By: David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com), August 4, 2012 11:22 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
Iain McClatchie (iain-rwt.delete@this.mcclatchie.com) on August 3, 2012 4:35 pm wrote:
> One of the big differences between CPUs and GPUs to me is their physical memory
> architecture.
>
> CPU physical memory architecture:
> CPUs come in an FBGA which
> you mount onto a motherboard with a nonsoldered really expensive socket. The
> DRAM for this system comes in FBGAs which are soldered to DIMMs, which then
> connect to the motherboard via the DIMM socket. It's usually possible to load
> two DIMMs per memory channel, and the CPU provides 1 clock pair per 8 DQs, and
> the CPU knows how to deal with registers between the CPU outputs and the DRAM
> chips. The pin data rate is something like 1 Gb/s/pin.
>
> This is good for
> configuring the system memory after the motherboard has been soldered together.
> This is bad for memory power dissipation (DQs are actively terminated and
> terminating 2 DRAM drops per CPU DQ pin consumes really large amounts of
> power).
Do you have any idea how much power DQ termination uses?
> GPU physical memory architecture:
> GPU comes in an FBGA which is
> soldered to the same board as the DRAM FBGAs. DQs are point-to-point with just
> two solder balls near the ends of the line. GPU provides 1 clock pair per 16
> DQs. The pin data rate is something like 4 Gb/s/pin.
>
> This is good for high
> bandwidth and low power, but it means you configure the memory when you solder
> everything down.
I've been told by folks who design both DDR3 and GDDR5 memory controllers that the latter is noticeably more power efficient when measured by pJ/bit. I suspect it is for many of the reasons you have outlined.
Of course, the catch is that GDDR5 latency is pretty awful. Part of that is architectural, but I suspect part is related to the things that make GDDR5 so energy efficient.
> My proposal:
> For many years now, it has seemed to me that
> CPUs should be sold as GPUs are sold, soldered onto little boards with their
> DRAM, with one-to-one data pins between CPU and DRAM. Any given CPU core/speed
> might be offered with 2 different memory loads. For example, you might be able
> to buy a 3 GHz, 4 core CPU with 8 GB or 16 GB of DRAM as a unit. This would
> double the number of SKUs shipped by CPU board manufacturers. The CPU board
> would plug into the motherboard as GPUs do now, and it's conceivable that you
> might be able to select between plugging in CPUs and GPUs.
>
> A 16 GB load of 2
> Gb chips is 72 DRAM chips, which can be implemented one-to-one with x8 DRAMs and
> 576 data pins. Obviously some of the lines will have to be somewhat long (7-8
> cm?), but I don't think that requires active termination. 32 GB/CPU package and
> larger configs would require x4 chips and buffering, and perhaps chip stacking
> for the really large memory loads.
>
> My guess is that GPUs (and their memories)
> burn much less IO power per data data bandwidth than CPUs. This proposal would
> bring CPUs up to par, and eliminate most of the expensive CPU and DIMM
> connections in the system, increasing system reliability and decreasing
> cost.
>
> From a business point-of-view, the combined product encapsulates quite
> a bit more of the high-cost portion of the system. It would lead to a big
> shakeup as DIMM and motherboard manufacturers duke it out to see who ends up
> being good at shipping a high-cost commodity with price-volatile components on
> it.
I think the other question is how would you handle servers? I think you can argue that the configuration options in modern systems is excessive and that sacrificing a bit to improve cost/power is reasonable. But would that kind of memory arrangement scale to servers where you want ~1TB of memory in the near future.
Or perhaps the real issue is that we need 3 different types of 'memory', one optimized for latency, one for bandwidth and one for capacity.
David
> One of the big differences between CPUs and GPUs to me is their physical memory
> architecture.
>
> CPU physical memory architecture:
> CPUs come in an FBGA which
> you mount onto a motherboard with a nonsoldered really expensive socket. The
> DRAM for this system comes in FBGAs which are soldered to DIMMs, which then
> connect to the motherboard via the DIMM socket. It's usually possible to load
> two DIMMs per memory channel, and the CPU provides 1 clock pair per 8 DQs, and
> the CPU knows how to deal with registers between the CPU outputs and the DRAM
> chips. The pin data rate is something like 1 Gb/s/pin.
>
> This is good for
> configuring the system memory after the motherboard has been soldered together.
> This is bad for memory power dissipation (DQs are actively terminated and
> terminating 2 DRAM drops per CPU DQ pin consumes really large amounts of
> power).
Do you have any idea how much power DQ termination uses?
> GPU physical memory architecture:
> GPU comes in an FBGA which is
> soldered to the same board as the DRAM FBGAs. DQs are point-to-point with just
> two solder balls near the ends of the line. GPU provides 1 clock pair per 16
> DQs. The pin data rate is something like 4 Gb/s/pin.
>
> This is good for high
> bandwidth and low power, but it means you configure the memory when you solder
> everything down.
I've been told by folks who design both DDR3 and GDDR5 memory controllers that the latter is noticeably more power efficient when measured by pJ/bit. I suspect it is for many of the reasons you have outlined.
Of course, the catch is that GDDR5 latency is pretty awful. Part of that is architectural, but I suspect part is related to the things that make GDDR5 so energy efficient.
> My proposal:
> For many years now, it has seemed to me that
> CPUs should be sold as GPUs are sold, soldered onto little boards with their
> DRAM, with one-to-one data pins between CPU and DRAM. Any given CPU core/speed
> might be offered with 2 different memory loads. For example, you might be able
> to buy a 3 GHz, 4 core CPU with 8 GB or 16 GB of DRAM as a unit. This would
> double the number of SKUs shipped by CPU board manufacturers. The CPU board
> would plug into the motherboard as GPUs do now, and it's conceivable that you
> might be able to select between plugging in CPUs and GPUs.
>
> A 16 GB load of 2
> Gb chips is 72 DRAM chips, which can be implemented one-to-one with x8 DRAMs and
> 576 data pins. Obviously some of the lines will have to be somewhat long (7-8
> cm?), but I don't think that requires active termination. 32 GB/CPU package and
> larger configs would require x4 chips and buffering, and perhaps chip stacking
> for the really large memory loads.
>
> My guess is that GPUs (and their memories)
> burn much less IO power per data data bandwidth than CPUs. This proposal would
> bring CPUs up to par, and eliminate most of the expensive CPU and DIMM
> connections in the system, increasing system reliability and decreasing
> cost.
>
> From a business point-of-view, the combined product encapsulates quite
> a bit more of the high-cost portion of the system. It would lead to a big
> shakeup as DIMM and motherboard manufacturers duke it out to see who ends up
> being good at shipping a high-cost commodity with price-volatile components on
> it.
I think the other question is how would you handle servers? I think you can argue that the configuration options in modern systems is excessive and that sacrificing a bit to improve cost/power is reasonable. But would that kind of memory arrangement scale to servers where you want ~1TB of memory in the near future.
Or perhaps the real issue is that we need 3 different types of 'memory', one optimized for latency, one for bandwidth and one for capacity.
David
