Hot Chips is an annual conference that allows semiconductor companies to present their latest and greatest ideas or forthcoming products in an academic-style environment, and is predominantly aimed as the professional semiconductor engineer. This year has a number of talks about power management, upcoming IBM CPUs, upcoming Intel CPUs, upcoming NVIDIA SoCs and the final talk of the final day is from AMD, discussing Zen in even more depth than the previous week. While we were unable to attend the event in person, we managed to get some hands on time with information and put questions to Mike Clark, AMD Senior Fellow and design engineer.

What We Learned Last Week: L1/L2/L3 Caches and the Micro-Op Buffer

In AMD’s initial presentation for the general media, we were given a sense of the microarchitecture layout. We covered the material, but it contained a number of highlights.

AMD Zen Microarchitecture: Dual Schedulers, Micro-op Cache and Memory Hierarchy Revealed
AMD Server CPUs and Motherboard Analysis
Unpacking AMD's Zen Benchmark: Is Zen actually 2% Faster than Broadwell?

First up, and the most important, was the announcement of the inclusion of a micro-op cache. This allows for instructions that are frequently used to be closer to the micro-op queue and saves a trip through the core and caches to load the desired information. Typically micro-op caches are still relatively small, and while AMD isn’t giving any information for size and accessibility, we know that Intel’s version can support 1536 uOps with 8-way associativity; we expect AMD’s to be similar though there are many options in play.

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.

CPU Cache Comparison
  Zen
HEDT
Bulldozer
HEDT
Excavator
 
Skylake Broadwell
HEDT
L1-I 64KB/core 64KB/module 96KB/module 32KB/core 32KB/core
4-way 2-way 3-way 8-way 8-way
L1-D 32KB/core 16KB/thread 32KB/thread 32KB/core 32KB/core
8-way 4-way 8-way 8-way 8-way
L2 512KB/core 1MB/thread 512KB/thread 256KB/core 256KB/core
8-way 16-way 16-way 4-way 8-way
L3 2MB/core 1MB/thread - >2MB/core 1.5-3MB/core
16-way 64-way - 16-way 16/20-way
L3 Type Victim Victim - Write-back Write-back

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.

The mid-week release also gave insight into the dual schedulers, one for INT and another for FP, which is different to Intel’s joint scheduler/buffer implementation. The talk at Hot Chips goes into detail about how the dispatch and schedulers operate

The New Information

As part of the Hot Chips presentation, AMD is reaffirming its commitment to at least +40% IPC improvement over Excavator. This has specifically been listed as a throughput goal at an equivalent energy per cycle, resulting in an increase in efficiency. Obviously a number of benefits come from moving the 28nm TSMC process to GloFo’s 14nm FinFET process which is used via a Samsung licence. Both the smaller node and FinFET improvements have been well documented so we won’t go over them here, but AMD is stating that Zen is much more than this as a direct improvement to immediate performance, not just efficiency. While Zen is initially a high-performance x86 core at heart, it is designed to scale all the way from notebooks to supercomputers, or from where the Cat cores (such as Jaguar and Puma) were all the way up to the old Opterons and beyond, all with at least +40% IPC.

The first immediate image out of the presentation is the CPU Complex (a CCX), which shows the Zen core design as a four-CPU cluster with caches. This shows the L2/L3 cache breakdown, and also confirms 2MB of L3 per core with 8 MB of L3 per CCX. It also states that the L3 is mostly exclusive of the L2 cache, which stems from the L3 cache as a victim cache for L2 data. AMD is stating that the protocols involved in the L3 cache design allow each core to access the L3 of each other core with an average (but a range) of latencies.

Over the next few pages, we’ll go through the slides. They detail more information about the application of Simultaneous Multithreading (SMT), New Instructions, the size of various queues and buffers, the back-end of the design, the front-end of the design, fetch, decode, execute, load/store and retire segments.

The High-Level Zen Overview
POST A COMMENT

104 Comments

View All Comments

  • TristanSDX - Wednesday, August 24, 2016 - link

    Zen do not support transactional memory, big disadvantage comparing to Intel Reply
  • Senti - Wednesday, August 24, 2016 - link

    And how much does it matter? TSX is great thing no doubt there. But the adoption? What can you name of real software what uses and get significant benefit of it?

