then the Bristol ridge would have twice the throughput of what is listed.
then the Bristol ridge would have twice the throughput of what is listed.I found that VFMADD132PD opcode apply both to 128 bit and 256 bit versions. So the throughput can be referred to 128 bit version...
So, bottom line is Skylake has 2x the listed throughout for the two instructions mentioned? (and that is approx 2x Zen throughput.)
Throughput is unknown for FMA 256bit for Zen
3 times slower then bulldozer and 14 times less throughput? Ouch that doesn't seem right. Is that load to use latency or just execution latency?15 latency, ~14.3 TP for 256-bit.
3 times slower then bulldozer and 14 times less throughput? Ouch that doesn't seem right. Is that load to use latency or just execution latency?
then the Bristol ridge would have twice the throughput of what is listed.
He wanted data for FMA, not DIV...?
Bulldozer and Piledriver have 27 cycle latency for both 128 and 256-bit VDIVPD, while Steamroller has 33 cycles.
13/15 > 27/33?
http://users.atw.hu/instlatx64/GenuineIntel00906E9_Kabylake_InstLatX64.txtIs there a complete instruction latency & throughput listing for SKL/KBL somewhere to be found?
I covered that in my P3DNow! article, as I understood it the same way regarding FMAC, port borrowing. I even assumed back then (dunno if pointed out in the article), that they might have separate FMUL subunits for lower power (than full blown FMACs). I assume, FADD could only be done indicrectly I think by explicitly using FMA ops.I read the two articles of GOto... In the second it's not said if the four pipelines can do 4 FADD. I thought that they were 2 FMUL and 2 FADD to be combined for FMAC. But it seems, according to Goto, that the FMUL is actually a full blown FMAC and that it borrows only the bus from the FADD, impeding the FADD at the same time. I wonder if the FMUL pipe can do also a FADD, since actually is a FMAC pipe...
See:Anyway the VFMADD132PD i found that can be both 128 and 256 bit, so i think that measured throughput was 2 because was 128 bit...
Also my thought on this.then the Bristol ridge would have twice the throughput of what is listed.
That's not a matter of throughput but latency, which is in line (even higher than SR). Throughput could be gained by more efficient pipelining - allowing for some overlapping of FDIV execution, or simply adding more DIV units (or both of course).VFMADD132PD is prolly operating on two doubles instead of four, so thoughput is 2.
Intels divisors are stuff of the legend, i think by Broadwell they had 10bit wide divisors, so their thoughput is like 2-3x fo what AMD has. Again, VDIVPD results from Canard make zero sense for Zen, probably two doubles instead of four are processed here. ( or DIVPD thoughput reported too low ).
We can only ask Canard PC here or wait for some AIDA instlat dump as long as nobody else got his hands on an ES.And? It is obviuos from DIV results, that twice that many bits halve the throughput. Intel results are correct for 256bit and for Skylake.
http://instlatx64.atw.hu/
What is obviuosly wrong: AMD ZEN results. 128bit results are presented and compared with 256bit results from Skylake.
I find it very odd that DIV is that much slower in SSE than in AVX.Strangely in AVX2 mode the VDIVPD in Zen is almost as fast as kabylake. So if in AVX2, they are almost as fast, if in SSE mode, DIV and SQRT are slower, but Zen has twice the pipelines... Indeed with standard Blender (that is 128 bit, probabily SSE2), Zen has similare IPC than BWE...
6900K use Intel s stock cooler.
As for Ryzen how could it be overcloscked s since it will have higher base frequency than 3.4GHz..?.
And btw, its TDP is displayed by AMD in the demos, and we know that the chip is slightly overvolted, so that s yet another mistake of yours...
Nothing is overclocked, and we know it, it s just the same usual suspects repeating ad nauseam what perhaps suit their agenda, i mean, whoever did read a little know that base frequencies will be higher than 3.4, so whoever come with the "overclocking argument" is just aknowledging that he s willfully trying to mislead the eventual unsuspecting readers...
That's not a matter of throughput but latency, which is in line (even higher than SR). Throughput could be gained by more efficient pipelining - allowing for some overlapping of FDIV execution, or simply adding more DIV units (or both of course).
I covered that in my P3DNow! article, as I understood it the same way regarding FMAC, port borrowing. I even assumed back then (dunno if pointed out in the article), that they might have separate FMUL subunits for lower power (than full blown FMACs). I assume, FADD could only be done indicrectly I think by explicitly using FMA ops.
See:
Also my thought on this.
That's not a matter of throughput but latency, which is in line (even higher than SR). Throughput could be gained by more efficient pipelining - allowing for some overlapping of FDIV execution, or simply adding more DIV units (or both of course).
I find it very odd that DIV is that much slower in SSE than in AVX.
Best explanation for such configuration is that AMD used an ES with lower clock and OCed it to 3.4 GHz for purpose of that demo. How else do you really end up with such config? By having buggy/non-working turbo? I sure hope that is not the case.
While they seemed to have those 3.6/3.9 ES chips on CES, the New Horizon demo took place 3 weeks earlier. It is more than plausible that they used lower-clocked ES with overclock then.
The chip was barely consuming 74W during the demo, hardly what one would call an overclocked chip, dunno from where you are pulling such non sensical theories...
