• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

VGLeaks rumor: Durango CPU Overview

manzo

Member
Some French Guy at a gaming site says he got an Insider at MS. He also says that the level of security at MS right now is like Area 51 :D
I dont know how reliable the dude is but it give usat least something to speculate about :p

Statement from him:
Reply on April 26 or so with a little luck it will leak this week following the meeting currently taking place internally. @ Cyrildinho: To silence it does not surprise me, the level of safety as reported by me is at the highest level (limit zone 51 as it was said), so the NES is strictly enforced to the letter. Anyway there are less than two months before officially know everything and like I said there will be small leaks this week. Suspense will not be very long. Regarding the specs, I continue to believe that the console will be the final much more powerful than the leaks of vgleaks. (incomplete)"

Speaking of that I just heard from a contact at Microsoft that leaks on to vgleaks the 720 is a year old and half .. Not to mention the fact that it is very underrated power level.

Tipster : mistercteam

1.2.3 Speculate :D

No need to speculate. Sounded playsible until the bolded part.
 
at least something new.

I'm not technical enough to make heads nor tails of it. waiting on B3D...

I do see some low numbers in there that people will pounce on tho "oh wow, Durango only has 42 GB/s for it's GPU!" and whatnot. When I doubt anything is out of the normal there, we are just seeing the natural subdivisions of the bandwidth.
 

c0de

Member
I'm not technical enough to make heads nor tails of it. waiting on B3D...

I do see some low numbers in there that people will pounce on tho "oh wow, Durango only has 42 GB/s for it's GPU!" and whatnot. When I doubt anything is out of the normal there.

They will come and post their stuff while they still have no clue how the whole system performs. So ignore it :)
 

Master_JO

Banned
Could you post some quotes?

Here you go :

Three display planes are enabled at 1080p resolution.
Display write-back is writing a 1080p image at 60 FPS.
Move engines are idle.
Read bandwidth of the command buffer and index buffer is 4 GB/s.
Regular GPU rendering consumes the rest of the available bandwidth.

Let’s start by describing the CPU. Although each CPU module can request up to 20.8 GB/s of bandwidth for read and for write, the typical bandwidth you should expect for the CPU is 4 GB/s per CPU module per direction—about 16 GB/s altogether.

You can expect typical bandwidth to be around 3 GB/s per direction for the: audio, HDD, Camera, and USBs.

The Kinect Sensor is the main consumer of the bandwidth. For example, peak bandwidth to and from the HDD is only about 50 MB/s, so the HDD cannot be seen as a major bandwidth consumer.

Because the GPU is usually pushed to the maximum, you can expect typical coherent bandwidth to be about 25 GB/s. However, this amount depends on how many resources are made snoopable.

Currently, we are not able tell exactly how much of that access will be hitting the CPU’s caches and how much of the access much will go to DRAM. So as we said above, this figure is highly speculative at the moment.

The estimated 25 GB/s of bandwidth for coherent memory access does not account for the non-coherent memory access of the GPU.

The coherent bandwidth that can flow through the north bridge is a limited at 30 GB/s. Under typical conditions, this limit shouldn’t cause you problems. But during a high load on the coherent memory traffic, the north bridge might become saturated. Once the north bridge becomes saturated, you may notice increased latencies for memory access.

CPU memory access that is Write Combined does not fall under this limitation nor does GPU memory access that is non-coherent.

Finally let’s compute how much bandwidth is left for the non-coherent GPU access to consume. Let’s assume that:

The sum of bandwidth from the north bridge to DRAM is 25 GB/s.
Some portion of the GPU coherent bandwidth misses the L2 caches.
Non-coherent CPU bandwidth is 3 GB/s.
This leaves 42 GB/s of DRAM bandwidth available to the GPU clients.
 

Master_JO

Banned
Could you post some quotes?

This is Durango Memory System Overview:

Some Quotes :
8 GB of DRAM.
32 MB of ESRAM.
DRAM
The maximum combined read and write bandwidth to DRAM is 68 GB/s (gigabytes per second). In other words, the sum of read and write bandwidth to DRAM cannot exceed 68 GB/s. You can realistically expect that about 80 – 85% of that bandwidth will be achievable (54.4 GB/s – 57.8 GB/s).

DRAM bandwidth is shared between the following components:

CPU
GPU
Display scan out
Move engines
Audio system
ESRAM
The maximum combined ESRAM read and write bandwidth is 102 GB/s. Having high bandwidth and lower latency makes ESRAM a really valuable memory resource for the GPU.

