Revolution's Broadway CPU to be G3+VMX variant?

PC-Engine

Banned
Just thought this was pretty interesting when Shogmaster brought it up.

Anyway, do you guys think a dual core 750VX (G3+Altivec) with 1MB of L2 cache each running at 1.6GHz would make for a powerful Revolution CPU? How would it compare to a dual core 970FX? Anyway I found this bit of info on the 750GX.

According to Mark Schaffer, an Advanced Technology Engineer with IBM:

Manufactured in IBM’s advanced 0.13-micron copper process with Silicon-on-Insulator technology, the 750GX will be offered at frequencies up to 1.1 GHz. The 750GX expands the capabilities of the IBM PowerPC 7xx processor family to support more performance-demanding and power-sensitive applications. The new processor is ideally suited for a variety of systems, including networking, communications, storage, imaging, computing and consumer applications.
The 750GX is architecturally based on the PowerPC 750FX processor, and implements several enhancements that address the performance requirements of embedded applications (see Figure 1). The 750GX includes 1 MB of internal L2 cache, 4-way set-associative, running at core frequency with cache locking by way, additional L1 and L2 cache buffers allowing pipelining of up to four data cache miss operations, and the capability for up to 200-MHz operation of the 60x system bus interface with additional bus pipelining.

The integrated 1 MB of L2 cache operates at the processor’s core frequency, providing minimal latency for instruction fetch operations and data load operations that hit in the L2 cache. The larger size of the internal L2, twice that available on the 750FX, provides more on-chip memory storage for performance-critical application code and data, and may provide a significant performance improvement, due to the size alone. In addition, the L1 data cache path to the Bus Interface Unit (BIU) and the L2 cache reload path to the L1 data cache are 256 bits wide. With these wide data paths, cache line data bursts can be read from or written to the cache array in a single cycle, reducing cache contention between the BIU and the load-store unit. With 1 MB of low-latency integrated L2 cache, the 750GX is designed to reduce the overall system cost and power by eliminating the need for external L3 memory arrays and lowering the board space requirements.

The 1-MB L2 cache is four-way set-associative, and supports cache locking by way. Any combination of L2 cache ways can be locked, and the locked area becomes a direct-mapped memory space managed by software. Critical code and data tables can be managed directly with software, and will not be pushed out or replaced in a locked cache. This can be beneficial for applications that require deterministic behavior or for key interrupt service routines.

Cache line miss buffers have been added between the L1 data cache and the L2 cache as well as between the L2 cache and the BIU, allowing for up to four-deep pipelining of L1 cache miss transactions. The four transactions can be either four data cache miss transactions or a combination of three data cache miss transactions and one instruction cache miss transaction. In addition, the BIU in the 750GX has been enhanced to provide support for the deeper cache miss pipelining and can now pipeline up to five load/store bus transactions, four from the L2 cache miss queues and one from the L2 cache cast-out buffer. With this enhanced pipelining from the L1 cache through the L2 cache and out to the bus interface unit, the 750GX is designed to improve the overall system performance and bus utilization, allowing applications to take advantage of the higher processing capability that the 750GX processor offers.

The L2 cache has also been enhanced to provide an instruction-side-only mode, which allows only the L1 instruction cache transactions to be allocated within the L2 cache. Data-side transactions are not allocated in the L2 and are read from and written to memory directly from the L1 data cache. This mode is useful for applications that do not benefit from the data-side cache and improves the performance of the L2 cache for the instruction side by not replacing L2 cache lines due to data load and store operations.

The 750GX is fully user-code-compatible with the other members of the IBM 7xx processor family, providing an easy software-migration path to higher processing performance. In addition, the 750GX is pin- and voltage-compatible with the 750FX, eliminating the need for a board redesign to achieve higher performance and allowing for the use of a common board design across a variety of applications with different performance requirements

The package and chip design are both optimized for the high speeds of the processor core and bus. The 21x21-mm 292-ball Ceramic Ball Grid Array (CBGA) package has a partially depopulated pin-out for ease of board layout with the 1.0-mm pitch of the balls, allowing decoupling capacitors to be placed on the underside of the board, in a tightly grouped pattern within the outline of the processor. The pin-out incorporates the full 60x bus interface, including parity signals, but still fits into a small footprint on a board by eliminating the backside L2 interface and using the small pitch.

