ABOUT BENCH FORUMS PODCAST LOGIN REGISTER
PC Components▼
Smartphones & tablets▼
Systems▼
ENTERPRISE & IT
GUIDES▼
DEALS

Understanding the Cell Microprocessor

 by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 17, 2005 12:05 AM EST
70 Comments | Add A Comment
70 Comments

Understanding Gates

The fundamental building blocks of any microprocessor are gates.  Gates are collections of transistors that electrically mimic a particular logic function.   For example, a 2-input AND gate will take two input signals and output a 1 only if the two inputs are both 1s.   An XOR gate will output a 1 only if the two inputs are different.   A NOR gate will output a 1 only if all inputs are 0s.

Combinations of these gates are used to implement everything in a microprocessor, including functional units like adders, multipliers, etc.


Here, we have a 1-bit carry adder implemented using logic gates.  It will add any two 1-bit numbers and produce a result.

However, there are many ways to implement each gate, as long as the behavior of the gate remains the same independent of the implementation.   It’s just like doing a math problem; there are multiple ways to find the solution - some just may be more efficient than others.

A very popular way of designing gate logic is using what is known as static CMOS.   Static CMOS designs are relatively easy to implement and there are tons of libraries available for automated (e.g. computer driven) static CMOS design.   There are a couple of problems with static CMOS design:
  1. Static CMOS circuits aren’t the fastest circuits possible, which is why they aren’t used in things like Intel’s double-pumped ALUs where high clock speeds are necessary.
  2. Static CMOS designs use quite a few transistors.   For each m-input gate, you need 2 * m transistors (m PMOS and m NMOS transistors), which for high fan-in gates (gates with lots of inputs), it drives transistor counts up considerably.   As is the case with any heavily SIMD architecture, high fan-in gates are commonplace.
Let’s take a look at a static CMOS NOR gate:

First thing to note is that for every NMOS transistor we add, there’s a complementary PMOS transistor.   With each additional input to the NOR gate, we have to add two transistors - one PMOS and one NMOS - hence the 2*m transistors from before.

There’s another problem here - the NOR gate isn’t clocked.   Normally, large collections of gates are assembled and put behind an element called a latch, which is clocked.   One type of large collection would be all of the circuitry used for a pipeline stage.   This isn’t really a problem for static CMOS gates, as it greatly simplifies the distribution of clocks to the chip (since you don’t have to route a clock signal to every gate, just every latch, and there are far more general gates than there are latches).

Designing and implementing static CMOS gates are extremely easy.   Hardware Description Languages (HDLs), programming languages in which chips are “written” have widespread static CMOS libraries, meaning that a chip designer can focus on writing code to crank out a chip without having to hand design its circuits.   But as success is usually proportional to difficulty, static CMOS designs aren’t the fastest things in the world.   Things like Intel’s 7.2GHz ALUs aren’t designed using static CMOS logic, neither is Cell.

Manufacturing, Die Size and Clock Speed Cell's Dynamic Logic
PRINT THIS ARTICLE
Comments Locked

70 Comments

View All Comments

  • Houdani - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link

    I think I missed something fundamental.

    Can the SPEs be addressed directly by software, or do they have to be fed all of their instructions by the PPE?

    If they DO have to be fed be the PPE, I fail to see how the PPE can possibly feed them enough to keep them all working concurrently.

    Someone throw me a bone here.

  • suryad - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link

    I thought the G5 was a POWER5 proc. But I could of course be wrong. All I can say is the Cell definitely intriguing as it may be will have a rough road ahead of it and I am quite surprised that these large corporations invested so much in it, cutting edge though it might be. And as for the current forseeable future, I think when multi-core FX processors from AMD comes out, I do not believe there will be anything more devastating than that. Especially once they hit the 3 Ghz barrier with multi-cores enabled and faster DDR2-3 or even RAMBUS memory capabilities.

  • tipoo - Thursday, December 3, 2015 - link

    No, G5 was 970 based.

  • Questar - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link

    #50,
    Yes the G5 is a POWER4 derivitive.

    Since you were wrong on that, don't think that you know what is significant about the design of POWER5. There were major architechture changes made to the processor.

