AMD Details High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) DRAM, Pushes Over 100GB/s Per Stack 98
MojoKid writes: Recently, a few details of AMD's next-generation Radeon 300-series graphics cards have trickled out. Today, AMD has publicly disclosed new info regarding their High Bandwidth Memory (HBM) technology that will be used on some Radeon 300-series and APU products. Currently, a relatively large number of GDDR5 chips are necessary to offer sufficient capacity and bandwidth for modern GPUs, which means significant PCB real estate is consumed. On-chip integration is not ideal for DRAM because it is not size or cost effective with a logic-optimized GPU or CPU manufacturing process. HBM, however, brings the DRAM as close to possible to the logic die (GPU) as possible. AMD partnered with Hynix and a number of companies to help define the HBM specification and design a new type of memory chip with low power consumption and an ultra-wide bus width, which was eventually adopted by JEDEC 2013. They also develop a DRAM interconnect called an "interposer," along with ASE, Amkor, and UMC. The interposer allows DRAM to be brought into close proximity with the GPU and simplifies communication and clocking. HBM DRAM chips are stacked vertically, and "through-silicon vias" (TSVs) and "bumps" are used to connect one DRAM chip to the next, and then to a logic interface die, and ultimately the interposer. The end result is a single package on which the GPU/SoC and High Bandwidth Memory both reside. 1GB of GDDR5 memory (four 256MB chips), requires roughly 672mm2. Because HBM is vertically stacked, that same 1GB requires only about 35mm2. The bus width on an HBM chip is 1024-bits wide, versus 32-bits on a GDDR5 chip. As a result, the High Bandwidth Memory interface can be clocked much lower but still offer more than 100GB/s for HBM versus 25GB/s with GDDR5. HBM also requires significantly less voltage, which equates to lower power consumption.
Security implications (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
They just went from 330GB/s on the 290X to ~500GB/s. This will do nothing at all to security. Also we still have no idea how memory latency is impacted (shorter paths, but also lower clocks). If they can scale down to APUs and lower cost GPUs then there is some really great potential.
Re: (Score:2)
Latency is dominated by reading the DRAM itself and not the interface frequency which is why latency which is specified in clocks is roughly proportional to interface frequency.
Re: (Score:2)
Moore's law cover this security concern. Expect computations to keep doubling this your key that takes a year to crack will take a few hours in the course of a few days in the next decade.
Re: (Score:2)
Expect computations to keep doubling this your key that takes a year to crack will take a few hours in the course of a few days in the next decade.
Not to worry; I'll change my key several times before then.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure how increased bandwidth could make a difference beyond sheer number of tries per second. On that scale, it's (very) roughly a factor of 2 difference, so add a bit and move on, no?
Re: (Score:1)
It's not like Bitcoin mining hardware hasn't already made passwords effectively useless.
What a retarded statement. Even all bitcoin hardware in the world can not break one (real) password,
nor any password that is hashed also with something other/more then sha256.
Repeated links? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Because he gets a referral fee in both cases? All MojoKid's submissions are clickbait.
Re:Repeated links? (Score:4, Funny)
I hate people who do that...
And please don't forget to register via the links below to get free Bitcoins and Dogecoins so I can get more referrals!
All of you should buy AMD whenever possible (Score:3, Funny)
They're a substantially less evil force than either Intel or NVIDIA.
Re: (Score:1)
AMD Vs NVIDIA! Asian CEO kung fu showdown!
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with AMD drivers (at least when I last tried) is they work great for some cards, and others hardly do anything beyond instigate kernel panics.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a bit of Russian Roulette...
The propriety drivers aren't bad on my aging 6630M and run most things acceptably (except KSP, but that may be related to KSP on linux in general...?). Still no support for switchable graphics (in a dynamic and meaningful way), and the thermal management is slightly broken. On occasion I get a thermal shutdown.
Re: (Score:1)
The Open Source AMD drivers tend to lag a few years behind, especially in performance, so the latest generation of cards (HD 7xxx and its rebrandings) is hardly better under Linux than the HD 6xxx series, despite being more capable hardware in theory. Really new models may not work at all or only in 2D.
Closed source AMD drivers still have an iffy reputation. Personally, I'd avoid them unless I really need the performance or a specific feature.
Re: (Score:1)
I use the open source driver on an R9 270 optimized for quiet operation on Ubuntu 14.10. Mainly I use the machine for playing Skyrim at 1920x1080, which works surprisingly well. I'm sure I could get better performance with Catalyst or running on Windows, but performance is good enough for me: 25 fps outdoors, 60 indoors, using pretty much maxed graphics settings and the usual ton of mods.
