AMD Licenses Z-RAM Technology 191
ZuperDee writes "It appears AMD has licensed Z-RAM technology from Innovative Silicon for possible use in future processors. According to the article, this could lead to caches about 5 times denser than the SRAM that is normally used right now. C|Net says they will probably make the announcement on Monday."
The message is clear: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The message is clear: (Score:3, Funny)
Don't worry - they've thought of such an eventuality - when all the letters are used up they simply move on to the list of reserved names.
If another RAM is invented this year, it will be Alberto-RAM, then Beryl-RAM, etc etc.
Full list here [noaa.gov]
Greek alphabet (Score:1)
Re:The message is clear: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The message is clear: (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The message is clear: (Score:2)
Calm down. (Score:5, Funny)
Apple should have considered? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:2)
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:2)
Can Intel not license the same Z-RAM patents?
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:5, Informative)
As many like to point out, Intel often shows a "Not Invented Here" attitude.
It took a while for Intel to adopt copper interconnects, and they did that quietly when they finally caved.
As far as I know, they still aren't using Silicon On Insulator.
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:3, Interesting)
As many like to point out, Intel often shows a "Not Invented Here" attitude.
Quite. The crossbar switch came and went (1990's RISC workstations, appeared in the AMD Athlon) and intel's still using a 1970's bus for it's "high-end" pentium processors.
Now we have point-to-point interconnects (1990's supercomputers NUMA architecture) called Hypertransport and intel's still flogging the 1970's bus on the pentium.
Look at how pentium doesn't scale in SMP systems. Itanic is a different matter, but you can buy se
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:2)
Apple? They have rights to HyperTransport, IIRC. Their engineers know which way is up.
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:2)
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:2)
Sorry, I don't understand the point you're trying to make.
These are the founding members of the HyperTransport Consortium:
Maybe you're referring to the Athlon bus similarities to the Alpha EV6/EV7 bus? But Alpha was sold to Intel years ago. The CSI bus may be b
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:2)
Um, RAMBUS? (Score:2)
As another person pointed out, SOI may simply be too expensive for Intel to license from IBM. Does AMD use SOI? I don't believe so.
Re:Um, RAMBUS? (Score:2)
Re:Um, RAMBUS? (Score:2)
The Z-RAM technology only applies to SOI. Without SOI, the entire basis on which it works simply doesn't exist.
Re:Um, RAMBUS? (Score:2)
Re:Um, RAMBUS? (Score:2)
Good luck with that. I seem to recall having heard that they had some test wafers run at a couple of different fabs, but I don't think they intended them for sale, only testing. While I don't think there's a lot of reason they couldn't be built as separate chips, it'd be awfully hard to compete with the bulk DRAM manufacturers.
Just for example, once upon a time you could buy DIMMs of memory from Enhanced Memory
Re:Um, RAMBUS? (Score:2)
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:2)
Texas Instruments invented the microprocessor, not Intel, so you've just denied Intel's entire existence.
If the parent post had said "Intel always shows a 'Not Invented Here' attitude" then your logic would have been correct, but it didn't. The post said 'often', which is not the same as 'always'.
TI Invented the Microprocessor ??? (Score:2)
Before the 4004 "processors" were made out of discrete components that were manufactured together.
I do believe that TI has many of the patents on combining multiple discrete components into a single piece of silicon - however that isn't a microprocessor
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:2)
Considering SOI is a prerequisit for Z-RAM, and how much fab capacity Intel has (they're stuffing 4MiB of total L2 onto their dual core 9x0 line right now), I wouldn't expect it to be high on their to do list.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:2)
Seriously, I think it's cause Intel was all about the TPM.
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:2)
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:2)
Re:WHat do you mean by 'if'? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there's a lot of assumption there... (Score:5, Interesting)
But why do people assume this will work? There's a couple companies trying to do this stuff (T-RAM is another) and none have succeeded yet.
It has proven to be difficult to get this kind of technology working in production chips. The main difficulty is that process control becomes very very important. Your yields drop through the floor.
Additionally, note that any 1T transistor technology is inherently a stored charge device (like EPROM, EEPROM or flash memory but different). The problem is that transistors on chips are getting so small that they have less than 100 electrons in the gate of a transistor. So your insulating ability becomes very important. Your chip is designed for electron mobility that electrons can flow around a fairly long loop (the instruction execution path) 1 million times in 1 millisecond. And now you have to make sure that 100 electrons sitting in one place don't leak out in that same time.
It's a challenge. It might be possible. I don't see any particular reason to think that AMD is going to be the one to do it though. Intel are wizards at process technology, as evidenced by their movement to 65nm before AMD. They don't happen to use SOI though, that's about the only advantage AMD has in this situation that I can see.
Anyway, I do like AMD (I'm typing this post on one), but them licensing some unproven technology from a 3rd party is no kind of condemnation of Intel or Apple's choice of Intel.
