Arm Announces Neoverse N1 & E1 Platforms & CPUs: Enabling A Huge Jump In Infrastructure Performance
by Andrei Frumusanu on February 20, 2019 9:00 AM ESTEnd Remarks: Strengthening the Infrastructure Ecosystem
If there’s one thing that readers should take away from today’s presentations, it’s the fact that Arm is taking the infrastructure and server push extremely seriously. The last year in particular has been transformative for the Arm ecosystem as we’ve for the first time seen Arm vendor platforms be competitive with the major incumbents such as Intel and AMD.
The elephant in the room is Amazon, and last year’s reveal of a new AWS instance based on their own-in house ARMv8 Graviton processors marked a significant moment showcasing that Arm is now irrefutably becoming mainstream in the industry.
While Arm did not divulge any information on who will be employing the new Neoverse N1 platforms first – I would not be surprised if the next generation Graviton processor will based on the N1 CPU.
The N1 CPU looks to be an excellent CPU that targets a sweet-spot point between peak compute performance, overall throughput. And most importantly it maintains the leading power efficiency that is already found in Arm's mobile products. Arm has high hopes for N1 and its eventual successors, and for good reason: they're looking to steal market share away from the likes of Intel (and x86 servers in general), which has proven to be an entrenched market full of very high performance processors. For that reason Arm is bringing their best to the table, and while N1 isn't going to be a core-for-core competitor with flagship x86, it stands to pose a significant threat, especially in workloads that can easily scale up to a larger number of cores.
Meanwhile the new E1 CPU targets the expanding market for high throughput processors, which with the upcoming shift to 5G will require more throughput performance at low power levels. Here Arm seems to have custom-tailored a CPU specifically to serve such use-cases. This is a move that's arguably less about stealing market share from any one player, and more about being in the right place at the right time to secure their place in what should be a rapidly growing market. In that sense the E1 is a very traditional Arm move – focus on cost and simpler processors – and this has been a move that's continued to serve Arm well over the years.
Although the new hardware IP is impressive, what also matters greatly is Arm’s efforts into strengthening the Arm software ecosystem. Working with various industry hardware and software partners in trying to facilitate the software stack and interoperability with Arm not only benefits vendors using Arm’s own hardware IP, but also vendors who chose the route of employing their own custom CPU and SoC designs. Similarly, those vendors who are trying to improve and strengthen their own products will inevitably feed back into strengthening the Arm ecosystem as well – creating essentially what is a group effort between many companies that in the future will continue to gain momentum.
It's said that the Neoverse N1 will be commercially deployed by partners in the next 12-18 months, and I think this will be a crucial moment for Arm and the company’s server endeavours. If the major breakthrough in mind-share hasn’t already happened, if all goes well and Arm and partners deliver on the promised improvements, the next 1-2 years will certainly represent a major shift in the industry.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
101 Comments
View All Comments
Santoval - Thursday, February 21, 2019 - link
"Both Intel and AMD have been making chips that take the CISC instructions and run them through an instruction decoder that then hands RISC instructions to the actual cpu."The instruction decoder is also part of an "actual CPU". Beside the decoder the front-end also has instruction fetch, a branch predictor, predecode (potentially), μOP & L1 instruction cache, instruction queues, a TLB, allocation queues etc etc All these units are most certainly parts of the "actual CPU".
I believe you rather meant "hands RISC-like instructions to the *back-end* of the CPU".
FunBunny2 - Thursday, February 21, 2019 - link
"The speed advantages on paper between RISC and CISC are in theory a wash. "not to keep beating the dead horse 360, dated as it is, but with the hardware of the time (and IBM was the top of the heap, then) the 360/30 ran the instruction set in micro-code. allegedly the first computer to even have microcode. ran like drek compared to the all-hardware versions of the machine. the '30 real cpu was long reputed to be some DEC machine.
"cpu design quite a bit without being so closely tied to backwards compatibility."
lots of folks say that, but makes no sense to me. compilers target the instruction set, which only changes when Intel publishes 'extensions'. whether those instructions are executed in pure ISA hardware, or a rat running in a spinning wheel (RISC), makes no difference to the compiler writer.
the profiling explanation for microcode over pure ISA hardware makes the most sense.
Wilco1 - Wednesday, February 20, 2019 - link
The only misinformation is from you. RTL simulation is widely used in the industry and is quite accurate.Studies have shown CISC instructions don't do more than RISC instructions - partly because compilers avoid CISC instructions, partly because CISC instructions are slow. That's why RISC works. But I wouldn't expect you to understand this.
FunBunny2 - Thursday, February 21, 2019 - link
"Studies have shown CISC instructions don't do more than RISC instructions "at least in the z world (and predecessors), there were/are some (I don't remember the count) of 'COBOL assist' instructions which were/are quite complex and were introduced to reduce the amount of times the COBOL coders had to 'drop down to assembler'. whether that's still true, I can't say.
DigitalVideoProcessor - Thursday, February 21, 2019 - link
CISC vs. RISC is a debate about instruction decode philosophy and it has almost zero bearing on the performance of a system. CISC machines reduce everything to RISC like operations. Saying one does more than another in a given clock is misinformation.melgross - Thursday, February 21, 2019 - link
Those wars are long over. No modern chip is either pure CISC or RISC. Those are long gone.Calin - Thursday, February 21, 2019 - link
SPECint, SPECfp, ... are "work done tasks" - what your're referring to was "MIPS" (or millions of instructions per second). This performance metric has lost its charm since internally x86 processors no longer use x86 instructions but large bundles of microoperations that are done in parallel and can be interleaved (so two instructions that follow each other are broken into micro operations which are reordered, and might be finalized in a different order).Kevin G - Thursday, February 21, 2019 - link
The thing is that real distinction of CISC vs. RISC is lost in their similar implementations: pipelined OoO parallel execution engines. While CISC encoding may* permit more operations to be contained within a single instruction but at the cost of having to decode that instruction into an optimal arrangement given the hardware. The price paid is in power consumption and complexity which may impact factors like maximum clock speed. In the era of many core and power limitations, these attributes are the foundation for RISC to have an edge over legacy CISC designs. Not to say that RISC architectures can't leverage instruction decoding either: expanding out the fields for registers to account for the larger rename register space is a simple procedure.Once chips begin parallel execution, the CISC advantage of doing more per instruction really starts to fall apart. The raw amount of work being done per cycle approaches the common limit of just how much parallelism can be extracted by an inherently serial stream of instructions. Arguably CISC designs can hit this sooner in terms of raw instruction count as the instruction stream is _effectively_ compressed compared to RISC.
*The concept of fused-multiply add instructions was an early staple of RISC architectures. Technically it goes against the purest ideal but traditional RISC designs permitted the number of operands in their instruction formatting to pull this off so they took advantage of an easy performance boost. x86 didn't gain this capability until AVX2 a few years ago.
peevee - Tuesday, February 26, 2019 - link
"I think you are forgetting the very nature of RISC (Arm) vs CISC (x86) architectures"This distinction does not exist in practice for decades.
wumpus - Wednesday, February 20, 2019 - link
It also shows a result showing Zen roughly half the performance of Intel, something that implies a fairly contrived situation. FX8350 might have had half (or worse) than Intel, but Zen is another story.I'm guessing that this involves AVX256 (or higher) specifically optimized for Intel (note that going to AVX512 is only a modest increase since the clockrate is brutally lowered to compensate for the increased power load. Also note that Zen2 (EPYC2 and Ryzen3000) will include native AVX256 execution paths).