I use the open source driver because I've found it to be absolutely bullet proof stable and offer the best support fo
Re: (Score:2)
Is that still true in Nvidia's case? I originally bought an Nvidia card because of the supposed Linux-friendliness, but it's been giving me trouble.
Sorry to hear that, try another driver, an older one if necessary. I have a multitude of nVidia cards, and they all work right if you pin down the right driver. I have 6150 LE onboard in nForce-chipset boards, I have a Quadro 295 NVS in an HP C2D I just bought, might upgrade it to a C2Q for $50, really slick low-power setup there with support for CUDA 6.5 anyway, not too bad. 240GT, 450GTS OC, 750 Ti. Seriously all working great under Linux, but seriously none of them using the suggested driver.
I keep heari
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
? People don't use Matrox for linux? What year is it?
no we all moved on to fdfx Voodoo cards.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I buy AMD because it's cheaper. I have yet to notice a real performance difference.
The fact my money doesn't go towards bribing benchmark/review sites and prebuilt manufactures to lock competition out of the market is just a bonus.
Re: (Score:1)
I kept buying AMD to save a penny and my experience was iffy drivers (even on Windows) and two dead fans. Now I go NVidia and have had far fewer problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Neither amd nor nvidia makes the actual card, just the chips and design spec. Busted fans would be the fault of the card manufacture. And it's a good bet the same manufacture makes crappy nvidia cards too.
Drivers are a valid point. Though not one I've experienced myself.
Worst i can say about drivers is nvidia won't let you easily uninstall the support software if you replace a burnt out card with an amd. The uninstaller wouldn't run without a valid nvidia card installed.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Basic math.
Top of the line AMD FX-9590 processor, $260. Top of the line Intel i7-5960X processor, $1050. (blatantly lazy, I just sorted newegg's processor list by price)
Intel's performance lead over AMD, nowhere near 4x.
I can't think of a normal situation that justifies that big of a price difference for the performance. I can build a whole second AMD computer for the price difference.
Intel spent billions over the last 15 years kneecapping the competition. Any advancements they have right now is less than w
Re: (Score:1)
That's just the nature of high end products. They command a price premium. Particularly when the functionality is not available from other suppliers.
To use Slashdot's beloved car/computer analogies, a high end supercar will cost you 10x the price of a regular car, but it can't go 10x faster, can't accelerate or decelerate 10x faster, can't go around a track 10x faster.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a bad comparision.
The AMD FX-9590 ($260) is beaten by the i7 4790 CPU ($310).
The $1050 i7-5960X CPU doesn't have any competition, which is probably why Intel charges such a large premium. I couldn't justify the purchase of one, but some people have to have the best, regardless of the cost.
AMD cpus are only slightly cheaper than roughly equivalent Intel CPUs.
I think they are good value for multithreaded performance, but Intel still has the lead for single thread performance which is important to most
Re: (Score:1)
You're comparing apples to oranges by quoting Intel's top-end CPU prices.
The competitor for the AMD CPU that costs around $260 is an Intel CPU that runs about $330. And that Intel CPU is about 30-45% faster for single-threaded stuff, and has enough under the hood to keep up on the multi-threaded tasks. It's sad but true, Intel is still the king of single-threaded performance and they have the die area to put enough cores on the chip to keep up with AMD's "many cores" approach.
Still more expensive, but not
Re:All of you should buy AMD whenever possible (Score:5, Insightful)
Typical zealot. I use whatever tool is best for the job, be it AMD or Intel.
History has shown that, like Microsoft, if you give Intel money they will use it for evil. Specifically, it will fund illegal anticompetitive behavior that retards progress in computing.
If you're happy with that, keep giving Intel money. But keep in mind that yes, it really does make you an asshole when you give known assholes money on purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
You pay US income tax, right?
As little as possible, and only because men with guns will come to incarcerate you if you don't give them more money to hire more men with guns. Go back and re-read my comment until enlightenment reaches you.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do we really need to see an article from MojoKid every day to drive traffic to his site?
The answer depends on how that question is interpreted. No, we don't need to see such an article. Yes, such an article is necessary to drive traffic to said site, if that's your goal anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Power savings (Score:5, Interesting)
One has to give it to AMD. Despite their stock and sales taking a battering, they have consistently refused to let go of cutting edge innovation. If anything, their CPU team should learn something from their GPU team.
On the topic of HBM, the most exciting thing is the power saving. This would potentially shave off 10-15W from the DRAM chip and possibly more from the overall implementation itself - simply because this is a far simpler and more efficient way for the GPU to address memory.
