Besides AMD, who uses HT technology?

M

mailrapid

n00b
Joined
Oct 27, 2007
Messages
22
As we all know AMD's cpu features HyperTransport and the latest version is 3.0.

I need your assistance:

1. Is this HT technology invented by AMD?
2. What kind of industry or which company uses this method?
 
reat thread. The answer is really easy to find though, buit in this case I dont mind, becouse the info is good stuff.....

The story of Hypertransport goes back a few years to DEC. They were working on a new buss for the EV8 architecture that never really got finished before Compaq bought them out. Once Compaq bought them they started selling off DEC's IP... AMD bought a number of exDEC employees, and licensed a bunch of that technology. One of the guys AMD hired was Fred Webber. The guy is my hero. He's a freakin genius who designed the K7, and the K8. He also started work on LDT aka Lightning Data Technology. LDT was a serial peer to peer data buss that he designed for the K8. AMD decided that they would be better off making it a technology consortium instead of keeping it all for themselves. So they renamed it to Hypertransport and spun off the hypertransport consortium....

http://www.hypertransport.org/

Now the cosortium does all development and is funded by it's members. Its member list is here...
http://www.hypertransport.org/consortium/cons_members.cfm?m=3

Thats the short and sweet version. Of course there is alot of detail that I left out, but you should really do a google search, becouse it is some good stuff.
 
Adding to what duby said:

Wikipedia said:
The technology is used by AMD and Transmeta in x86 processors, PMC-Sierra, Broadcom, and Raza Microelectronics in MIPS microprocessors, AMD, NVIDIA, VIA and SiS in PC chipsets, HP, Sun Microsystems, IBM, and Flextronics in servers, Cray, Newisys, QLogic, and XtremeData, Inc. in high performance computing, Microsoft in its Xbox game console, and Cisco Systems in routers.
Click to expand...
 
By the way, which version does these company use?
For example, 3leaf or broadcom uses which version on their product?
 
Very informative thread. I'm going to have to go back and brush up on Hypertransport, and fill in the unknown blanks.
 
vista_blista said:
Very informative thread. I'm going to have to go back and brush up on Hypertransport, and fill in the unknown blanks.
Click to expand...

I actual wrote about HT vs PCI-e and their suitability as inter-processor interconnects when I was in grad school. A short snippet can be downloaded here.

Note that this was written a while ago, so information might have changed since. I'm not responsible for any inaccuracies :p
 
Thanks. Really makes you appreciate the architecture behind the chips. Perhaps HT is one of the innumerable reasons to like AMD so much. Certainly Intel knows a good thing when they see it.
 
vista_blista said:
Thanks. Really makes you appreciate the architecture behind the chips. Perhaps HT is one of the innumerable reasons to like AMD so much. Certainly Intel knows a good thing when they see it.
Click to expand...
That's why they're attempting to emulate every key AMD innovation in Nehalem. They have no other choice.
 
APOLLO said:
That's why they're attempting to emulate every key AMD innovation in Nehalem. They have no other choice.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what scares me... in a year from now. And don't forget Fusion. AMD will lose what undeniably makes them unique. Although, that doesn't seem to have hurt Apple, BSOD and all. ;)
 
vista_blista said:
That's exactly what scares me... in a year from now. And don't forget Fusion. AMD will lose what undeniably makes them unique. Although, that doesn't seem to have hurt Apple, BSOD and all. ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah, but by then who knows? I would like to think AMD is not standing still, and the new technology from Intel may not come cheap. There are many unknowns at this point that we will gradually see unfold by this time next year. Both companies might experience changes with their roadmaps including technology we have not heretofore heard about.
 
savantu said:
Which ones ?
Click to expand...

Single native multi-core die, integrated on-die memory controller and GPU (in certain versions,) Quickpath bus interconnect (similar to HyperTransport.) Obviously Nehalem will need less cache now, but will share 8MB of L3 cache between the cores. This will make the Intel platform perform with less bottlenecks and an overall lower monetary cost. Unless the memory controller is poorly integrated this will nullify the most important advantages of the AMD platform.
 
vista_blista said:
Single native multi-core die,
Click to expand...

