Zen: New Core Features

Since August, AMD has been slowly releasing microarchitecture details about Zen. Initially it started with a formal disclosure during Intel’s annual developer event, the followed a paper at HotChips, some more details at the ‘New Horizon’ event in December, and recently a talk at ISSCC. The Zen Tech Day just before launch gave a chance to get some of those questions answered.

First up, let’s dive right in to the high-level block diagram:

In this diagram, the core is split into the ‘front-end’ in blue and the rest of the core is the ‘back-end’. The front-end is where instructions come into the core, branch predictors are activated and instructions are decoded into micro-ops (micro-operations) before being placed into a micro-op queue. In red is the part of the back-end that deals with integer (INT) based instructions, such as integer math, loops, loads and stores. In orange is the floating-point (FP) part of the back-end, typically focused on different forms of math compute. Both the INT and FP segments have their own separate execution port schedulers

If it looks somewhat similar to other high-performance CPU cores, you’d be correct: there seems to be a high-level way of ‘doing things’ when it comes to x86, with three levels of cache, multi-level TLBs, instruction coalescing, a set of decoders that dispatch a combined 4-5+ micro-ops per cycle, a very large micro-op queue (150+), shared retire resources, AVX support, and simultaneous hyper-threading.

What’s New to AMD

First up, and the most important, was the inclusion of the micro-op cache. This allows for instructions that were recently used to be called up to the micro-op queue rather than being decoded again, and saves a trip through the core and caches. Typically micro-op caches are still relatively small: Intel’s version can support 1536 uOps with 8-way associativity. We learned (after much asking) at AMD’s Tech Day that the micro-op cache for Zen can support ‘2K’ (aka 2048) micro-ops with up to 8-ops per cache line. This is good for AMD, although I conversed with Mike Clark on this: if AMD had said ‘512’, on one hand I’d be asking why it is so small, and on the other wondering if they would have done something different to account for the performance adjustments. But ‘2K’ fits in with what we would expect.

Secondly is the cache structure. We were given details for the L1, L2 and L3 cache sizes, along with associativity, to compare it to former microarchitectures as well as Intel’s offering.

In this case, AMD has given Zen a 64KB L1 Instruction cache per core with 4-way associativity, with a lop-sided 32KB L1 Data cache per core with 8-way associativity. The size and accessibility determines how frequently a cache line is missed, and it is typically a trade-off for die area and power (larger caches require more die area, more associativity usually costs power). The instruction cache, per cycle, can afford a 32byte fetch while the data cache allows for 2x 16-byte loads and one 16-byte store per cycle. AMD stated that allowing two D-cache loads per cycle is more representative of the most workloads that end up with more loads than stores.

The L2 is a large 512 KB, 8-way cache per core. This is double the size of Intel’s 256 KB 4-way cache in Skylake or 256 KB 8-way cache in Broadwell. Typically doubling the cache size affords a 1.414 (square root of 2) better chance of a cache hit, reducing the need to go further out to find data, but comes at the expense of die area. This will have a big impact on a lot of performance metrics, and AMD is promoting faster cache-to-cache transfers than previous generations. Both the L1 and L2 caches are write-back caches, improving over the L1 write-through cache in Bulldozer.

The L3 cache is an 8MB 16-way cache, although at the time last week it was not specified over how many cores this was. From the data release today, we can confirm rumors that this 8 MB cache is split over a four-core module, affording 2 MB of L3 cache per core or 16 MB of L3 cache for the whole 8-core Zen CPU. These two 8 MB caches are separate, so act as a last-level cache per 4-core module with the appropriate hooks into the other L3 to determine if data is needed. As part of the talk today we also learned that the L3 is a pure victim cache for L1/L2 victims, rather than a cache for prefetch/demand data, which tempers the expectations a little but the large L2 will make up for this. We’ll discuss it as part of today’s announcement.