To quote:
"Macri did say that GDDR5 consumes roughly one watt per 10 GB/s of bandwidth. That would work out to about 32W on a Radeon R9 290X. If HBM delivers on AMD's claims of more than 35 GB/s per watt, then Fiji's 512 GB/s subsystem ought to consume under 15W at peak. A rough savings of 15-17W in memory power is a fine thing, I suppose, but it's still only about five percent of a high-end graphics cards's total power budget. Then again, the power-efficiency numbers Macri provided only include the power used by the DRAMs themselves. The power savings on the GPU from the simpler PHYs and such may be considerable."
http://techreport.com/review/2... [techreport.com]
For high end desktop GPUs, this may not be much, but this provides exciting possibilities for gaming laptop GPUs, small formfactor / console formfactor gaming machines (Steam Machine.. sigh), etc. This kind of power savings combined with increased bandwidth cna be a potential game changer. You can finally have a lightweight thin gaming laptop that can still do 1080p resolution at high detail levels for modern games.
I know Razer etc already have some options, but a power efficient laptop GPU from the AMD stable will be a very compelling option for laptop designers. And really, AMD needed something like Fiji - they really have to dig themselves out of their hole.
Re: (Score:3)
One has to give it to AMD. Despite their stock and sales taking a battering, they have consistently refused to let go of cutting edge innovation. If anything, their CPU team should learn something from their GPU team.
Well unlike their CPU division the GPU division hasn't been the one bleeding massive amounts of cash, at least not until the GTX 970/980 generation from nVidia. Though with the R300 OEM series being a R200 rebrand they seem to be running out of steam, one limited quantity HBM card won't fix their lineup.
This kind of power savings combined with increased bandwidth cna be a potential game changer. You can finally have a lightweight thin gaming laptop that can still do 1080p resolution at high detail levels for modern games.
You still need power for shaders that is about 80-90% of a GPU's power consumption. In fact, AMDs problem is that even if they could swap out the GDDR5 for HBM today they still lose on performance/watt to nV
Re: (Score:2)
Their CPU division has also been bleeding people since the K8 was released. Apple has more ex-K8 employees than AMD. I have been told this this started and was primarily caused by Hector Ruiz.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not exactly a routine patron of review sites, but from my last bit of research the top sites all dock points because amd made the cards.
Same with cpus. The first site google returned claimed no performance difference between my 6 year old 4 core 2.3ghz amd, my new 8 core 4.2ghz amd, and the single core intel my father's 8 year old netbook runs.
There is a lot of blatant intel/nvidia bias out there and it's really annoying to wade through to get an idea of real performance.
Re: (Score:1)
There is more in the works (Zen CPU cores), and I hope that will work out too. I have some AMD shares as well, but I'd also love to see serious competition again.
On the CPU side, AMD is even more behind Intel than it is on the GPU side behind Nvidia. If Zen can fix that, it will be even more important than catching up to Nvidia.
And considering APUs, one major drawback in the last years used to be memory bandwidth. Where discrete cards do reasonably well with GDDR5, APUs really get crippled by having to shar
Re: (Score:2)
Now, imagine if the whole APU could use HBM as the combined system RAM.
Re: (Score:1)
Sounds interesting, but might be too expensive in the short run and not as urgent. "Normal" system RAM tends to be larger than typical VRAM sizes but not as bandwidth-critical. Also, classical DIMM modules allow upgrading if necessary.
Where HBM as the combined system RAM looks interesting are consoles. The PS4 in particular already has
- an APU based design from AMD
- fast but expensive GDDR5 RAM
- a fixed, non - upgradeable memory size
That looks like a scenario which is just waiting for HBM. Though probably n
Re: (Score:2)
The difficulty in replacing it is of course a factor. People could buy a CPU+memory package as an upgrade for a motherboard, though, and still use card-slot peripherals like extra network cards and such. Many motherboards even in the enthusiast space now have networking, sound, lots of USB, and lots of SATA onboard.
I'd pay a few hundred dollars for a mid-line CPU with mid-high GPU and 16 or 32 GB of ultrafast memory on a card that mounts onto the motherboard in a great big socket. Heck, that motherboard cou
Re: (Score:1)
"On the topic of HBM, the most exciting thing is the power saving. This would potentially shave off 10-15W from the DRAM"
Umm, going to have to disagree with you there. We create very high end real time visual simulations that are inherently bandwidth bound, i.e. the limit to model complexity is generally how fast vertices and textures can be moved around.
Most of my customers are going to be way more excited about potentially doubling our tripling the fidelity of their visualization than saving a few $ on po
Re: (Score:2)
I think my next card is going to be AMD (Score:3, Interesting)
nVidia fanboy since switching to Linux. A combination of them releasing their new unified driver, the latest nvidia chips being notoriously hard for nouveau, and now this, I think my next card is going to come from AMD
Uneven height and cooling (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Go back to using separate heatsinks instead of one gigantic one?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They could use separate heatsinks or mill a recess into a bigger one for the memory.