750VX: 1.5 GHz to 2GHz, Altivec, 1 MB L2 cache 12.5W @ 1.6 GHz?

750CXe/750FX/750GX

Frequency: 400 - 600 MHz/600 - 900 MHz/733 MHz - 1.1 GHz
Process: 0.18 micron/0.13 micron/0.13 micron
Die size: 42.7 mm²/36.6 mm²/51.9 mm²
L2 cache: 256 KB 2-way SA/512 KB 2-way SA/1 MB 4-way SA
Cache miss pipelining: 1 instr, 1 data/1 instr, 1 data or 2 data/1 instr, 3 data or 4 data
Typical power: 6.0 W @ 600 MHz/5.4 W @ 800 MHz/8.0 W @ 1 GHz
Bus speed: 133 MHz/Up to 200 MHz/Up to 200 MHz
Core voltage: 1.8 V nominal/1.45 V nominal/1.45 V nominal
 
Last edited by a moderator:
At first sight, and w/o reading everything, it makes me think 750GX is a derivate of NGC's Gekko...

I think I'll just wait & see what Revolution will be like.
 
PC-Engine said:
Anyway, do you guys think a dual core 750VX (G3+Altivec) with 1MB of L2 cache each running at 1.6GHz would make for a powerful Revolution CPU?
I don't think that would make a powerful CPU at all. Rather it sounds quite mediocre, compared to the two main competitors (and higher-end PCs I might add).
 
Heat-wise, it sounds like something that could fit into the small case Nintendo has been showing.

Persoally I dont think this will be the Nintendo CPU, I think Revolution is going to have a much later launch than people anticipate
 
Pozer said:
Heat-wise, it sounds like something that could fit into the small case Nintendo has been showing.

Persoally I dont think this will be the Nintendo CPU, I think Revolution is going to have a much later launch than people anticipate

Well we know they are very likely to launch last, after PlayStation 3. So that might be during the Summer/Fall of 2006... That's still some time left.
 
sounds very plausible. only the 1.6GHz clock is a bit over speculative as they may or may not move that design to a better lithography (when was the GX introduced?)
 
Evil_Cloud said:
Well we know they are very likely to launch last, after PlayStation 3. So that might be during the Summer/Fall of 2006... That's still some time left.

I was thinking more along the lines of Revolution lauching 2nd/3rd Quarter 2007. Then again I'm in the camp that doesn't believe PS3 will launch till Fall 2006, atleast in NA.
 
The people forget a thing.

You can use the 1T-SRAM with a controller instead of normal SRAM for the L2 Cache and with it you can win advantatge in the heat issues.
 
Another thing that I must say is that the PowerPC 750FX with VMX is a joke compared with its x86 equivalent when you use scalar FP ops, it is only superior when you use the VMX and the SIMD instrucctions on the Gekko are totally different than the VMX instructions.

Sorry.
 
Pozer said:
I was thinking more along the lines of Revolution lauching 2nd/3rd Quarter 2007. Then again I'm in the camp that doesn't believe PS3 will launch till Fall 2006, atleast in NA.

I don't believe that, all three consoles are likely to be released in 2006 (it's in Nintendo's best interest to release their product close to the rest), and I don't think anyone will want to miss the 2006 holiday season in the West.
 
Urian said:
and the SIMD instrucctions on the Gekko are totally different than the VMX instructions.
Gekko doesn't have SIMD. It has dual-issue of (some?) single-precision FPU instructions, that's not the same thing. Lack of SIMD actually makes gekko quite weak in floating-point performance.
 
Evil_Cloud said:
I don't believe that, all three consoles are likely to be released in 2006 (it's in Nintendo's best interest to release their product close to the rest), and I don't think anyone will want to miss the 2006 holiday season in the West.

