#18
phynicle Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 127	i wonder the same thing how good is this integrated mem controller since the k8 will derive most of it's speed from it ite better be good btw anyone have any ideas about the latency of on die controller compared to ones on motherboards?

03-Jun-2002, 04:10	#19
Saem Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 1,532	Depends, if you're talking about how many MPUs, but it's roughly half. As the frequency of the clock scales the latency goes down, but it's by very, very little.

03-Jun-2002, 11:04	#20
Gubbi Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 2,544	The presentations I have seen suggests 140ns for an on die memory controller vs. 220ns for state of the art north bridge (kt266a/333). This should translate into 15-20% increased performance. This more than makes up for a possibly segmented MPU market, where you have to support two standards (DDR I & II). It may even be possible for AMD to make one controller that can use both. Cheers Gubbi

03-Jun-2002, 14:55	#21
phynicle Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 127	thanx gubbi i seem to remember when via made the move to kt266A it boosted performance immensely...and if i remembered correctly it was because they imporved the latency of the controller which was only by <50n's so amd's prediction could pretty powerful if they can produce that 140n sec

Beyond3D Forum

Welcome, Unregistered.