Renoir: Latency, Caching, and Turbo

Chiplets vs Monolithic

To date, AMD has launched Desktop Ryzen 3000, Threadripper 3000, and EPYC 7002 (Rome) with Zen 2 cores. For all these products, it has placed its Zen 2 cores inside chiplets that connect to a central IO die, which then talks to other chiplets or the main system. In Ryzen 3000 Desktop, we have one or two chiplets paired with an IO die that can handle 24 PCIe 4.0 lanes and two memory channels. In Threadripper 3000, we have up to eight chiplets with an IO die that can handle 64 PCIe 4.0 lanes and four memory channels. In EPYC 7002 (Rome), we have up to eight chiplets with an IO die that can handle 128 PCIe 4.0 lanes and eight memory channels.

For Ryzen Mobile 4000, there are no chiplets – instead we have a traditional single die, which is referred to as a monolithic design. Both the chiplet design and monolithic designs have various benefits and weaknesses.

For the chiplet design, going that route for expensive processors actually helps with costs, yields, and frequency binning. This has also enabled AMD to launch these products earlier, with the end result being better per-core performance (through binning), taking advantage of different process nodes, and providing an overall chip with more die area than a single chip can provide.

The downside of this chiplet design is often internal connectivity. In a chiplet design you have to go ‘off-chip’ to get to anywhere else, which incurs a power and a latency deficit. Part of what AMD did for the chiplet designs is to minimize that, with AMD’s Infinity Fabric connecting all the parts together, with the goal of the IF to offer a low energy per bit transfer and still be quite fast. In order to get this to work on these processors, AMD had to rigidly link the internal fabric frequency to the memory frequency.

With a monolithic design, AMD doesn’t need to apply such rigid standards to maintain performance. In Ryzen Mobile 4000, the Infinity Fabric remains on the silicon, and can slow down / ramp up as needed, boosting performance, decreasing latency, or saving power. The other side is that the silicon itself is bigger, which might be worse for frequency binning or yield, and so AMD took extra steps to help keep the die size small. AMD was keen to point out in its Tech Day for Ryzen Mobile that it did a lot of work in Physical Design, as well as collaborating with TSMC who actually manufactures the designs, in order to find a good balance between die size, frequency, and efficiency.

The Renoir silicon is ~150 square millimeters. (AMD’s official number is 156 mm2, although some other measurements seem to suggest it is nearer 149 mm2.) In that design is eight Zen 2 cores, up to eight enhanced Vega compute units, 24 lanes of PCIe 3.0, and two DDR4-3200 memory channels. This is all built on TSMC’s 7nm manufacturing process (N7)

Latency

Each of the eight Zen 2 cores is split into a quad-core complex (CCX), which gives each set of four cores access to 4 MB of L3 cache, or a total of 8 MB across the chip. In a chiplet design, there are also eight cores per chiplet (two CCXes), but when one CCX needs to communicate to another, it has to go off chip to the central IO die and back again – inside the monolithic Renoir silicon, that request stays on silicon and has a latency/power benefit. We can see this in our core-to-core latency diagram.

With our 4900HS, we have a 7 nanosecond latency for multithreads pinging inside a core, 17-18 nanosecond latency for threads within a CCX, and a 61-69 nanosecond latency moving across each CCX.

For a Ryzen 9 3950X, with two chiplets, the diagram looks a bit different:

Here we see the same 7 nanoseconds for inside a core, 17-18 nanoseconds between cores in the same CCX, but now we have 81-89 nanoseconds between CCXes in the same chiplet, because we have to go off silicon to the IO die and back again. Then, if we want to go to a CCX on another chiplet, it can take 110-118 nanoseconds, because there’s another hop inside the IO die that needs to occur.

(AMD makes a thread leave the chiplet, even when it’s speaking to another CCX on the same chiplet, because that makes the control logic for the entire CPU a lot easier to handle. This may be improved in future generations, depending on how AMD controls the number of cores inside a chiplet.)

Going back to the Renoir CPU, we can compare this to the Intel Core i7-9750H in our Razer Blade machine:

For the Core i7, we see a similar 7 nanosecond latency for a hyperthread, but in order to access any of the other six cores, it takes 19-23 nanoseconds. This is a tiny bit longer than AMD inside a CCX, because the Intel methodology is a ring-based topology, but Intel has the benefit of it being uniform across the whole chip, enabling the performance to be more consistent as the CPU has an effective homogenous latency. Intel’s ring topology is core count dependent, so more cores means a larger ring and a longer latency, but the variability of the ring becomes bigger (and less power efficient) when the ring gets bigger – this is why we saw dual ring designs in high-core-count Xeon chips for pre-Skylake.

Caching

For Renoir, AMD decided to minimize the amount of L3 cache to 1 MB per core, compared to 4 MB per core on the desktop Ryzen variants and 4 MB per core for Threadripper and EPYC. The reduction in the size of the cache does three things: (a) makes the die smaller and easier to manufacture, (b) makes the die use less power when turned on, but (c) causes more cache misses and accesses to main memory, causing a slight performance per clock decrease.

With (c), normally doubling (2x) the size of the cache gives a square root of 2 decrease in cache misses. Therefore going down from 4 MB on the other designs to 1 MB on these designs should imply that there will be twice as many cache misses from L3, and thus twice as many memory accesses. However, because AMD uses a non-inclusive cache policy on the L3 that accepts L2 cache evictions only, there’s actually less scope here for performance loss. Where it might hurt performance most is actually in integrated graphics, however AMD says that as a whole the Zen2+Vega8 Renoir chip has a substantial uplift in performance compared to the Zen+Vega11 Picasso design that went into the Surface Laptop 3.

