More GDDR5 Technologies: Memory Error Detection & Temperature Compensation

As we previously mentioned, for Cypress AMD’s memory controllers have implemented a greater part of the GDDR5 specification. Beyond gaining the ability to use GDDR5’s power saving abilities, AMD has also been working on implementing features to allow their cards to reach higher memory clock speeds. Chief among these is support for GDDR5’s error detection capabilities.

One of the biggest problems in using a high-speed memory device like GDDR5 is that it requires a bus that’s both fast and fairly wide - properties that generally run counter to each other in designing a device bus. A single GDDR5 memory chip on the 5870 needs to connect to a bus that’s 32 bits wide and runs at base speed of 1.2GHz, which requires a bus that can meeting exceedingly precise tolerances. Adding to the challenge is that for a card like the 5870 with a 256-bit total memory bus, eight of these buses will be required, leading to more noise from adjoining buses and less room to work in.

Because of the difficulty in building such a bus, the memory bus has become the weak point for video cards using GDDR5. The GPU’s memory controller can do more and the memory chips themselves can do more, but the bus can’t keep up.

To combat this, GDDR5 memory controllers can perform basic error detection on both reads and writes by implementing a CRC-8 hash function. With this feature enabled, for each 64-bit data burst an 8-bit cyclic redundancy check hash (CRC-8) is transmitted via a set of four dedicated EDC pins. This CRC is then used to check the contents of the data burst, to determine whether any errors were introduced into the data burst during transmission.

The specific CRC function used in GDDR5 can detect 1-bit and 2-bit errors with 100% accuracy, with that accuracy falling with additional erroneous bits. This is due to the fact that the CRC function used can generate collisions, which means that the CRC of an erroneous data burst could match the proper CRC in an unlikely situation. But as the odds decrease for additional errors, the vast majority of errors should be limited to 1-bit and 2-bit errors.

Should an error be found, the GDDR5 controller will request a retransmission of the faulty data burst, and it will keep doing this until the data burst finally goes through correctly. A retransmission request is also used to re-train the GDDR5 link (once again taking advantage of fast link re-training) to correct any potential link problems brought about by changing environmental conditions. Note that this does not involve changing the clock speed of the GDDR5 (i.e. it does not step down in speed); rather it’s merely reinitializing the link. If the errors are due the bus being outright unable to perfectly handle the requested clock speed, errors will continue to happen and be caught. Keep this in mind as it will be important when we get to overclocking.

Finally, we should also note that this error detection scheme is only for detecting bus errors. Errors in the GDDR5 memory modules or errors in the memory controller will not be detected, so it’s still possible to end up with bad data should either of those two devices malfunction. By the same token this is solely a detection scheme, so there are no error correction abilities. The only way to correct a transmission error is to keep trying until the bus gets it right.

Now in spite of the difficulties in building and operating such a high speed bus, error detection is not necessary for its operation. As AMD was quick to point out to us, cards still need to ship defect-free and not produce any errors. Or in other words, the error detection mechanism is a failsafe mechanism rather than a tool specifically to attain higher memory speeds. Memory supplier Qimonda’s own whitepaper on GDDR5 pitches error correction as a necessary precaution due to the increasing amount of code stored in graphics memory, where a failure can lead to a crash rather than just a bad pixel.

In any case, for normal use the ramifications of using GDDR5’s error detection capabilities should be non-existent. In practice, this is going to lead to more stable cards since memory bus errors have been eliminated, but we don’t know to what degree. The full use of the system to retransmit a data burst would itself be a catch-22 after all – it means an error has occurred when it shouldn’t have.

Like the changes to VRM monitoring, the significant ramifications of this will be felt with overclocking. Overclocking attempts that previously would push the bus too hard and lead to errors now will no longer do so, making higher overclocks possible. However this is a bit of an illusion as retransmissions reduce performance. The scenario laid out to us by AMD is that overclockers who have reached the limits of their card’s memory bus will now see the impact of this as a drop in performance due to retransmissions, rather than crashing or graphical corruption. This means assessing an overclock will require monitoring the performance of a card, along with continuing to look for traditional signs as those will still indicate problems in memory chips and the memory controller itself.

Ideally there would be a more absolute and expedient way to check for errors than looking at overall performance, but at this time AMD doesn’t have a way to deliver error notices. Maybe in the future they will?

Wrapping things up, we have previously discussed fast link re-training as a tool to allow AMD to clock down GDDR5 during idle periods, and as part of a failsafe method to be used with error detection. However it also serves as a tool to enable higher memory speeds through its use in temperature compensation.

