AMD Zen 2 Microarchitecture Analysis: Ryzen 3000 and EPYC Rome
by Dr. Ian Cutress on June 10, 2019 7:22 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- AMD
- Ryzen
- EPYC
- Infinity Fabric
- PCIe 4.0
- Zen 2
- Rome
- Ryzen 3000
- Ryzen 3rd Gen
AMD Zen 2 Microarchitecture Overview
The Quick Analysis
At AMD’s Tech Day, on hand was Fellow and Chief Architect Mike Clark to go through the changes. Mike is a great engineer to talk to, although what always amuses me (for any company, not just AMD) is that engineers that talk about the latest products coming to market are already working one, two, or three generations ahead at the company. Mike remarked that it took him a while to think back to the specific Zen+ to Zen 2 changes, while his mind internally is already several generations down the line.
An interesting element to Zen 2 is around the intention. Initially Zen 2 was merely going to be a die shrink of Zen+, going from 12nm down to 7nm, similar to what we used to see with Intel in its tick-tock model for the initial part of the century. However, based on internal analysis and the time frame for 7nm, it was decided that Zen 2 would be used as a platform for better performance, taking advantage of 7nm in multiple ways rather than just redesigning the same layout on a new process node. As a result of the adjustments, AMD is promoting a +15% IPC improvement for Zen 2 over Zen+.
When it comes down to the exact changes in the microarchitecture, what we’re fundamentally looking at is still a similar floorplan to what Zen looks like. Zen 2 is a family member of the Zen family, and not a complete redesign or different paradigm on how to process x86 – as will other architectures that have familial updates, Zen 2 affords a more efficient core and a wider core, allowing better instruction throughput.
At a high level, the core looks very much the same. Highlights of the Zen 2 design include a different L2 branch predictor known as a TAGE predictor, a doubling of the micro-op cache, a doubling of the L3 cache, an increase in integer resources, an increase in load/store resources, and support for single-operation AVX-256 (or AVX2). AMD has stated that there is no frequency penalty for AVX2, based on its energy aware frequency platform.
AMD has also made adjustments to the cache system, the most notable being for the L1 instruction cache, which has been halved to 32 kB, but associativity has doubled. This change was made for important reasons, which we’ll go into over the next pages. The L1 data cache and L2 caches are unchanged, however the translation lookaside buffers (TLBs) have increased support. AMD also states that it has added deeper virtualization support with respect to security, helping enable features further down the pipeline. As mentioned previously in this article, there are also security hardening updates.
For the quick analysis, it’s easy to tell that doubling the micro-op cache is going to offer a significant improvement to IPC in a number of scenarios, and combine that with an increase in load/store resources is going to help more instructions get pushed through. The double L3 cache is going to help in specific workloads, as would the AVX2 single-op support, but the improved branch predictor is also going to showcase raw performance uplift. All-in-all, for an on-paper analysis, AMD’s +15% IPC improvement seems like a very reasonable number to promote.
Over the next few pages, we’ll go deeper into how the microarchitecture has changed.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
216 Comments
View All Comments
Targon - Thursday, June 13, 2019 - link
The TDP figures are always a bit vague, because it is about the heat generation, not about power draw. A higher TDP on a chip with the same number of cores on the same design could indicate that it will overclock higher. Intel always sets the TDP to the base clock speed, while AMD has been more about what can be expected in normal usage. The higher the clock speed, the more power will be required, and the higher the amount of heat will be that needs to be handled by the cooler.So, if a chip has a TDP of 105W, then in theory, you should be able to get away with a cooler that can handle 105W of heat output, but if that TDP is based only on the base clock speed, you will want a better cooler to allow for turbo/boost for sustained periods.
wilsonkf - Monday, June 10, 2019 - link
We want faster memory for Zen/Zen+ because we want higher IF clock, so cutting the IF clock by half to enable higher memory freq. does not make sense. However the improved IF could move the bottleneck somewhere else.AlexDaum - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link
It seems like IF2 can not hit frequencies higher than about 3733MHz DDR (so 1,8GHz real frequency) for some reason, so they added the ability to scale it down to have higher memory clocks. But it is probably only worth it if you can overclock memory a lot higher than 3733, so that the IF clock gets a bit higher againXyler94 - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link
If I recall, IF2's clock speed is decoupled from RAM speed.Cooe - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link
This is wrong Xyler. Still completely connected.Xyler94 - Thursday, June 13, 2019 - link
Per this exact Article:"One of the features of IF2 is that the clock has been decoupled from the main DRAM clock. In Zen and Zen+, the IF frequency was coupled to the DRAM frequency, which led to some interesting scenarios where the memory could go a lot faster but the limitations in the IF meant that they were both limited by the lock-step nature of the clock. For Zen 2, AMD has introduced ratios to the IF2, enabling a 1:1 normal ratio or a 2:1 ratio that reduces the IF2 clock in half."
It seems it has been, but it may still benefit from faster RAM still
extide - Monday, June 17, 2019 - link
It is completely connected -- you can just pick a 1:1 or 2:1 divider now but they are absolutely still tightly coupled. YOu can't just set them independently.Cooe - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link
You're missing the point for >3733MHz memory overclocked where the IF switches to a 2:1 divider. It's for workloads that highly prioritize memory bandwidth over latency, NOT to try and run your sticks 24/7 at like 5GHz+ for the absolute lowest latency possible (bc even then, 3733MHz will prolly still be lower).Targon - Thursday, June 13, 2019 - link
From what I remember, up to DDR4-3733, Infinity Fabric on Ryzen 3rd generation is now at a 1:1(where previously, Infinity Fabric would run at half the DDR4 speed. You can go above that, but then the improvements are not going to be as significant. For latency, your best bet is to get 3733 or 3600 with as low a CAS rating as you can get.zodiacfml - Tuesday, June 11, 2019 - link
that 105W TDP is a sign that the 8 core is efficient at 50W or a base clock of 3.5 GHz. The AMD 7nm 8-Core Zen 2 chip has a TDP equal or less than my i3-8100.😅