AMD is also playing with SMT, or simultaneous multi-threading. We’ve covered this with Intel extensively, under the heading ‘HyperThreading’. At a high level both these terms are essentially saying the same thing, although their implementations may differ. Adding SMT to a core design has the potential to increase throughput by allowing a second thread (or third, or fourth, or like IBM up to eight) on the same core to have the same access to execution ports, queues and caches. However SMT requires hardware level support – not all structures can be dynamically shared between threads and can either be algorithmically partitioned (prefetch), statically partitioned (micro-op queue) or used in alternate cycles (retire queue).

We also have dual schedulers, one for INT and another for FP, which is different to Intel’s joint scheduler/buffer implementation. 

CPUs, Speeds, Pricing: AMD Ryzen 7 Launch Details The Ryzen Die
Comments Locked

574 Comments

View All Comments

  • zangheiv - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link

    Hard to believe how a company like intel that repeatedly and knowingly engaged in illegal acts and other tactics to monopolize the market and cheat the consumers into high-prices, can still have dumb happy consumers after Ryzen
  • lmcd - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link

    Some people like 256-bit vector ops I guess :-/ who would've guessed?
  • Ratman6161 - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link

    Have to agree. To me, the i7-7700K seems like the better bargain right now. Then again, I'm looking at a $329 I7-6700K motherboard and CPU bundle and the 7700K isn't really all that much of an upgrade from the 6700K. But in the final analysis, after all this reading, I'm still not seeing anything that makes me want to rush out and replace my trusty old i7-2600K.
  • Meteor2 - Friday, March 3, 2017 - link

    +1. Maybe, as Rarson says above, a 4C/8T Zen might clock fast enough to challenge the 7700K. But in the workloads run at home, the 1800X does not challenge the (cheaper) 7700K.

    HPC and data centre are completely different and here Zen looks like it has real promise.
  • Meteor2 - Friday, March 3, 2017 - link

    ...Sadly the R5s are clocked equally low.

    https://www.google.co.uk/amp/wccftech.com/amd-ryze...

    Limited by process, I guess.
  • Cooe - Sunday, February 28, 2021 - link

    Again. You're an absolute idiot for thinking that the only "workloads done at home" are 1080p gaming & browsing the web.... You are so out of touch with the desktop PC market, it's almost unbelievable. Here's hoping you were able to aquire some common sense over the past 4 years.
  • cmdrdredd - Saturday, March 4, 2017 - link

    " I'm still not seeing anything that makes me want to rush out and replace my trusty old i7-2600K."

    I agree with you. I have an overclocked 3570k and I don't see anything that makes me feel like it's too old. I'm mostly gaming on my system when I use it heavily, otherwise it's just general internet putzing around
  • Jimster480 - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link

    Sorry but this is not the case.
    This is competing against Intel's HEDT line and not against the 7700k.

    2011v3 offers more PCI-E lanes only if you buy the top end CPU (which ofc isn't noted in most places) a cheaper chip like the 5820k for example only offers like 24 lanes TOTAL. Meaning that in price comparison there is no actual comparison.
  • Ratman6161 - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link

    Well, whomever is trying to compete against, I7-7700K is about the top of the price range I am willing to spend. So Intel's 2011V3 lineup isn't in the cards for me either. AMD really isn't offering anything much for the mid range or regular desktop user either. In web browsing, office tasks, etc, their $499 CPU is often beaten by an i3. Now, the i3 is just as good as an i7-6900K too and in at least one test the i3 7350K is top of the charts. Why does this matter? Well, where does AMD go from here? If the i3 out performs the 1800x for office tasks, what will happen when they cut it to 4 cores to make a cheaper variant? Seems like they are set up for very expensive CPU's and for CPU's they have to sell for next to nothing. Where will their mid range come from?
  • silverblue - Thursday, March 2, 2017 - link

    Something tells me that if I decide to work on something complicated in Excel, that i3 isn't going to come anywhere near an R7. Besides, the 4- and 6-core variants may end up clocked higher, we don't know for sure yet.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now