  • fitten - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link

    The only things new about Cell is its target market and being a single chip. The article mentions the TI DSP chip, but there were other similar architectures as well. One example that I'm familiar with is the MAP1310 board by CSPI. Back then, processes weren't good enough to put all the cores on a single chip but the basic architecture is the same - a PPC core to do the 'normal' stuff and two quad-core DSPs (SHARC) to do the 'work'. This board wasn't successful because it was considered too hard to program to get the performance it promised.... and this opinion is from people who live/breathe real-time systems and multiprocessing codes.

    The only thing new about Cell is that a) it's all on one chip now and b) the target market is a general marketplace and not a niche.

  • scrotemaninov - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link

    #48. OK, I was under the impression that the G5 was based on the POWER5. You're saying it's based on the POWER4 instead?

    And the POWER4 and POWER5 aren't really "completely different chips" in the same way that the P4 and P3 are different chips, or in the way that the P4 and the Opteron are different chips. I can give you a list of the differences if you want. Start at http://www.elet.polimi.it/upload/sami/architetture...

    The POWER5 is designed to not only be completely compatible with the POWER4 but to also to support all the optimisations from the POWER4. The only things of significance they've done is a) move the L3 cache controller on chip; b) change the various branch predictors to bimodal instead of 1-bit; c) increase the associativity and size of the caches.

    Anyway, this is going off topic now...

  • Jacmert - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link

    Rofl. Computer engineering and VLSI design. Gotta love those NMOS/PMOS transistor circuits.

    I never thought that I'd see stuff from my textbook explained on anandtech.com

  • saratoga - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link

    "#38. You're right that the G5 is a derivative of the POWER5. The POWER5 is dual core, each core with 2way SMT giving a total of 4 'visible' cpus to the OS. The G5 is simply a single core version of the same thing."

    Err no its not. POWER4 != POWER5. Hence the different names ;)

    They're completely different chips.

    "Well scrotemaninov I am not disputing that the POWER architecture by IBM is brilliantly done. IBM is definitely one of those companies churning out brilliant and elegant technology always in the background.

    But my problem with the POWER technology is from what I understand very limitedly, is that the POWER processors in the Mac machines are a derivative of that architecture right? Why the heck are they so damn slow then?

    I mean you can buy an AMD FX 55 based on the crappy legacy x86 arch and it smokes the dual 2.5 GHz Macs easily!! Is it cause of the OS? Because so far from what I have seen, if the Macs are any indication of the performance capabilities of the POWER architecture, the Cell will not be a big hit.

    I did read though at www.aceshardware.com benchmark reviews of the POWER5 architecture with some insane number of cores if I recall correctly and the benchmarks were of the charts. They are definitely not what the Macs have installed in them..."

    There are slow memeory systems and then theres the one used on the G5. I've heard that you can put 8 Opterons together and still get average access times across all 8 cores that are better then a single G5. Thats probably a good part of the reason the G5 was so much slower then many people thought it would be. The rest is mainly IBM's trouble making them, and their inability to ramp clock speed like they planned on.

  • scrotemaninov - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link

    #38. You're right that the G5 is a derivative of the POWER5. The POWER5 is dual core, each core with 2way SMT giving a total of 4 'visible' cpus to the OS. The G5 is simply a single core version of the same thing.

    As for the performance, Opteron is pretty much unbeatable for integer-bound applications. Itanium2 is unbeatable for FP applications. POWER5 is somewhere in the middle.

    Most desktop applications are going to be integer bound. So it's not at all surprising that you find the G5 'slow' in that respect in comparison to the FX55. Plus, and this is the whole problem with the CELL, there's no point putting dual CPUs in there unless you can utilise them properly. If you have one process going flat out trying to run a heavy application and it's single threaded then you're only using about 1/4 of the CPUs you've bought for that application (for a dual G5 2.5), whereas the Opterons and FX55 stuff is more designed around quick, single threaded applications.

  • dmens - Friday, March 18, 2005 - link

    psuedo-pmos wtf? That's domino logic, it's been around forever, and it's definitely not efficient in terms of power. Oh, and it takes forever to verify timing.
Copyright © 2024. All rights reserved.
BENCH
TOPICS
FOLLOW
ABOUT

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now