That's an innovation ? :rolleyes:
Ever heard of Power 4 ?
Or Montecito which taped out at the same time as DC K8 ?

Which begs the question : why is a multi core die an innovation and not simply a manufacturing option ?
integrated on-die memory controller and GPU (in certain versions,)
Click to expand...

Oh yes.IMCs .
Looks like Nehalem will ship with a GPU before Fusion , so who's innovating after all ?

Quickpath bus interconnect (similar to HyperTransport.)
Click to expand...

I'm sorry , but using that word means you're pretty clueless about CSI.From the outside they might look similar , but under the surface they completely different.

More importantly , CSI is the work of the team that created arguably , the best interconnect in the world , the Alpha EV7 one.HT is also the work of several ex-Alpha engineers.
 
APOLLO said:
That's why they're attempting to emulate every key AMD innovation in Nehalem. They have no other choice.
Click to expand...

So what you are saying is that Intel beats AMD with inferior technology? :rolleyes:
If not, you make no sense at all...
 
I admire you Vista. Its really not worth the effort. You'd be wasting your time (as I am sure you are well aware).
 
I had already conceeded a lot in this thread, and still there isn't any satisfaction. Maybe they're confused with first person shooters, where the main objective is to crush your opponent like a bug, and take no prisoners. Except in this case it just means a technological slowdown, and higher prices for everyone.
 
vista_blista said:
Single native multi-core die, integrated on-die memory controller and GPU (in certain versions,) Quickpath bus interconnect (similar to HyperTransport.) Obviously Nehalem will need less cache now, but will share 8MB of L3 cache between the cores.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe AMD pioneered all those?

Native multi-core die: Power4
IMC: MIPS in the mid 80's or Cyrix MediaGX on the desktop
Integrated GPU: Cyrix MediaGX way before Fusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaGX
HyperTransport: bought off DEC

Nehalem will need less cache? More cache is always better; its a question of economics versus performance due to diminishing returns. Nahelem will have less cache because it is a native quad-core die. Meaning its die should be bigger than Penryn, meaning the cost per unit will increase, and thus you sacrifice cache (which, in general, is the LEAST amount of performance at the loss of no additional features per die space). Server versions (where CPU cost is usually of little consequence and whose work payload is very cache friendly) of Nehalem will still have monster caches:

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=162668
 
Atech said:
So what you are saying is that Intel beats AMD with inferior technology? :rolleyes:
If not, you make no sense at all...
Click to expand...
No, but Intel is 'behind' on certain engineering aspects of microarchitecture, as far as what's currently available at the counter. Unreleased tech that no one can buy yet doesn't count.

What you really want to say (I hope) is that Intel still maintains a performance lead despite the advances made by AMD the past couple of years. When Nehalem is released with 'homologous' tech, the engineering differences between the two companies, which have separated them thus far, will be bridged. Few will argue that HT or IMC are inferior to FSB and a run-of-the-mill MC. Would you?
 
dexvx said:
Native multi-core die: Power4
IMC: MIPS in the mid 80's or Cyrix MediaGX on the desktop
Integrated GPU: Cyrix MediaGX way before Fusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaGX
HyperTransport: bought off DEC

Do you really believe AMD pioneered all those?
Click to expand...
Maybe not, but AMD brought most of these performance advances to the popular desktop platform, so you and I can use them. A few of the companies mentioned above don't even exist anymore, and were it not for AMD, whither their innovations?
 
APOLLO said:
No, but Intel is 'behind' on certain engineering aspects of microarchitecture, as far as what's currently available at the counter. Unreleased tech that no one can buy yet doesn't count.

What you really want to say (I hope) is that Intel still maintains a performance lead despite the advances made by AMD the past couple of years. When Nehalem is released with 'homologous' tech, the engineering differences between the two companies, which have separated them thus far, will be bridged. Few will argue that HT or IMC are inferior to FSB and a run-of-the-mill MC. Would you?
Click to expand...

In short:
Intel is leading preformance wise and all those technologies(which you can by now) employed (and falsely attribuated as AMD innovations) by AMD is just closing the gap, until Nehalem takes that away and Intel is father ahead?