I take two things from this. (Score:2)
The good: next year AMD start making APUs with HBM. The only thing that was holding back the iGPU was memory bandwidth. So, now they can put a 1024 shader GPU on the die and not have it starved by bandwidth. That will have interesting applications: powerful gaming laptops much cheaper than those with a discreet GPU and HPC (especially considering HSA applications)
The bad: this year AMD is only releasing one new GPU, Fiji. The rest are rebadges. And there is no new architecture. Even Fiji is making do with G
Re: (Score:2)
Not earth-shattering, but Tonga which is GCN 1.2 is the GPU that needs most a re-release and I think they release a new GPU this year, Iceland. That one is low end 128bit, and is about what you need to run the new AMD linux driver - which sadly requires GCN 1.2 (?) from what I think I've read.
Re: (Score:2)
The good: next year AMD start making APUs with HBM. The only thing that was holding back the iGPU was memory bandwidth. So, now they can put a 1024 shader GPU on the die and not have it starved by bandwidth.
Yeah, now you just need to get 500W out of that chip that combines a power-hungry AMD CPU with a power-hungry AMD GPU.
No trolls please (Score:2)
which was eventually adopted by JEDEC 2013
I hope the organizers were careful not to invite any patent trolls to that round.
easier solution (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm glad you brought that up. Clearly, the AMD engineers spent all this time working on the wrong solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:easier solution (Score:4, Informative)
No. To drive an external bus requires a lot of silicon space to handle the capacitance resistance and distance. This also requires a lot of power.
Stacked chips required far smaller drivers. The distance is in the mm rather than decimeters. The insulators are far better (as the current and voltage can be far smaller). Capacitance is also far lower. And you do not need to have 1024 bit data paths + address + signaling on the motherboard which makes motherboards far simpler and cheaper to make. Not counting the problems with signal propagation along different length paths on a motherboard (designed into the chip in this case) or having interactions from the multilayer PCB traces.
So yes there are very good reasons to do this.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yes when you get to the hundreds of Mhz-Ghtz range the signaling properties and distance become very important. Electrical signals in copper do not travel at the speed of light. Even if they did you still would have timing issues due to different lengths of the copper traces. on the MB. It takes a lot of skill to negate this single effect. The wider the bus the harder it is to achieve
Unless you get Monster cables of course!.
Re: (Score:2)
That is debatable. Bumping the signals from the silicon to light seems to be quite slow (sort of time expensive as these things go). Almost enough to negate the transmission time overhead. Many people are working on this issue (lasing elements on the silicon substrate and various other good ideas)
But this seems to work. it avoids the large bus drivers it avoids the distance issues. It avoids the routing issues.
Note that I said "avoid" a lot there:)
Re: (Score:3)
GPUs tend to be more bandwidth-constrained than latency-constrained, as they typically have long pipelines that can hide much of the latency. Though I'm sure you could make them really latency-constrained if you wrote shaders badly.
Re: (Score:1)
Not when your data accesses are very very pipelined like in the case of 3D graphics. Efficient rendering code is generally setup to render a small number of large batches precisely because of this pipelining.
Memory addresses round robin (Score:1)
This isn't new, NVIDIA is working on it too (Score:1)
future-nvidia-pascal-gpus-pack-3d-memory-homegrown-interconnect [enterprisetech.com]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Bandwidth_Memory [wikipedia.org]
http://www.cs.utah.edu/thememoryforum [utah.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
AMD started this with Hynix 4 years ago, so obviously the tech itself isn't brand new. The new news, is the pending release of hardware using said technology.
Control-F (Score:2)
[No Results]
My thoughts exactly.
That's not to say this isn't great stuff, but thermal issues have always been the first or second most important problem with stacked memory. The other problem being fabrication and routing. You can't put a heatsink on a die when the die is wedged between 5 other dies. So you're hoping a heatsink on the top and bottom is enough for the middle wafers, or you're running some sort of tiny heat exchanger system.
Re: (Score:2)
So confused. GPU memory bandwidth really hasn't been an issue.
Uh, yes, it has. That's why GPU manufacturers often made mid-range cards by putting the same chip on a board with a half-wide memory bus; saves money on RAM, and is significantly slower.
ati/amd video card trap (Score:1)
How about they work on the drivers? i love amd cards and new HBM is super ..but every 1-2 years i fall for AMD.ATI video card hype and fall into the driver hell trap. 260x and 285x horrid linux/windows support . i can live with heat or noise issues but driver crash's on a black desktop with icons ..come on before they break out new gpu how about fix the drivers ..nvidia gets hate for there drivers but they work and dont go bonkers
Re: (Score:1)