Btw, you are right that they did over set something, though, namely the chip supply voltage, otherwise instead of 74W it would had consumed something like 65-67W, as said at 3.4GHz....
We have only seen idle-to-load deltas for both chips IIRC, so you can't really say what the "CPU consumption" was from that. What if Ryzen had high idle power draw because of early/ill-tuned BIOS and motherboard? I don't remember the specifics, but the reported idle power was relatively high, while you would normally expect the idle power of AM4 to be equally or more frugal than FM2+ (There was a discrete GPU, but those shouldn't have dramatic idle consumption today).
If it was a measurement of the load on CPU's 12V rail, it would be different.
And if my theory is nonsensical, why do you think they disabled turbo, then
We have only seen idle-to-load deltas for both chips IIRC, so you can't really say what the "CPU consumption" was from that.
What if Ryzen had high idle power draw because of early/ill-tuned BIOS and motherboard? I don't remember the specifics, but the reported idle power was relatively high, while you would normally expect the idle power of AM4 to be equally or more frugal than FM2+ (There was a discrete GPU, but those shouldn't have dramatic idle consumption today).
If it was a measurement of the load on CPU's 12V rail, it would be different.
And if my theory is nonsensical, why do you think they disabled turbo, then
Because idle power included the monitors, that s as simple as that, these are full system consumptions wich are measured, because one logically use a PC with a monitor i would think...
You can't take anecdotic data from one CPU on one board as universal truth about the CPU and the platform.Edit : According to Hardware.fr the 6900K plateform use 63W at idle, the CPU idle comsumption is 21W measured at the 12V rail, wich translate by roughly 18W for the CPU, this correlate with Zen wich is said to have in the range of 5W idle power, wich would make for the 13W difference between the two plateforms at idle..
81W under 75% Max load... Nice estimate.We can estimate Zen consumption from the delta idle/load, reduced by VRMs and PSU efficiency, adding a sane idle power for a 14nm low power chip... 94*.9*.9=76W, plus 5W, max 81W of total power consumption. And consider that VRMs efficiency is under 88% (not 90%) and PSU efficiency is 90% only for gold90+ certified PSUs and only at 50% load: if the PSU is e.g. 700W, to cope with a medium GPU, with less than 200W of consumption the efficiency is well below 90%... Moreover 5W is an overestimation of idle power. Usually is 2-3W.
In conclusion the power probabily is in the ballpark of 75W, for an overvolted ES at 3.4GHz... I would not call that an overclocked chip...
How could you say it's 75%? Link? Or it's a guess? And 81W it's a theoretical limit. Probabily it's under 75W...81W under 75% Max load... Nice estimate.
Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)
81W under 75% Max load... Nice estimate.
Real world vs guessing is an interesting study. We used this methodology to arrive at 90-100W for Agena back in the day. Then you hooked up the ammeter and saw no less than 128-140W. Good lesson.
Sent from HTC 10
(Opinions are own)
AIDA64 tests both special and generic divisors. To understand the causes for these differences we likely need to do our own microbenchmarking. So far there might also be a difference due to 2-operand and 3-operand encodings and the available FPRF regs during throughput measurement loops with such long latency instructions, as one would need to create many independent dependency chains.I am aware of that. But DIVPD is listed as 13 / 13. So 128 bit SSE2 division has throughput of 13 cycles. VDIVPD is listed as having 9 cycle TP??? Stilt has claimed 128 bit mode throughput 12.5, that is more of what I expect it to be ( equal or tiny bit better than DIVPD due to instruction decode differences ). So Intel has 4 cycle throughput, AMD has ~12 cycle throughput in 128bit mode.
In VDIVPD 256bit mode, Intel has 8 cycle throughput, AMD has 14.3 cycle TP ( according to Stilt ), which is very nice if true.
Still 256bit versus 128bit has strange differences (probably due to sensitivity of division operation speed to bits set in operands, it is usually quite variable and hard to test). If AMD has 2 divisor pipes, why they are not showing in 128 bit division throughput?
Of course. Here's the translation link for the part about the FPU:Could you please give the link?
It should. That's why it's a strange result.Bristol ridge have 2 128 bit FMAC pipes, so throughput of 128 bit VFMADD132PD should be 2 and 1 for the 256 bit
Zen have 4 128 bit pipes, so should have same throughput than bristol ridge in both cases
Yeah, that's true. Here I was focusing on JoeRambo's point.If the throughput of the DIV is 1/latency, lowering latency increases also the throughput, because you should wait less to issue another instruction...
Of course. Here's the translation link for the part about the FPU:
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http://www.planet3dnow.de/cms/26077-details-und-analyse-der-zen-architektur-nach-der-hot-chips-konferenz/subpage-die-fliesskomma-einheit-im-detail/&edit-text=
It lists only one author (me ), but a lot has been done by P3DNow! user/writer "Opteron" (S940).
BTW we should not forget that average FP real world software isn't stuffed with SQRT/DIV instructions, so that latency becomes more important than t'put.
See according to me im the center of the universe thus you must have been talking about what i was talking about. Thus i assumed VFMADD132PD. Out of interest do you have the VFMADD132PD 256bit latency/ TP numbers? same as CPC's??
Bulldozer and Piledriver have 27 cycle latency for both 128 and 256-bit VDIVPD, while Steamroller has 33 cycles.
13/15 > 27/33?