ESRAM bandwidth is shared between the following components:

GPU
Move engines
Video encode/decode engine. System coherency
There are two types of coherency in the Durango memory system:

Fully hardware coherent
I/O coherent
The two CPU modules are fully coherent. The term fully coherent means that the CPUs do not need to explicitly flush in order for the latest copy of modified data to be available (except when using Write Combined access).

The rest of the Durango infrastructure (the GPU and I/O devices such as, Audio and the Kinect Sensor) is I/O coherent. The term I/O coherent means that those clients can access data in the CPU caches, but that their own caches cannot be probed.

When the CPU produces data, other system clients can choose to consume that data without any extra synchronization work from the CPU.

The total coherent bandwidth through the north bridge is limited to about 30 GB/s.

The CPU requests do not probe any other non-CPU clients, even if the clients have caches. (For example, the GPU has its own cache hierarchy, but the GPU is not probed by the CPU requests.) Therefore, I/O coherent clients must explicitly flush modified data for any latest-modified copy to become visible to the CPUs and to the other I/O coherent clients.

The GPU can perform both coherent and non-coherent memory access. Coherent read-bandwidth of the GPU is limited to 30 GB/s when there is a cache miss, and it’s limited to 10 – 15 GB/s when there is a hit. A GPU memory page attribute determines the coherency of memory access.

The CPU
The Durango console has two CPU modules, and each module has its own 2 MB L2 cache. Each module has four cores, and each of the four cores in each module also has its own 32 KB L1 cache.

When a local L2 miss occurs, the Durango console probes the adjacent L2 cache via the north bridge. Since there is no fast path between the two L2 caches, to avoid cache thrashing, it’s important that you maximize the sharing of data between cores in a module, and that you minimize the sharing between the two CPU modules.

Typical latencies for local and remote cache hits are shown in this table.

Remote L2 hit approximately 100 cycles
Remote L1 hit approximately 120 cycles
Local L1 Hit 3 cycles for 64-bit values
5 cycles for 128-bit values
Local L2 Hit approximately 30 cycles

Each of the two CPU modules connects to the north bridge by a bus that can carry up to 20.8 GB/s in each direction.

Keep in mind that if the CPU uses Write Combined memory writes, then a memory synchronization instruction (SFENCE) must follow to ensure that the writes are visible to the other client devices.

The GPU
The GPU can read at 170 GB/s and write at 102 GB/s through multiple combinations of its clients. Examples of GPU clients are the Color/Depth Blocks and the GPU L2 cache.

The GPU has a direct non-coherent connection to the DRAM memory controller and to ESRAM. The GPU also has a coherent read/write path to the CPU’s L2 caches and to DRAM.

For each read and write request from the GPU, the request uses one path depending on whether the accessed resource is located in “coherent” or “non-coherent” memory.

Some GPU functions share a lower-bandwidth (25.6 GB/s), bidirectional read/write path. Those GPU functions include:

Command buffer and vertex index fetch
Move engines
Video encoding/decoding engines
Front buffer scan out
As the GPU is I/O coherent, data in the GPU caches must be flushed before that data is visible to other components of the system.

Although ESRAM has 102.4 GB/s of bandwidth available, in a transfer case, the DRAM bandwidth limits the speed of the transfer.

Move engines
The Durango console has 25.6 GB/s of read and 25.6 GB/s of write bandwidth shared between:

Four move engines
Display scan out and write-back
Video encoding and decoding
The display scan out consumes a maximum of 3.9 GB/s of read bandwidth (multiply 3 display planes × 4 bytes per pixel × HDMI limit of 300 megapixels per second), and display write-back consumes a maximum of 1.1 GB/s of write bandwidth (multiply 30 bits per pixel × 300 megapixels per second).
 
Having high bandwidth and lower latency makes ESRAM a really valuable memory resource for the GPU.

A very slight hint at my best hope for "special sauce". Not too much, but maybe a small hint with a nod to the low latency as well (much lower than DDR3 let alone GDDR5)
 

McHuj

Member
I wish they had posted the latency numbers for a miss in both CPU L2 caches and a load from the ESRAM to the GPU.

It's kinda cool that the GPU can write (allegedly) straight to the CPU's L2 cache and not have to go through DDR. I'm assuming that a feature of HSA although I don't know if current APU's can do that or not yet.
 

c0de

Member
I wish they had posted the latency numbers for a miss in both CPU L2 caches and a load from the ESRAM to the GPU.


I am wondering how they get these numbers - just guessing, I guess ;) But yes, miss-penalties are the most important thing here and there should be more data.
 