Mod Parent Up. (Score:2)
Re:there's a lot of assumption there... (Score:2)
One of the major advantages of Z-RAM is that it doesn't require changes in the process (providing you're already using SOI, obviously). It doesn't seem to tighten the requirements on process control compared to a more conventional design either.
At the same time, it provides a substantial increase in memor
Re:there's a lot of assumption there... (Score:2)
Re:there's a lot of assumption there... (Score:2)
The charge is in a floating gate, but it needs regular refreshing or the value will be lost. This is essentially identical to a normal DRAM and completely different from a Flash, EPROM or EEPROM (which retain charge without refresh or even power at all).
A DRAM doesn't necessarily use a trench capacitor either. Some do, but just for one other obvious example, there
I don't usually do this, but... (Score:2)
"One of the major advantages of Z-RAM is that it doesn't require changes in the process (providing you're already using SOI, obviously). It doesn't seem to tighten the requirements on process control compared to a more conventional design either."
That's untrue. You may not have to change the process, but you definitely have to tighten it. The amount of charge that you can hold on the gate becomes critical. The "leakiness" of transistors isn't nearly as im
Re:I don't usually do this, but... (Score:2)
Coffin's law (inspired by Godwin's law): As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of an ad hominem attack approaches 1. As with Godwin's law, by making the ad hominem attack, you've ended the thread and automatically lost the argument on all counts.
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:2)
Any idea what the performance and price characteristics of ZRAM are, or are you just a clueless AMD fanboy?
It was all about the laptops. (Score:2)
First and most importantly, Apple needed better laptop chips. And at the time, the Pentium M was miles ahead of the AMD mobile chips (and the IBM PowerPC chips) -- the difference has narrowed, but even then, the Turion 64 chips are relatively untested, relatively unavailable, and relatively higher in power consumption,
Re:Apple should have considered? (Score:2)
Also, Intel has the best mobile processors, and what Apple really needed was a mobile processor.
Based on this, I think that Apple did the right thing.
Details (Score:5, Informative)
From teh Google (Score:5, Informative)
A nice techy article about how/what makes ZRAM special. It goes in-depth about the things you mention. http://www.cieonline.co.uk/cie2/articlen.asp?pid=
Obligatory Wikipedia Link [wikipedia.org]
Re:From teh Google (Score:4, Informative)
It looks like there are no speed tradeoffs and it scales even better than DRAM, proven at 45 nm and suitable for 22 nm as well. AMD says such improvements usually take two years to show up in products, so that will still be 65 nm mostly with some 45nm. At 45 nm scale, a 1 cm^2 chip that is 70%-75% ZRAM would have about 48 MB.
Re:From teh Google (Score:2)
Why, if chips are becoming smaller and cooler, has the 'computer-on-chip' concept not hit mainstream?
I mean, seriously. Tell me you wouldn't like to plug a 2cmx2cm chip into a 4cmx4cm mobo and have two ide chanels, two usb ports, a video port, an ethernet cable and a power input feed.
Sorry. I geek out for the small computers, and I WANT THEM SMALLER!!!
Re:From teh Google (Score:2)
Re:From teh Google (Score:2)
Re:From teh Google (Score:2)
But you have to sacrifice the speed a bit.
every device will have 64m then (Score:2)
DVDRW built in 64meg
digitaltv card - 64meg
128meg in the ipod
Re:every device will have 64m then (Score:2)
Re:Details (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Details (Score:2)
The new memory should be six times denser than SRAM and twice as dense as DRAM.
You probably meant that it is six times denser than SRAM, but only half as dense as DRAM (that's still very good!). Typically, DRAM is approximately 12-50 times denser than SRAM
, because each SRAM cell needs a lot of transistors and capacitors, and a DRAM cell only needs a capacitor and bitline connections.Re:Details (Score:2)
Re:Details (Score:2)
Re:Details (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Details (Score:2, Interesting)
The two are often related.
Re:Details (Score:2)
Dugg Earlier... (Score:4, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Only caches? (Score:2)
Great Idea (Score:2)
Because Z-RAM can scale much better than DRAM, they should be able to make it much smaller/faster. Also, because it is made of one transistor and not one transistor and one capacitor, it takes up half as much space. So you could double the density of your DRAM products.
But more interesting, if this can replace SRAM that means that it doesn't require refreshing like DRAM does. This would be a MAJOR benefit if it replaced DRAM for system RAM.
Re:Only caches? (Score:2)
Re:Only caches? (Score:2, Informative)
Considering a standard DRAM cell (there are many variations, but what I
these are static... (Score:2)
To answer the GP (GGP's?) question also, this technology could not be used in system RAM because system RAM cannot be SOI. Well, it can be SOI I suppose, but since the gates in system RAM are vertical within the chip instead of horizontal, the gate of the transistor would not be located particularly near the insulator and s
inaccurate (Score:2)
I don't think it's a drop-in replacement for current types of memory, but it may become popular in the future. The advantage isn't as big as with SRAM, so there's less of a rush.