Once again due to the high speeds of GDDR5, it’s more sensitive to memory chip temperatures than previous memory technologies were. Under normal circumstances this sensitivity would limit memory speeds, as temperature swings would change the performance of the memory chips enough to make it difficult to maintain a stable link with the memory controller. By monitoring the temperature of the chips and re-training the link when there are significant shifts in temperature, higher memory speeds are made possible by preventing link failures.

And while temperature compensation may not sound complex, that doesn’t mean it’s not important. As we have mentioned a few times now, the biggest bottleneck in memory performance is the bus. The memory chips can go faster; it’s the bus that can’t. So anything that can help maintain a link along these fragile buses becomes an important tool in achieving higher memory speeds.

Lower Idle Power & Better Overcurrent Protection Angle-Independent Anisotropic Filtering At Last
Comments Locked

327 Comments

View All Comments

  • T2k - Thursday, September 24, 2009 - link

    quote:

    How would ET:QW be a good benchmark? Last I checked, it's still limited to the 30 FPS animations, which makes running it at more than 30 FPS pointless because everything will look jerky.
    I agree something like the CoD games should be included for comparison's sake, but they're hardly a good benchmark or taxing on a system. QW does not fall into the same category though, it has a smaller active playerbase than even L4D which lost a lot of players due to the lack of updates.


    Just whatF are you talking about, seriously? Is this some kind of new urban BS again?
    Look at other sites, they DID test it with ET:QW:
    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/Radeon_HD_5...">http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/ATI/Radeon_HD_5...
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/rad...">http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/video/display/rad...

    and so on. BTW L4D is a passing fart in the wind while ET:QW is still going strong, stronger than UT3 (unfortunately because UT3 looks 10x better and the old ONS mode was awesome but Epic fucked it in UT3)

    Read other reviews before you post:
    http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid...">http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...amp;thre...
  • SiliconDoc - Wednesday, September 30, 2009 - link

    I see by your review links the 5870 just doesn't do well in ET:QW, everything else is closer to it and it gets beat worse, at 2560 high aa&af GTX295 slams it by 20%, so, of course, it was left out, in order to "pump up the percieved red number".
    -
    It's "not a good appearance".

    You'll just have to live with it for now like the rest of us.
  • number58 - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link

    Is this card any closer to saturating the pci-express 2.0 x16 slot? That was one of the big arguments in the P55 vs X58 debate. Would there be any loss of performance using these in crossfire on P55 compared to X58?
    Otherwise, great article. I think I'll be hanging on to my 4890 for a while though.
  • Kaleid - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link

    Look here for an answer:
    http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_5870_PCI...">http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/HD_5870_PCI...
  • number58 - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link

    Thanks. That just about settles it. My next system will be Lynnfield based.
  • Zeratul - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link

    Please add support for Stereoscopic 3D, ATI. I'm not going back to play games in 2D, though I don't like nvidia's monopoly in that.
  • Arbie - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link

    Not just a review but an excellent technical discussion. It must have been a lot of work. Thanks for all of that, and do please follow up where you can on people's requests for more info on this very important card.

    Kudos to ATI/AMD for such an achievement. It looks like Nvidia is in big trouble.

    Arbie
  • SiliconDoc - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link

    rofl - Nvidia is in big trouble ? LOL
    Have you looked at the charts on wiki that predicted what this review shows ? Maybe you should take a gander at the Nvidia chart, now, and cry.
    --
    It is a nice review, although biased red here as usual.
    --
    I'd like to mention as he fretted about heat because of the 1/2 vent on the back of the card, I didn't notice overt despairing mention of the TWO rectangular exhaust ports on the fan end BLOWING HEAT INTO THE CASE.... which of course is deserved. Nice how that was held back as if overlooked. (Boy what trouble for Nvidia! hahha)
    Next we'll be told the red rooster tester put his hand next to the two internal exhaust ports, and "the air felt rather cool" so "rest assured not much heat is being pushed into your case", and "this doesn't matter".
    See, the trouble is already in the article, the trouble it took to spin it just so for Ati... lol... it's hilatrious!
  • ClownPuncher - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link

    Bizzarro SnakeOil, is that you?
  • SiliconDoc - Wednesday, September 23, 2009 - link

    No, this is me, the same me I've always been.
    Would you like to comment on the two internal exhaust ports of the 5870 that put sweltering heat into your case ?
    I guess you tried to ignore that entirely.
    You can always insult me again and avoid commenting on the heating exhaust ports ramping up your case temps on the 5870...
    That of course would be "the right thing to do".
    Perhaps call me crazy, and avoid the topic, right, you're good at that, huh.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now