For our cache latency structure, we got the following results:

Our results show a worst case scenario with full random access latencies of

  • 0.9 nanoseconds for L1 (4 clks) up to 32 KB,
  • 3 nanoseconds for L2 (12-13 clks) up to 256 KB,
  • 4-5 nanoseconds (18-19 clks) at 256-512 KB (Accesses starting to miss the L1 TLB here)
  • 9.3 nanoseconds (39-40 clks) from 1 MB to 4 MB inside the rest of the CCX L3
  • 65+ nanoseconds (278+ clks) from 6 MB+ moving into DRAM

It’s important to note that even though the chip has 8 MB of L3 total across the two CCX domains, each core can only access the L3 within its own CCX, and not the L3 of the other CCX domain. So while the chip is correct in saying there is 8 MB of L3 total, no core has access to all the L3. This applies to the desktop and enterprise chips as well (in case it wasn’t explicitly stated before).

Turbo Ramping

One of the key metrics of previous mobile designs is the ability for the core to jump from a low power state to a high power state very quickly, and then back down again. The faster you can do it, the better responsiveness for the user, but it also saves power by not keeping the high power state on for so long. It also helps that the processor ends up with a bunch of instructions to process, it can turbo up before they are finished, otherwise it wastes power doing the turbo for nothing.

For this test, we derive the frequency of a core at a microsecond level with instruction block throughput measurements while the CPU ramps up to its highest turbo state.

Here our Ryzen 9 4900 HS idles at 1.4 GHz, and within the request to go up to speed, it gets to 4.4 GHz (which is actually +100 MHz above specification) in 16 ms. At 16 ms to get from idle to full frequency, we’re looking at about a frame on a standard 60 Hz monitor, so responsiveness should be very good here.

We can compare this to the Core i7-9750H in the Razer Blade:

This processor idles a bit lower, at 1.1 GHz, and then gets to 4.2 GHz at around 39 milliseconds. The thing is though, this isn’t the top turbo frequency. Technically this CPU can get to 4.5 GHz, it even says so on the sticker on the laptop, however we see another small bump up to 4.3 GHz at around 83 milliseconds. So either way, it takes 2-4x longer to hit the high turbo for Intel’s 9th Gen (as setup by Razer in the Blade) than it does for AMD’s Ryzen 4000 (as setup by ASUS).

AMD’s Mobile Revival: Redefining the Notebook Business with the Ryzen 9 4900HS ASUS Zephyrus G14: Inside and Out
POST A COMMENT

267 Comments

View All Comments

  • Gondalf - Friday, April 10, 2020 - link

    I find crazy to compare an 8 core Laptop to a 6 core one.
    Intel is plenty of 45W 8 cores SKUs for laptops with turbos at over 5Ghz, and we are here to show nothing.
    So basically AMD can only compete with a 6 core Coffee lake???
    Reply
  • Irata - Friday, April 10, 2020 - link

    There are reviews that show the eight core can‘t keep up either or just barely and that is in a huge and heavy chassis (i.e. the portable desktop type). And their battery life is even worse, as is their power consumption.

    Oh, and looking at this review, the six core is coupled with a faster RTX 2060 GPU...
    Reply
  • Idontknowhatosay - Friday, April 10, 2020 - link

    Der8auer did a comparison against the 9980HK and the 4900HS still came on top in performance. It even manages to keep up with the 5 GHz, 90 watt core i9 inside the Helios 700, which is a beast of a laptop in terms of size and weight. Reply
  • Omega215D - Friday, April 10, 2020 - link

    goddamn intel fanboys truly want to distort shit so there is no real competition left in this space. Reply
  • Namisecond - Monday, April 13, 2020 - link

    There is no real consumer "competition" in this space. Intel's 10nm production is fubar'd for the time being, To the point where expected products are just now trickling into the market place. AMD could capitalize on this, but their production is constrained because they don't have full control of their own production. This is the mobile market, not the desktop CPU market where you can have retail sales. OEMs are key here.

    2020 will be a bad year for laptop options.
    Reply
  • vozmem - Friday, April 10, 2020 - link

    Yes, you are right.
    It is crazy because the 6-core Razer laptop is also slightly more expensive than 8-core Asus laptop.
    Reply
  • s.yu - Saturday, April 11, 2020 - link

    In all fairness, Razer is usually more expensive than Asus. Reply
  • alufan - Friday, April 10, 2020 - link

    hmm ok so the Intel CPU was supposed to be at 45w but could not maintain that probably du e to thermals, its supposed to clock higher but ditto and the 2060 is a higher performance version, however other tests still show the Ryzen ahead on 8 core Intels as well, it also seems to be a common result that the AMD is a long long way ahead on its battery life, not sure about other countries but this week in the UK we have had every online seller doing ads on TV pushing Intel laptops to the max, no doubt paid for by Intels rebate scheme dirty tricks me thinks but the truth will out gen 10 indeed lol Reply
  • Deicidium369 - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link

    95% of the market vs 5% of the market - that's called playing to the largest potential audience. Sorry but Intel outsells AMD at every single price point - regardless of what the AMD fanboys say - Revenues do not lie. Reply
  • Qasar - Sunday, April 12, 2020 - link

    well other sites say different about who out sells who, others here have even posted links that show this.
    "Revenues do not lie. " of course they dont, specially when you overcharge for your products
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now