Integer Units, Load and Store

The integer unit schedulers can accept up to six micro-ops per cycle, which feed into the 224-entry reorder buffer (up from 192). The Integer unit technically has seven execution ports, comprised of four ALUs (arithmetic logic units) and three AGUs (address generation units).

The schedulers comprise of four 16-entry ALU queues and one 28-entry AGU queue, although the AGU unit can feed 3 micro-ops per cycle into the register file. The AGU queue has increased in size based on AMD’s simulations of instruction distributions in common software. These queues feed into the 180-entry general purpose register file (up from 168), but also keep track of specific ALU operations to prevent potential halting operations.

The three AGUs feed into the load/store unit that can support two 256-bit reads and one 256-bit write per cycle. Not all the three AGUs are equal, judging by the diagram above: AGU2 can only manage stores, whereas AGU0 and AGU1 can do both loads and stores.

The store queue has increased from 44 to 48 entries, and the TLBs for the data cache have also increased. The key metric here though is the load/store bandwidth, as the core can now support 32 bytes per clock, up from 16.

Floating Point Cache and Infinity Fabric
POST A COMMENT

217 Comments

View All Comments

  • Qasar - Friday, June 21, 2019 - link

    well.. the fact that he didnt cite any one else with this problem, or links to forums/web pages.. kind of showed he was just trolling.. but i figured... was worth a shot to give him some sort of help.... Reply
  • jamescox - Saturday, June 22, 2019 - link

    You seem to just be trying to spread FUD. Also, you don’t seem to know how long a nanosecond is. The CCX to CCX latency can cause slower performance for some badly written or or badly optimized multithreaded code, but it is on such a fine scale that it would just effect the average frame rate. It isn’t going to cause stuttering as you describe.

    The stuttering you describe could be caused by a huge number of things. It could be the gpu or cpu thermally throttling due to inadequate cooling. If the gpu utilization goes down low, that could be due to the game using more memory than the gpu has available. That will slow to a crawl while assets are loaded across the pci express bus. So, if anyone is actually having this problem, check your temperatures, check your memory usage (both cpu and gpu), then maybe look for driver / OS issues.
    Reply
  • playtech1 - Wednesday, June 12, 2019 - link

    Good products and good prices.

    Knock-out blow though? I don't think so for the consumer and gaming space, as I can buy a 9900 today for a fairly small premium over the price of a 3800x and get basically the same performance.

    The 12 and 16 core chips look more difficult for Intel to respond to though, given how expensive its HEDT line is (and I say that as an owner of a 7860x).
    Reply
  • Atari2600 - Wednesday, June 12, 2019 - link

    Yeah, power and thermals are not so important in consumer/game space.

    In server/HPC, Intel is in deep crap.
    Reply
  • Phynaz - Wednesday, June 12, 2019 - link

    Bahahaha. No. Reply
  • eva02langley - Thursday, June 13, 2019 - link

    Phhh... are you ban from WCCFtech? Reply
  • Gastec - Wednesday, June 19, 2019 - link

    I guess I'm neither consumer nor gamer with my i7-860 and GTX 670, G502, G110 and G13. I bought the Logitech G13 just to type better comments on Tweeter :P Reply
  • Gastec - Wednesday, June 19, 2019 - link

    I also turn OFF RGB whenever I can, anti-cosumerism and anti-social is written on my forehead and everyone is pointing at me on the woke streets. Reply
  • just4U - Thursday, June 13, 2019 - link

    I'd say it's a substantial blow to Intel. One of the reasons I picked up a 2700x was the cooler, which is pretty damn good overall.. and the buy in was substantially lower. The 3700x-3800x will only add to that incentive with increased performance (most will likely not even notice..)

    Drop in the 12-16 core processors (provided there are no tradeoffs for those additional cores..) make the 9900k unappealing on all fronts. The 9700K was a totally unappealing product with it's 8c/8t package..already and after this launch won't make sense at all.
    Reply
  • Gastec - Thursday, June 20, 2019 - link

    Core i9-9900 I presume. Nowhere to be found for sale in Mordor. Only found one on Amazon.com for $439.99 reduced from $524.95, sold by "Intel" whomever that scammer is. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now