    I blame Intel stupid marketing for cutting TSX from too many versions and killing the adoption.
    Reply
  • coder111 - Wednesday, August 24, 2016 - link

    As far as I know, Azul JVMs do support transactional memory. So if you have a Java app, you can use it.

    Other than that, yes, I haven't seen TSX used much...
    Reply
  • 68k - Wednesday, August 24, 2016 - link

    Isn't the version of glibc in recent Linux-distributions using the lock elision feature of TSX?

    https://lwn.net/Articles/534758/
    https://01.org/blogs/tlcounts/2014/lock-elision-gl...

    If so, then essentially every single Linux program does make use of TSX when present.
    Reply
  • looncraz - Wednesday, August 24, 2016 - link

    One of the most important features of TSX are checkpoints. Zen supports checkpoints in its execution pipeline. Otherwise, I've not seen anything that said Zen did or did not support TSX, not that the tech is widely used at this time.

    From there, you just need tagging and a few other features to add support. It's something that could be included in Zen+ if Zen does not have it.
    Reply
  • silverblue - Wednesday, August 24, 2016 - link

    It looks like Zen was developed to accelerate the vast majority of software, and rely on core count for everything else. It might explain the lack of focus on AVX.

    If cache stats were any indication of performance, it would appear that Zen was destined to compete with Broadwell, but not quite match the Lake CPUs; Zen+ would perhaps close the gap albeit a bit late. Bulldozer was hamstrung by half-speed writes and horrific L3 latency - would it be remiss to assume that they've at least fixed those two issues?

    I'm not sure anybody can truly predict performance however, even with a Blender demonstration, and certainly not to work out prospective Cinebench or SuperPi performance. You could have a monster of an architecture, but if the software isn't optimised for it, it's not going to be representative of its true performance.
    Reply
  • wumpus - Wednesday, August 24, 2016 - link

    I'd still want the TSX instructions before even thinking about the server market. I guess they surrendered that before the overall architecture was finished. Although considering how badly it has worked for Intel (essentially turned off after errata was noted in the first generation), maybe it wasn't worth risk. Reply
  • Alexvrb - Sunday, August 28, 2016 - link

    Yeah they need to take their time. A faulty implementation would do more harm than good at this point. Reply
  • Xajel - Wednesday, August 24, 2016 - link

    I have a feeling that the Socket has more potential, there's a huge jump in pin counts that might hides something, I suspect AMD have specific HEDT version with higher TDP ( like 130-140 ) that might ship later in 2017 after the first wave. or maybe even triple channel that works only on higher-end HEDT motherboard while it will be still backward compatible with regular dual channels motherboards... Reply
  • none12345 - Wednesday, August 24, 2016 - link

    Nice article, thanks, and timely too.

    Cant wait for real zen benchmarks.

    I so badly want this to be another athlon64 x2 moment. But i dont think we will get that, and we don't need that. Consider the athlon 64 gave us multicore, and it stomped the pentium4 as well.

    Ill be completey happy with a phenom II moment. Which was note quite as fast as intel, but gave you more almost as fast cores for your money. As well as unlocking cores at a much lower price point, which gave you superior overclocking for your money.

    I will not at this point consider buying another quad core. Quad core is insufficient for my typical work load. I do not use 1 heavily multithreaded piece of software, i constantly use multiple pieces of moderately threaded software that currently mostly maxes out my processor.

    In my opinion the industry should have stopped selling dual cores a year ago. It should be quad core at the low end and 6 or 8 core should be the mainstream. For desktop that is, i can still see some moble things being dual core.

    Because i will NOT consider another quad core at this point. My only option today is the intel's enthusiast platform, which is far too expensive relative to the performance increase. So they are out.

    And this is why im hoping that zen does not disappoint. If they can give me 6 or 8 cores that are within 10% per core, for similar costs to the i5 or i7 line, then im a definite buy. If they give me 6 or 8 cores that are priced like intel's enthusiast platform, well then i guess im not upgrading, untill someone can offer me more cores for a reasonable price.

    If intel would offer more cores mainstream, then id absolutely consider a new chip from them. IE if i3 was 4 core, i5 was 6 core, and i7 was 8 core.
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now