NostaSeronx
Diamond Member
- Sep 18, 2011
- 3,686
- 1,221
- 136
Only recent 2012 research...What are you basing this on? The only implementation of CMT that we have seen sucked in the real world. Yes, I'm sure there are some old academic papers arguing that CMT would be wonderful, but in actual implementations it was an inefficient mess. AMD ditched it for a reason!
IBM's POWER9
AMD's Excavator: Derived from Bulldozer.
Intel's Folsom(Now NGC at Hilsboro) VISC core => Lead by the Architects/Designers of Bulldozer-Excavator.
=> TSMC 16nm taped out and Intel bought it out.
IBM's POWE9 CMT => No shared resources just shared area in SMT4, with a toggle option to SMT8 which fully shares resources.
The VISC CMT => No shared FPU resources, as the instructions from a single logical thread can be deployed to multiple phyiscal cores. Has shared front-end and shared back-end(retire and load-store).
The research defines a CMT core like Excavator in ULP scenarios would consume 1/4th or less power than a single SMT core. <-- 2014-2017
// This is the main component of why modern architecture is forced to get clustered or get left behind.
for a lot of reasons.
If Nosta really need ultra low power APU, just use that Banded Kestrel platform and dial back CPU clock to sub 2GHz, cut 1 CU, and voila. You would have sub 3w APU which would thrash any BD-derived core on same power envelope.
Clock-rate is important in such a design. sub-3W while maintaining a 3 GHz or even extending to a 4 GHz boost is required. A Ryzen 2200U-derivied <6W SKU might have to forgo a turbo clock to achieve the same envelope as a 22FDX core.If we are to extrapolate some numbers based on Techspot review the Athlon 200GE, aka R3 2200U, allow for 1.6-1.7GHz@5W and 1.2-1.3GHz@3W, dunno why they would need to shrink XV given the cost and that a better solution, perfs and cost wise, is readily available...
22FDX with CMT is the best solution:
- Limited cost from 28nm Bulk and Excavator design.
- Much higher performance than bulk
- Much lower power than bulk.
- Overall cheaper than pulling down high ASPs to fit into low ASPs. Since, the design would be low ASP from the get go on a lower costing process.
- A happy GlobalFoundries is a profitable GlobalFoundries.
There is also 12FDX when the big things start to happen.
"Dual-STI enlarges the range of the back-biasing capability, which is a key feature of FDSOI. In this work, we propose for the first time a unified technological solution to co-optimize both the stress and the back-biasing efficiency for 10nm UTBB FDSOI, using a so-called Dual Isolation by Trenches and Oxidation (DITO).
DITO however enables a bidirectional back-bias on the same device while single-STI is limited to FBB range in flip-well architecture (and RBB in regular-well one). DITO can thus achieve a large range of performance/leakage according to the back-bias"
https://i.imgur.com/K5KD6Cl.png
^-- 22FDX+ also gets it.
Last edited: