While we're all familiar with the steady increase in the number of cores in mainstream PC and server processors, the corresponding progress in the embedded-processor market has been anything but steady.
With mainstream PC microprocessors standardizing on four-core designs such as Intel's Core i7 and leading-edge server chips ranging from 8 to 16 cores, single-core chips are no longer competitive. For embedded systems, however, one core may still be the right answer; if more are needed, the choices range up into the hundreds.
The Tilera Tile-Gx100 combines 100 independent 64-bit integer processor cores and cryptographic accelerators with memory, network, and PCI Express interfaces.
(Credit: Tilera Corporation)The latest announcement in the many-core embedded processor market is Tilera's Tile-Gx family, which combines 16 to 100 64-bit integer processor cores with cryptographic accelerators and off-chip interfaces for memory, networking, and PCI Express. I met with Tilera before last week's announcement to discuss the technical and business issues related to the Tile-Gx.
The technical details
San Jose, Calif.-based Tilera is eager to set itself apart from the many other chip companies competing in its target markets. Unlike most embedded processors with high core counts, for example, Tilera's design allows its cores to operate truly independently, even to the extent of running different operating systems if needed. More commonly, groups of tiles will be combined to run a single task that is part of a larger workload. In this way, one chip can operate like a cluster of multiprocessor systems.
Between this distinction and the fact that cores in the Tile-Gx family are a full 64 bits wide, Tilera claims the Tile-Gx100 is the "world's first 100-core processor." I think that's just a little too broad a claim, personally, since companies such as Clearspeed and Xelerated have previously made similar claims for their chips. Even more significantly, the Tile-Gx100 doesn't exist yet. It won't be a real product until early 2011, according to Tilera's current schedule.
Tile-Gx processors aren't something most CNET readers will ever knowingly use, though these chips will likely, eventually, help carry traffic over the public Internet and through larger corporate networks. But they do provide an excellent example of the issues facing PC processor vendors as core counts continue to grow.
Consider the Tile-Gx100 block diagram shown above. It's easy to imagine that this chip can get a lot of work done. Every core can run up to three instructions per cycle at up to 1.5GHz. It has dedicated hardware accelerators for cryptography and network packet processing. The network interfaces can implement up to eight 10Gb Ethernet ports. The chip also has four DDR3 memory interfaces; to reduce DRAM accesses, every core has 320KB of local cache memory. (The total amount of cache memory in the Tile-Gx100, about 32MB, matches that of IBM's Power7 processor, which has only eight cores.)
The need for balance
It's not so easy to keep all these resources busy, however. The more complicated a chip gets, generally speaking, the more difficult it becomes to make full use of its resources. This is what we often call the balance between hardware and software.
Tilera will offer four products in the Tile-Gx family with 16, 36, 64, and 100 cores and corresponding differences in memory and networking support. This range of products helps meet the needs of different applications, but each product still needs a particular balance of application requirements for maximum efficiency.
So here lies Tilera's great challenge--finding software applications that need a large amount of CPU performance and that also:
1. Are highly parallel, so they can keep many cores busy.
2. Don't need much (if any) floating-point math, since the Tile-Gx doesn't do that.
3. Can benefit from cryptographic acceleration.
4. Consume large amounts of network bandwidth.
Tilera wants customers to think of its chips as "general-purpose" processors, but as this list shows, they're better for some purposes than for others. As PC processors reach higher core counts and integrate more functionality, they too will become more sensitive to application requirements. Integration eventually reaches a point where additional complexity adds no practical value. And the closer PC processor vendors approach that limit, the more difficult it will become to sell their latest, greatest, most complicated chips.
Network processing is the most natural fit for Tilera's capabilities, particularly high-level services like virus scanning as I discussed in September (see "Insatiable demand for mobile data challenges industry"). Internet service providers rarely provide such services for PC users, since PCs can do their own scanning--but mobile phones and other Internet appliances often can't, so these services are seeing increasing demand.
