AMD’s Jaguar Architecture: The CPU Powering Xbox One, PlayStation 4, Kabini & Temash
by Anand Lal Shimpi on May 23, 2013 12:00 AM ESTFinal Words
Bobcat was a turning point for AMD. The easily synthesized, low cost CPU design was found in the nearly 50 million Brazos systems AMD sold since its introduction. Jaguar improves upon Bobcat in a major way. The move to 28nm helps drive power even lower, which will finally get AMD into tablet designs with Temash. Despite being lower power, Jaguar also manages to increase performance appreciably over Bobcat. AMD claims up to a 22% increase in IPC compared to Bobcat. Combine the IPC gains with a more multi-core friendly design and Jaguar based APUs should be appreciably faster than their predecessors.
Quite possibly one of the only real weaknesses with Jaguar is the lack of aggressive turbo modes in any of the shipping implementations of the design. It appears that the first implementations of Jaguar were under time constraints, leaving many features (including improved thermal monitoring/management and turbo boost) on the cutting room floor. Kabini and Temash seem ripe for a mid-cycle update enabling turbo across more parts, which could do wonders for single threaded performance.
The Jaguar power story actually looks very good, it's just hampered by traditional PC legacy. None of the launch APUs here support the low power IOs necessary to drive platform power down even further. AMD is getting very close though. Jaguar's core power is easily sub-2W for lightweight tablet tasks, the rest of the platform (excluding display) drives it up to 4 - 7W. AMD definitely has the right building blocks to go after truly low power tablets in a major way, should it have the resources and bandwidth to do so.
In its cost and power band, Jaguar is presently without competition. Intel’s current 32nm Saltwell Atom core is outdated, and nothing from ARM is quick enough. It’s no wonder that both Microsoft and Sony elected to use Jaguar as the base for their next-generation console SoCs, there simply isn’t a better option today. As Intel transitions to its 22nm Silvermont architecture however Jaguar will finally get some competition. For the next few months though, AMD will enjoy a position it hasn’t had in years: a CPU performance advantage.
I can’t stress enough how important it is that AMD continues to focus on driving the single threaded performance of its cat-line of cores. Second chances are rare in this business, but that’s exactly what AMD has been offered with the rise of good enough computing. Jaguar vs. Atom is the best CPU story AMD has had in years. Regular updates to the architecture coupled with solid execution are necessary to ensure that history doesn’t repeat itself in a new segment of AMD’s business.
Long term, I can’t help but wonder what Bobcat’s success will do to shape AMD’s future microarchitecture decisions. I’m not sure what Jim Keller’s SoC project is, but I’m wondering if the days of really big cores might be over. I don’t know that really small cores are the answer either, but perhaps something in between...
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
78 Comments
View All Comments
Spunjji - Friday, May 24, 2013 - link
Every CPU manufacturer does that... why would they include numbers they have no control over?araczynski - Thursday, May 23, 2013 - link
Can anyone clue me in as to how AMD got the rights to make 'PU's for both of the consoles? Was it just bang/$ vs Intel/IBM/etc? Not a fanboy of either camp (amd/intel), just curious.Despoiler - Thursday, May 23, 2013 - link
It was purely the fact that they have an APU with a high end GPU on it. Intel is nowhere near AMD in terms of top tier graphics power. Nvidia doesn't have x86. The total package price for an APU vs CPU/GPU made it impossible for an Intel/Nvidia solution to compete. The complexity is also much less on an APU system than CPU/GPU. The GPU needs a slot on the mobo. You have to cool it as well as the CPU. Less complexity = less cost.araczynski - Thursday, May 23, 2013 - link
thanks.tipoo - Thursday, May 23, 2013 - link
Multiple reasons, AMD has historically been better with console contracts than Nvidia or Intel though, those two want too much control over their own chips while AMD licences them out and lets Sony or MS do whatever with them. They're probably also cheaper, and no one else has an all in one APU solution with this much GPU grunt yet.araczynski - Thursday, May 23, 2013 - link
thanks.WaltC - Thursday, May 23, 2013 - link
Good article!--as usual, it's mainly Anand's conclusions that I find wanting...;) Nobody's "handing" AMD anything, as far as I can see. AMD is far, far ahead of Intel on the gpu front and has been for years--no accident there. AMD earned whatever position it now enjoys--and it's the only company in existence to go head-to-head with Intel and beat them, and not just "once," as Anand points out. Indeed, we can thank AMD for Core 2 and x86-64; had it been Intel's decision to make we'd all have been puttering happily away on dog-slow, ultra-expensive Itanium derivatives of one kind or another. (What a nightmare!) Intel invested billions in world-wide retool for Rdram while AMD pushed the superior market alternative, DDR Sdram. AMD won out there, too. There are many expamples of AMD's hard work, ingenuity, common sense and lack of greed besting Intel--far more than just two. It's no accident that AMD is far ahead of Intel here: as usual, AMD's been headed in one direction and Intel in another, and AMD gets there first.But I think I know what Anand means, and that's that AMD can not afford to sit on its laurels. There's nothing here to milk--AMD needs to keep the R&D pedal to the medal if the company wants to stay ahead--absolutely. Had the company done that pre-Core 2, while Intel was telling us all that we didn't "need" 64-bits on the desktop, AMD might have remained out front. The company is under completely different management now, so we can hope for the best, as always. Competition is the wheel that keeps everything turning, etc.
Sabresiberian - Thursday, May 23, 2013 - link
The point Anandtech was trying to make is that no one is stepping up to compete with AMD's Jaguar, and so they are handing that part of the business to AMD - just as AMD handed their desktop CPU business to Intel by deciding not to step up on that front. If you don't do what it takes to compete, you are "handing" the business to those who do. This is a complement to AMD and something of a slam on the other guys, not a suggestion that AMD needed some kind of charity to stay in business here.I want to suggest that you are letting a bit of fanboyism color your reaction to what others say. :)
Perhaps if AMD had been a bit more "greedy" like Intel is in your eyes, they wouldn't have come so close to crashing permanently. Whatever, it has been very good to see them get some key people back, and that inspires hope in me for the company and the competition it brings to bear. We absolutely need someone to kick Intel in the pants!
Good to see them capture the console market (the two biggest, anyway). Unfortunately, as a PC gamer that hates the fact that many games are made at console levels, I don't see the new generation catching up like they did back when the PS3 and Xbox 360 were released. It looks to me like we will still have weaker consoles to deal with - better than the previous gen, but still not up to mainstream PC standards, never mind high-end. The fact that many developers have been making full-blown PC versions from the start instead of tacking on rather weak ports a year later is more hopeful than the new console hardware, in my opinion.
blacks329 - Thursday, May 23, 2013 - link
I honestly expect the fact that both PS4 and X1 are x86 will benefit PC games quite significantly as well. Last gen devs initially developed for 360 and ported over to the PS3 and PC and later in the gen shifted to PS3 as the lead architect with some using PCs. I expect now, since porting to PS4 and X1 will be significantly easier, PC will eventually become the lead platform and will scale down accordingly for the PS4 and X1.As someone who games more on consoles than PCs, I'm really excited for both platforms as devs can spend less time tweaking on a per platform basis and spend more time elsewhere.
FearfulSPARTAN - Thursday, May 23, 2013 - link
Actually im pretty sure 90% still made the games on xbox first then ported to other platforms, however with all of them (excluding the wii u) being x86, the idea of them porting down from pc is quit possible and I didnt think about that. It would probably start to happen mid to late in the gen though.