<off Topic>Xbox 360 is releasing 2005 barring China taking back Taiwan. Also, I don't believe it is in Nintendo's best interest to release relatively close to x360 and ps3. They're just forcing people to choose sides at a time they're looking weak.
 
Guden Oden said:
Gekko doesn't have SIMD. It has dual-issue of (some?) single-precision FPU instructions, that's not the same thing. Lack of SIMD actually makes gekko quite weak in floating-point performance.

Really, I seem to remember it having something like 64 SIMD instructions, or at least 64 instructions were added in going from G3 to Gecko, I just assumed they were SIMD.(btw, is SIMD even heavily used on systems with graphics cards that can handle the same calculations?)
 
Guden Oden said:
Gekko doesn't have SIMD. It has dual-issue of (some?) single-precision FPU instructions, that's not the same thing.
It's a 2-way SIMD.

Lack of SIMD actually makes gekko quite weak in floating-point performance.
It has equivalent throughput to any 3dnow/SSE1/2 CPU, just with a more useable set of operations and more registers to work with.
That said, I'm curious why you think dual-issue FPU would be inferior to a 2-way SIMD (assuming equivalent execution resources).
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the 750FX and GX doesn't have Altivec. That's what makes the VX different. Oh and according to people in the know the 750VX's design was completed and aimed at 10nm process, but never made it into the iBooks due to Apple going with Motorola.

darkblu said:
sounds very plausible. only the 1.6GHz clock is a bit over speculative as they may or may not move that design to a better lithography (when was the GX introduced?)

The 1.6GHz - 2GHz is information for the 750VX. The 750VXe was designed to go beyond 2GHz. I just picked the lower speed number and speculated dual core. It's been said that the 750VX was designed for multiprocessor configurations like the 970FX so a dual core 750VX like the 970MP is possible.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fafalada said:
It's a 2-way SIMD.
I don't want to argue against a guy like you :)mrgreen: ), but from what I've read, on a technical level, gekko doesn't have a typical SIMD implementation, but rather a "split" FPU. I suppose in practice it makes little difference though...

I'm curious why you think dual-issue FPU would be inferior to a 2-way SIMD (assuming equivalent execution resources).
I suppose it wouldn't. Just that "proper" SIMD implementations tend to allow 4-way calculations, and thus, double the throughput...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Slightly OT but I didn't want to open a new thread for this, but if the sub subject evolves I'll do that.
I (for some reason unbeknownst to me) just remembered an old interview with some Nintendo reps. When asked about whether the size of the Revolution box would affect the computing power of the electronics inside, answered something akin to that "we’re using nanotechnology, so that shouldn't be a problem" without elaborating. I can't find the interview in question, but I did some googling and hit upon this.
What is this "nanotechnology"? Some new type of PCB? And is PS3 using it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nanotechnology used in this context just means SoC ie CPU/GPU/RAM in a single chip. For example the EE+GS@90nm uses "nanotechnology" with respect to game console chips. It's just a generic term used loosely to describe miniaturization of a complete system.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well if they launch in late 2006 around holiday they could be the one with 65nm from the get go . Which can mean a dual or tri core chip in the 2 ghz range running very cool along with a cool gpu
 
If the CPU can have two or three threads in flight with a slightly beefier FPU, a second set of units perhaps, and a better FSB, I imagine there wouldn't be much need for any more horsepower, at least in that department.

The rest can be handled by competent graphics and sound processors. This would also keep things rather simple since one could just focus on making those two up to their respective tasks which is cheaper from a transistor/heat/cost perspective. Biggest win would be ease of programming, since you'd likely have straightforward APIs to everything.

The CPU's main task would be management, physics and AI, while the rest could be off loaded to the dedicated hardware.

It really sounds like Nintendo is heading towards, a simple system which has a few moderately general constructs and one can compose them with a fair degree of play but not to the point where everything will require fine tuning. Take note, this is very much in the vein of the Gamecube AFAICS.
 
Back
Top