If not, you are still not making any sense?
 
Atech said:
In short:
Intel is leading preformance wise and all those technologies(which you can by now) employed (and falsely attribuated as AMD innovations) by AMD is just closing the gap, until Nehalem takes that away and Intel is father ahead?

If not, you are still not making any sense?
Click to expand...
I think you are not making sense, especially with your use of syntax. Performance is not the crux of the issue, and please be reminded Nehalem is NOT here yet. It's a year away at best. So let's keep the discussion on present offerings. Intel does not have an IMC in its current line-up, agreed or not? Intel does not have anything resembling HT in its current offerings, agreed or not? No one is discussing all-out performance, which everyone would agree Intel has been in the lead for some time. Kudos to Intel for having achieved this by other means. No one is taking that away from them.

Nonetheless, if the aforementioned technologies are not relevant, why will Intel be introducing similar tech to its product line next year? For the fun of it? Please don't reply that they are a natural evolution of microarchitectural design. These technologies are indeed innovations of a kind because AMD first had them successfully produced and marketed on the desktop platform. It's been years now. No one else can lay claim to that. One can even include 64-bit X86 processors into the mix.

I foresee Intel admirers years from now making claims about these techs as having been introduced with the advent of the great and mighty Nehalem god. The groundwork for such future false claims are already in the makings in this very subforum, judging from even a cursory glance at recent threads. :rolleyes:
 
APOLLO said:
I think you are not making sense, especially with your use of syntax. Performance is not the crux of the issue, and please be reminded Nehalem is NOT here yet. It's a year away at best. So let's keep the discussion on present offerings. Intel does not have an IMC in its current line-up, agreed or not? Intel does not have anything resembling HT in its current offerings, agreed or not? No one is discussing all-out performance, which everyone would agree Intel has been in the lead for some time. Kudos to Intel for having achieved this by other means. No one is taking that away from them.
Click to expand...

Okay, there we have Intel > AMD...then you can weave on about technology, it's still Intel > AMD.


Nonetheless, if the aforementioned technologies are not relevant, why will Intel be introducing similar tech to its product line next year? For the fun of it? Please don't reply that they are a natural evolution of microarchitectural design. These technologies are indeed innovations of a kind because AMD first had them successfully produced and marketed on the desktop platform. It's been years now. No one else can lay claim to that. One can even include 64-bit X86 processors into the mix.
Click to expand...
They are not needed to hand a whooping to AMD, quite obviously...

I foresee Intel admirers years from now making claims about these techs as having been introduced with the advent of the great and mighty Nehalem god. The groundwork for such future false claims are already in the makings in this very subforum, judging from even a cursory glance at recent threads. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
You mean like AMD invented those technologies? :rolleyes:
 
Atech said:
Okay, there we have Intel > AMD...then you can weave on about technology, it's still Intel > AMD.


They are not needed to hand a whooping to AMD, quite obviously...
Click to expand...
Still chiming about performance. Read the OP's thread title: "Besides AMD who uses HT technology"
 
APOLLO said:
Still chiming about performance. Read the OP's thread title: "Besides AMD who uses HT technology"
Click to expand...

I did, but the thread quickly got all "AMD made this first.." "AMD invented this"..so some of us stepped in with a dosis of reality.

Not sorry if that hurt, and nice backtracking, anymore "tricks" up your sleeve? :p
 
Atech said:
I did, but the thread quickly got all "AMD made this first.." "AMD invented this"..so some of us stepped in with a dosis of reality
Click to expand...
Whose? Your own subjective one? AMD introduced these technologies for the desktop. Not you, nor anyone else can change the objective reality which you only deny yourself.
 
APOLLO said:
Whose? Your own subjective one? AMD introduced these technologies for the desktop. Not you, nor anyone else can change the objective reality which you only deny yourself.
Click to expand...

The only thing AMD introduced was the PR-spin called "native multicore", but I guess we will se how that falls/fails, pretty soon won't we? :)

And again, those technologies are leading AMD where? :)

It's not like the HT stomps all over the conroes FSB, and when it beats it it is mostly in synthetic benchmarks, not in real world usage...