Oblig. Futurama, of course (Score:5, Funny)
Obligatory Zardoz reference! (Score:2)
AMD Engineering vs Intel Marketing (Score:4, Informative)
Intel went for Itanium, while AMD went for 64-bit x86.
Intel went for Rambus, while AMD went for DDR and HyperTransport.
If you look at the multicore technology AMD is researching, it looks better than Intel's multicore.
I'll acknowledge that Intel recognized the value of wireless ahead of AMD, although dedicated wireless chipsets are obviously better than Centrino anyway.
I'm just glad that healthy competition is there, to make us consumers the ultimate winners.
Re:AMD Engineering vs Intel Marketing (Score:2)
Even in the benchmarks, itanic is only good with fp math. The integer math is less than AMD64, maybe even when compared clock for clock. Itanic certainly appears to have been designed for scientific computing, which is a niche market anyway. It has no reason to live.
The thing about programs written just for itanic is tr
Interesting use of an SOI "feature" (Score:5, Informative)
So normally this "feature" is considered a liability, or at least something that designers wish could be an asset but which is too hard to utilize effectively and is thus ignored.
In more gory details, this exerpt from EETimes explains it pretty well:
( http://ww.eetimes.com/issue/bb/showArti...D%3D573
In partially depleted MOS transistors -- the only kind used in production SOI today -- the body of the transistor is a small, electrically isolated piece of silicon trapped between the active portions of the transistor and the insulating layer underneath. If this body is allowed to float, it will take on a voltage determined by the capacitive coupling between it and the other portions of the transistor. But the voltage -- or, more properly, charge -- on this floating body can affect threshold voltage, and hence the drive current, of the transistor.
Ideally, the floating-body effect can deliver a formidable performance gain. Two circumstances arise from that gain, Soisic's Pelloie said. First, the voltage on the body influences the transistor's threshold voltage. "If you switch the gate of the transistor from off to on, then the body potential increases, which yields a decrease of the threshold voltage and then an increase of the drive current," he said. "The switch is then faster than in the bulk CMOS case, where the body is grounded."
The second effect is another mechanism for influencing the threshold voltage. "When you use stacked transistors in a gate, like NAND, NOR and any other combinational gate with multiple inputs, the body-to-source voltage of the transistors corresponds to a forward-bias condition, and the threshold voltage is lowered," Pelloie said. "For bulk CMOS or in a grounded-body situation, if the source has a high voltage value, for instance Vdd [the power supply voltage], the body source voltage then becomes - Vdd and the transistor body source junction is reverse-biased." That increases the threshold voltage and lowers the drive current. Analyzed at the circuit level, he said, these two SOI advantages are combined and globally yield a higher-speed operation.
But there is a catch to these threshold-voltage-lowering mechanisms, as Pelloie explained: "Since the body is floating, it follows the variation of the other terminals of the transistor. The body voltage never keeps the same value, as the transistors are, most of the time, switching in normal operation mode. This results in what we call the history effect: The propagation delay and some other features of the gates depend on the history of the signals applied to their terminals."
-------- end EETimes snippet -----
It will be interesting to see how this particular use of the floating body effect scales as we continue to move to 45nm and beyond. It will also be interesting how it handles low-voltage quantum-induced soft-errors. Also, similar to DRAM, this type of memory will need to be refreshed - if AMD uses it in a design, it will interesting to see how the impact of refreshing, and trying to read a very small effect and amplify it to make a signal will impact the speed of the devices when used in a large cache array.
Power density? (Score:2)
If AMD can provide a reasonable cache that only requires a fraction of the die space, might this become a problem?
Re:factorial benchmark (Score:2, Interesting)
look at the XPs running at 2.0GHZ and notice how it is frequency dependant
P4 3.2GHz
81 seconds
athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz socket A, barton)
81 seconds
P4 3.0GHz (laptop)
90 seconds
athlon XP 3200+ (2.0GHz 939 venice)
91 seconds
athlon XP 2400+ (2.0GHz)
93 seconds
athlon XP 2100+
106 seconds
athlon XP 2000+ (1.67GHz)
121 seconds
athlon mobile XP 1800+ (1.52GHz)
122 seconds
celeron 2.7 GHz (northwood core)
130 seconds
celeron 1.4GHz (tualatin)
205 seconds
celeron 800MHz (win
Re:factorial benchmark (Score:1, Funny)
Read much, do you? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Read much, do you? (Score:3, Interesting)
When you change the insides, nobody notices [msdn.com]
Newer versions of "Calc" were completely written behind the scenes to provide more accuracy (essentially infinite accuracy on simple arithmetic, explained above) while the interface remained the same. So the comparison is flawed.