The networking market, unfortunately, is not large enough to support a company like Tilera. Although there is a lot of networking equipment sold each year, each company in the business has its own ideas about how this processing should be done. A single chip design could never capture the majority of this potential demand.
Further, the larger equipment vendors often have policies in place against relying too heavily on individual suppliers, especially small start-ups. They will commonly design different products using different chip-level technology so that the failure of a single supplier--or the purchase of a supplier by a competing equipment vendor--will have only a limited effect on their bottom line.
New business opportunities
Tilera is working to develop new markets for its current TilePro and future Tile-Gx parts. The most significant of these new markets is cloud computing, which may favor solutions like Tilera's that offer higher performance per watt.
That's the metric Tilera touts most heavily for the Tile-Gx, promising 10 times the performance per watt of Intel's Westmere-EP, a six-core 32nm processor that Intel will begin shipping in 2010, which is aimed at high-efficiency servers. (Incidentally, I commend Tilera for making this comparison; Westmere-EP is exactly what they'll be competing against. Too often, chip companies will try to make themselves look better by comparing next year's products with last year's competition.)
Although 10x is a critical multiplier in this business (see my post "The factor factor"), such an advantage doesn't necessarily guarantee success. Tilera has done everything it can to minimize the difficulties associated with software development by adopting industry-standard development tools such as GCC and Eclipse, but its Tile chips still can't run Windows and it just can't match the developer relationships that companies like Advanced Micro Devices and Intel have established.
Fortunately, Tilera is small and relatively efficient for a chip company. Last month, Tilera announced that Quanta Computer invested $10 million in the company based on Quanta's interest in cloud computing. Tilera said it has enough funding to reach cash-flow breakeven in 2011, assuming the Tile-Gx reaches market and achieves the kind of success Tilera predicts.
I remain skeptical, but hopeful. I think there's no question that in the long run, there will be plenty of demand for complex, many-core processors like Tilera's. But will Tilera still be around by that time? And in the long run, once this demand develops, larger companies such as Intel will have their own offerings.
Can Tilera carve out a market niche that it can defend against such strong competition? I just don't know, but I'm always glad to see people trying new ideas.
Ready for a 250-watt notebook? Intel is helping its OEMs to design such extremes.
A presentation at the Intel Developer Forum last week discussed how to build notebooks around the Core i7-920XM Extreme Edition mobile processor, code-named Clarksfield XE.
It turns out that when I estimated the maximum power consumption of a 920XM-based laptop at 80 watts to 100 watts, I was way off! (A typical notebook, by the way, averages somewhere between 40 and 90 watts.)
My estimate was reasonable for the kind of typical 920XM laptop I had in mind, but Intel showed how to go so far beyond "typical" that the resulting machine could need a 250-watt power brick.
I looked around, and the biggest power adapter I could find belongs to the Dell Alienware M17x, which needs a 210-watt brick. (I trust someone will tell me if there's a bigger one out there somewhere...Just leave a comment below.)
... Read more
Intel promotes the Turbo Boost technology in its new Core i7 Mobile processors as a way to adapt to the needs of the software and get more performance from the chip, but this isn't the real reason the technology exists.
The new "Clarksfield" Core i7 Mobile processors introduced at the Intel Developer Forum last week are certainly very impressive. They're huge high-performance quad-core chips with Hyper-Threading, support for two channels of DDR3-1333 DRAM, and an on-die PCI Express controller for the fastest possible connection to discrete graphics chips.
Intel VP Mooly Eden shows off the new Core i7 Mobile processor and its companion I/O controller at the Intel Developer Forum.
(Credit: Intel)In his IDF session announcing these parts, Intel Vice President Mooly Eden said the best of these parts, the 2GHz Core i7-920XM Extreme Edition, is "the fastest quad-core processor, the fastest dual-core processor, and the fastest single-core processor"-- all in one chip.
The key to this dramatic claim is a feature called Turbo Boost technology. Basically, if the current application workload isn't keeping all four cores fully busy and pushing right up against the chip's TDP (Thermal Design Power) limit, Turbo Boost can increase the clock speed of each core individually to get more performance out of the chip.
