One, er, Hub to Rule them All?

With R500 AMD introduced its first ring bus, a high speed, high bandwidth bus designed to move tons of data between consumers of memory bandwidth and the memory controllers themselves. The R600 GPU saw an updated version of the ring bus, capable of moving 100GB/s of data internally:

On R600 the ring bus consisted of two 512-bit links for true bi-directional operation (data could be sent either way along the bus) and delivered a total of 100GB/s of internal bandwidth. The ring bus was a monster and it was something that AMD was incredibly proud of, however in the quest for better performance per watt, AMD had to rid itself of the ring and replace it with a more conventional switched hub architecture:

With the ring bus data needed to be forwarded from one ring stop to the next and all clients got access to the full bandwidth, regardless of whether or not they needed it. For relatively low bandwidth data (e.g. UVD2 and display controller data), the ring bus was a horrible waste of power.

With the RV770 all that exists is a simple switched hub, which means that sending data to the display controller, PCIe and UVD2 (AMD's video decode engine) traffic are now far less costly from a power standpoint. Another side effect of ditching the ring bus is a reduction in latency since data is sent point to point rather than around a ring. With the move to a hub, AMD increased their internal bus width to 2kbits wide (which is huge). Maximum bandwidth has increased to 192GB/s (in 4870) but this depends on clock speeds.

With nearly double the internal bandwidth and a point to point communication system, latency between memory clients should be decreased, and huge amounts of data can move between parts of the chip. Certainly getting enough data on to the GPU to feed 800 execution units is a major undertaking and AMD needed to make a lot of things wider to accommodate this.

The CrossFire Sideport

Although AMD isn't talking about it now, the CrossFire Sideport is a new feature of the RV770 architecture that isn't in use on the RV770 at all. In future, single-card, multi-GPU solutions (*cough* R700) this interface will be used to communicate between adjacent GPUs - in theory allowing for better scaling with CrossFire. We'll be able to test this shortly as AMD is quickly readying its dual-GPU RV770 card under the R700 codename. 

One thing is for sure, anything AMD can do to assist in providing more reliable consistent scaling with CrossFire will go a long way to help them move past some of the road blocks they currently have with respect to competing in the high end space. We're excited to see if this really makes a difference, as currently CrossFire is performed the same way it always has been: by combining the output of the rendered framebuffer of two cards. Adding some sort of real GPU-to-GPU communication might help sort out some of their issues.

Wrapping Up the Architecture and Efficiency Discussion Fixing AMD's Poor AA Performance
Comments Locked

215 Comments

View All Comments

  • 0g1 - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link

    In the article it says the GT200 doesn't need to do ILP. It only has 10 threads. Each of those threads needs ILP for each of the SP's. The problem with AMD's approach is each SP has 5 units and is aimed directly at processing x,y,z,w matrix style operations. Doing purely scalar operations on AMD's SP's would be only using 1 out of the 5 units. So, if you want to get the most out of AMD's shaders, you should be doing vector calculations.
  • DerekWilson - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link

    The GT200 doesn't worry with ILP at all.

    a single thread doesn't run width wise across all execution units. instead different threads execute the exact same single scalar op on their own unique bit of data (there is only one program counter per SM for a context). this is all TLP (thread level parallelism) and not ILP.

    AMD's compiler can pack multiple scalar ops into a 5-wide VLIW operation.

    on purely scalar code with many independent ops in a long program, AMD can fill all their units and get close to peak performance. explicit vector instructions are not necessary.
  • gigahertz20 - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link

    http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/hardware-canu...">http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/ha...870-512m...



    The site above mounted an after market cooler on it and got awesome results. Either the Thermalright HR-03 GT is just that great of a GPU cooler, or the standard heatsink/fan on the 4870 is just that horrible. Going from 82C to 43C at load and 55C to 33C at idle, just from an after market cooler is crazy! I was hoping to see some overclocking scores after they mounted the Thermalright on it, but nope :(
  • Matt Campbell - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link

    The HR-03GT really is that great. Check it out: http://www.anandtech.com/casecoolingpsus/showdoc.a...">http://www.anandtech.com/casecoolingpsus/showdoc.a...

    Our 8800GT went from 81 deg. C to 38 deg. C at load, 52 to 32 at idle. That's also with the quietest fan on the market at low speed. And FWIW, I played through all of The Witcher (about 60 hours) with the 8800GT passively cooled in a case with only 1 120mm fan.

    -Matt
  • Clauzii - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link

    I see no fan on that thing??! PASSIVE?? :O ??
  • jeffreybt2 - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link

    "Please note that this is with a single Zalman 92MM fan operating at 1600RPM along with Arctic Cooling MX-2 applied to the base."
  • magnusr - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link

    Does the audio part of the card support PAP? If not all blu-ray audio will be downsampled to 16/48...
  • NullSubroutine - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link

    I would just like to point out that the 4870 falls behind the 3870 X2 in Oblivion while in every other game it runs circles around it. To me it appears to be a driver problem with Oblivion rather than an indication of the hardware not doing well there. Unless of course the answer lies in the ring bus of the R680?
  • orionmgomg - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link

    I would love to see more benchmarks with the CPU OCed to at least 4.0

    All the CPUs you use can hit it NP.

    Also, what about at least 2 GTX 280 Cards and their numbers. Noticed that you did have them in SLI cause the power comsumption comparisons had them, but you held back the performance numbers...

    Lets see the top 4 cards from ATI and Nvidia compete in dule GPU (no punt intended)on an X48 with DDR3 1600 and a FSB of 400x10!

    That would be really nice for the people hoe have performance systems, but may still be rocking out a pair of EVGA 8800Ultras, cause their waiting for real numbers and performance to come out - and their still paying off theye systems lol... :]
  • Ilmarin - Wednesday, June 25, 2008 - link

    You're probably aware of these already, but I'll mention them just in case:

    * Page 10 (AA comparison) is malformed with no images
    * Page 21 (Power, Heat and Noise) is missing the Heat and Noise stuff.

    Heat is a big issue with these 4800 cards and their reference coolers, so it would be good to see it covered in detail. My 7800 GTX used to artifact and cause crashes when it hit 79 degrees, before I replaced it with an aftermarket cooler. Apparently the 4870 hits well over 90 degrees at load, and the 4850 isn't much better. Decent aftermarket coolers (HR-03 GT, DuOrb) aren't cheap... and if that's what it takes to prevent heat problems on these cards, some people might consider buying a slower card (like a 9800 GTX+) just because it has better cooling.

    Anand, you guys should do a meltdown test... pit the 9800 GTX+ against the 4850, and the 4870 against the GTX 260, all with reference coolers, in a standard air-cooled system at a typical ambient temp. Forget timedemos/benchmarks... play an intensive game like Crysis for an hour or two, and see if you encounter glitches and crashes. If the 4800 cards can somehow remain artifact/crash free at those high temps, then I'd more seriously consider buying one. Heat damage over time may also be a concern, but is hard to test for.

    Sure, DAAMIT's partners will eventually put non-reference coolers on some cards, but history tells us that the majority of the market in the first few months will be stock-cooled cards, so this has got be of concern to consumers... especially early adopters.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now