So we are now in the PR/Spin vs preformance...I'll chime in after the 19th and let see how the PR fares ;)
 
Atech said:
The only thing AMD introduced was the PR-spin called "native multicore", but I guess we will se how that falls/fails, pretty soon won't we? :)
Click to expand...

that's up for debate. amd is the first one to put all the above mentioned things into ONE DIE. you can't deny that, and it's what i'm sure vista's original intention was.

that aside, i love how easily EVERYTHING around here turns into an amd this intel that, amd not this, anti-intel that. it's really amazing how quickly people on both sides love to start grasping at straws to beat over the other person's head. problem is they're just that, straws. save the arguments for things that really matter.

/rant.
 
everyone is a f.a.n.b.o.y. whether we want to admit it or not. Choosing a side makes us all feel better, especially when we feel we are on the "better" side. It has always been thus. The problem is when our pride gets in the way and we get a false sense of importance based on the products we choose to use.
 
Wow, (cf)Eclipse & BigMacAttack, two very smart people, I applaud them for telling it like it is, it is unfortunate that many to with AMD because they feel it's better, same thing goes for Intel, same thing for ATi and Nvidia. This rule also applies to everything in life, some are ignorant, some aren't, can't blame them for being human and you can't rant on them for being human either, it's their thought process.
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
that's up for debate. amd is the first one to put all the above mentioned things into ONE DIE. you can't deny that, and it's what i'm sure vista's original intention was.
Click to expand...

You have to give AMD that.
They try to cram a whole lot of technology into a single design, to make it as versatile as possible.
One could argue that this is because AMD doesn't have the resources to support more than one chip design at a time, but the way they deal with this 'shortcoming' is quite remarkable.
Never in the history of the x86 architecture has there been a single chip that was so much at home in desktops, workstations, servers and mobile devices as the Athlon64/Opteron.
It was the right combination of technologies at the right time.
 
Scali2 said:
One could argue that this is because AMD doesn't have the resources to support more than one chip design at a time
Click to expand...

just curious, could anyone argue that they could? they're having a bitchin' time with getting K8/K10 competitive with intel's new architecture, and everyone knows this. working on more than one arch at a time would be pretty tough for amd at this stage :p

but yeah, the things that have lead them to this point are pretty remarkable. they just need to make one more good push in technology to remain competitive with intel for now. unfortunately, i don't believe they can do this until their next new architecture. for the record, i don't consider K10 new, it's just a majorly tweaked K8 :D
 
RangerSVT said:
Wow, (cf)Eclipse & BigMacAttack, two very smart people, I applaud them for telling it like it is, it is unfortunate that many to with AMD because they feel it's better, same thing goes for Intel, same thing for ATi and Nvidia. This rule also applies to everything in life, some are ignorant, some aren't, can't blame them for being human and you can't rant on them for being human either, it's their thought process.
Click to expand...

QFT. I certainly am not condemning anyone as I've been guilty (and still am in many respects) of being a fan of certain products, sports teams, etc...
What irritates me though is the immature superiority complexes and condescending attitudes of some of our forum members. I've had my run-ins with a few guys but I try not to get into it anymore. It just isn't worth the effort. I just wish we could all be a bit more civil. It would be a welcome change of pace around here.
I use what I use because it meets my needs and that's it. No sense spending $$$ on frivolous things like computers when I can save it for retirement (coming all too soon!) or spend it on something really fun - and all too frivolous - like my 1969 Plymouth Road Runner (see - I told you I was a f.a.n.b.o.y. :D)
 
vista_blista said:
I had already conceeded a lot in this thread, and still there isn't any satisfaction. Maybe they're confused with first person shooters, where the main objective is to crush your opponent like a bug, and take no prisoners. Except in this case it just means a technological slowdown, and higher prices for everyone.
Click to expand...

Which is EXACTLY what Intel wants. Bar none. Even "Kicking" Pat Gelsigner said that they hate AMD.
 
How the f*** did this become some AMD/Intel debate? Geez, grow up people.

Here's a good rule of thumb-unless you have something to contribute to the original topic/question-keep it to yourself. Or start your own forum and argue there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top