It's easy to see how this works when just one or two cores are being actively used; whatever power the other two or three cores would have consumed can be redirected over to the active cores, allowing them to run at higher speeds.
The quad-core mode of Turbo Boost is a little more subtle; it works when the four cores aren't running a worst-case workload--for example, integer-heavy processing, since it's generally floating-point calculations that consume the most power--so they aren't bumping into the TDP limit. Turbo Boost can increase the frequency of all four cores until they're running as fast as they can for the current workload.
Eden said that the Turbo Boost controller ... Read more
The mysteries of the Lynnfield and Jasper Forest die photos (from last week's post titled "Investigating Intel's Lynnfield mysteries") were all cleared up at the Intel Developer Forum last week, and as expected, there was nothing sinister going on--just some confusion in Intel's graphics arts department.
With the help of the always-helpful George Alfs of Intel's press relations department and Intel vice president Mooly Eden (general manager of Intel's PC Client Group), we got everything straightened out. Literally!
Here's the die photo of Intel's Lynnfield chip from my previous post:
Die photo of the Core i5/Core i7 processor code-named Lynnfield, with labels.
(Credit: Intel)This is the newest (shipping) part based on the Nehalem microarchitecture, differing from the earlier Bloomfield by the addition of an on-die PCI Express controller. Both chips are made in Intel's 45nm process technology.
According to Eden, the Lynnfield chip design is shared with several other Intel chips that will be on the market soon, including ... Read more
I have a few questions to ask at this week's Intel Developer Forum....
Why is Intel using a more expensive chip for the new Core i5 and cheaper Core i7 processors? Why does this new chip--code-named Lynnfield--appear to have features Intel isn't using? What's the connection between Lynnfield and a future Intel chip code-named Jasper Forest?
These questions arose as I've been getting ready for IDF by reviewing recent press releases and news stories about Intel's current and forthcoming products, and chatting with fellow analysts about what we're looking forward to seeing there.
The recent announcements of the Core i5 and new Core i7 processors seemed pretty straightforward. Consider Brooke Crothers' piece on CNET: "Out with the old: Intel makes Core 'i' chips cheap." As Crothers explains, the facts are simple: the new Core i7 800-series slots in under the existing 900-series and replaces some older parts. The Core i5 is a new line, clearly positioned below the Core i7. Features, performance, and prices are all lower. That's as it should be.
But in looking at the coverage on some enthusiast sites, a fact jumped out at me. The Lynnfield chip is 12.5 percent larger than the Bloomfield chip used in the higher-priced Core i7 900-series processors (296 square mm vs. 263 square mm), in spite of the fact that Lynnfield only has two memory interfaces and no QuickPath Interconnect (QPI) link.
The big difference between the chips is the addition of 16 lanes of PCI Express on Lynnfield, but that's only about 80 pins plus the control logic. The changes should have roughly canceled each other out. Maybe one chip would be a little bigger than the other, but not by this much.
... Read moreI miss the old SGI. Silicon Graphics was widely regarded as the greatest computer company in Silicon Valley back in the 1990s. Sometimes forgotten--but not gone--SGI was one of our greatest success stories and one of our greatest tragedies.
(Credit:
Boxx Technologies)
Apple may have had more revenue by virtue of shipping millions of small systems, but SGI's hardware spanned the range from video-game consoles (the Nintendo 64) to workstations to supercomputers. SGI's Unix-based operating system, IRIX, was one of the most sophisticated in the industry.
I used to lust over SGI machines. I'd obsess over lists of used SGI gear, looking for a great deal that would let me have my own IRIX box at home. In 2004, I finally bought an Octane with MXI graphics... but that was years after these machines were effectively obsolete, and I paid less than 0.5% (1/200th!) of the original retail price of the machine.
In the mid-to-late 1990s, SGI was not well managed, losing huge amounts of money because its leaders would not... Read more
- prev
- 1
- next