Re:Read much, do you? (Score:2)
Re:Read much, do you? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:factorial benchmark (Score:3, Funny)
Your benchmark is pointless. I just wrote a quick program to calculate 1,000,000 factorial (ten times your number). I ran it on an AMD 800 thunderbird. It took 11 seconds. Blam - my 5 year old AMD is nearly 100 times faster than your modern P4 3.2GHz.
My program is even faster. It just returns Inf. It's almost infinitely faster.
Re:factorial benchmark (Score:2)
Re:factorial benchmark (Score:2)
Is this on par for the other results posted here? I tried it twice...
Re:factorial benchmark (Score:2)
Re:factorial benchmark (Score:2)
More information so I don't have to post again about this,
It is overclocked to 2468Mhz, with a 226 HTT.
2GB PC-3200 following the same speed as HTT (DDR-452)
XP x64, Abit AN8 SLi (The red/fatal1ty version, I got it as a handmedown)
Re:factorial benchmark (Score:3, Funny)
Re:factorial benchmark (Score:2)
Re:factorial benchmark (Score:2)
94 Seconds.
Re:factorial benchmark (Score:2)
Pentium 4 2.99GHz, 85 seconds.
Re:Let's see here... (Score:2)
Blackcomb is the server counterpart to Vista.
And why would you want to use a server OS to game?
And, to echo my friend here, what the fuck is holographic RAID?
Re:Let's see here... (Score:2)
Meanwhile, grandad is just using a bunch of buzzwords to promote sarcasm.
sar-chasm...
ok, why the blank stare?
Rambus comparison is invalid (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hello, another rambus by AMD? (Score:2)
Re:AMD vs. Intel Brand Comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
Intel, despite having a virtual monopoly on the pc-cpu business, has never been as despised as for example Microsoft for the simple reason that they have always produced top quality. Sure you had to pay for their cpu's but they where generaly worth paying for. AMD always played catch-up technology and performance-wise, and therefore always had to sell their slightly worse performing cpu's at a slightly lower price. That changed with AMD's introduction of the original Athlon about 5 years ago or so (look up the exact dates if you like, I dont have the energy for it). It actually performed better than anything Intel had and was still slightly cheaper. It took a while for the market to realize this since the intel brand had a lot of momentum.
Most people with technical knowledge prefer AMD nowadays because a) everybody likes an underdog, and b) AMD has since the introduction of the Athlon kept their performance lead over intel. Because they've slowly but surely been gaining marketshare, AMD's prices has crept upwards to a point of almost matching Intels prices, but you still get a faster cpu for less money if you buy AMD. At the moment, Intel has nothing that can compete. Add to this the fact that AMD's processors also use less power than Intels Pentium 4-line and AMD has an even greater advantage.
Intel's lost a lot of credibility during the last years because of their attempts to out-market AMD despite the fact that their current netburst-based lineup has nothing on AMD's Athlon stuff. Everybody keeps waiting for Intel to pull an ace out of their sleeve and introduce somthing that kills AMD, but Intel has failed to deliver for many years now.
So basically, AMD is still the underdog that delivers the best *and* cheapest product, while Intel's marketing department is trying to save Intel.
Re:AMD vs. Intel Brand Comparison (Score:2)
Um, NO! (Score:2)
I'm a research scientist. At one point Intel made a chip with a flawed FPU [willamette.edu]. They eventually admitted it. After much harassment, they said they would be willing to replace the defective CPUs for certain people, if *Intel* thought that person really needed the accuracy. I don't need Intel to decide for me how accurate my re
Re:AMD vs. Intel Brand Comparison (Score:2)
Actually, AMD's 386 was faster than intel's, their 486 was faster than Intel's, the 586/K5 is faster than the pentium at most operations, and once they got the FPU up to standard, the K6 (rev 3) was faster than the Pentium MMX in all benchmarks and faster than the Pentium 2 in many.
Re:In 2 years (Score:2, Informative)
Re:In 2 years (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree for different reasons. (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, there is one thing about the Cell you missed - It's a special-purpose processor designed for raw floating point performance. 8 of the cores can only do basic streaming floating point (although they do it EXTREMELY fast), the remaining CPU is a VERY stripped down PPC.
So for a gaming system or DSP, the Cell will kick ass. For general purpose computing, it's going to suck.
Re:In 2 years (Score:2)
Why the hell would Nvidia or ATI want to use the Cell as a graphics processor when even Sony aren't doing that?
The PS3 was originally going to use the Cell as the GPU as well. But the performance sucked, hence the PS3 is now using an Nvidia GPU.
Granted, I'm no expert on the subject, but since these things are built for floating point calc's, it seems very suited for the task.
Fast floating point does not guarante