Some French Guy at a gaming site says he got an Insider at MS. He also says that the level of security at MS right now is like Area 51 :D
I dont know how reliable the dude is but it give usat least something to speculate about :p

Statement from him:
Reply on April 26 or so with a little luck it will leak this week following the meeting currently taking place internally. @ Cyrildinho: To silence it does not surprise me, the level of safety as reported by me is at the highest level (limit zone 51 as it was said), so the NES is strictly enforced to the letter. Anyway there are less than two months before officially know everything and like I said there will be small leaks this week. Suspense will not be very long. Regarding the specs, I continue to believe that the console will be the final much more powerful than the leaks of vgleaks. (incomplete)"

Speaking of that I just heard from a contact at Microsoft that leaks on to vgleaks the 720 is a year old and half .. Not to mention the fact that it is very underrated power level.

Tipster : mistercteam

1.2.3 Speculate :D

What's hilarious about claims like this is that it's not like some random statements of power or specs have been made regarding Durango. The actual system architecture documents leaked, with a detailed breakdown of how the entire motherboard operates.

In other words, this is like the blueprint for a skyscraper being revealed months before construction starts, and then believing the building is going to be far different when it's done in a year. That's not how these things work. They don't make major changes in the middle of construction, and in the rare event they do, that means there is going to be a delay.


durango_arq.jpg
 

Triple U

Banned
I wish they had posted the latency numbers for a miss in both CPU L2 caches and a load from the ESRAM to the GPU.

It's kinda cool that the GPU can write (allegedly) straight to the CPU's L2 cache and not have to go through DDR. I'm assuming that a feature of HSA although I don't know if current APU's can do that or not yet.

I am wondering how they get these numbers - just guessing, I guess ;) But yes, miss-penalties are the most important thing here and there should be more data.

Its just a typical jaguar no? Shouldn't it be available?
 

awa64

Banned
There seems to be an overall aura of denial in this thread. VGLeaks (in accordance to other websites) was 99% correct on the Playstation 4 specifications, so why wouldn't that remain true for their "Next" Xbox leaked specifications as well?

Because good sources of "insider" information about unannounced Sony products are unlikely to also be good sources of "insider" information about unannounced Microsoft products?

I'm not saying VGLeaks doesn't have both. But I am saying they've only proven credibility when it comes to Sony stuff at this point.
 

Triple U

Banned
Because good sources of "insider" information about unannounced Sony products are unlikely to also be good sources of "insider" information about unannounced Microsoft products?

I'm not saying VGLeaks doesn't have both. But I am saying they've only proven credibility when it comes to Sony stuff at this point.

At this point, where documents and kits have been in third parties hands for ages, thats not really the case.
 

McHuj

Member
Its just a typical jaguar no? Shouldn't it be available?

Assuming they didn't mess with it, it probably would be the same (I don't know if that available yet). The miss penalty from both L2's would be depend on the memory controller and the DRAM (so that's not typical jaguar)
 
I don't think you understand the silicon and heat implications of 32mb of embedded ram on an APU.

I dont know of any special ones, no.

At a laymans glance, I'd expect RAM isn't a heavy heat component. I dont know of any special heat problems with the 360 EDRAM for example (yes there was RROD, but nobody ever blamed it on the EDRAM). And just by nature memory should get less hot than say, GPU shaders or other heavy computational units.

Anyways, if the ESRAM can run at 800mhz without these supposed monster heat problems, then it's no gigantic special leap of faith to think it could do 1ghz, theoretically since this is all hypothetical.
 

pestul

Member
I continue to think that whats strange is no consistent whispers of Orbis clubbing Durango from devs. That I know of anyway. Some of that may have been before the PS4 RAM upgrade to be fair. But that makes me continue to think something may be more than meets the eye here.
I guess if you're a dev supporting both platforms, you probably wouldn't do that. That said, some multi-platform devs have mouthed-off quite a bit as of late (Crytek etc.), so yeah, I am kind of surprised that we haven't heard anything even hinting that PS4 is notably more powerful.

I think the way Sony was so proud to show off their system early, they seem to have an air of confidence about PS4. I think they know it's superior spec-wise. I really hope we get an announcement date for the Durango reveal soon.. we're gonna go crazy if we have to wait another month+.
 
Because good sources of "insider" information about unannounced Sony products are unlikely to also be good sources of "insider" information about unannounced Microsoft products?

I'm not saying VGLeaks doesn't have both. But I am saying they've only proven credibility when it comes to Sony stuff at this point.

even the sony rumors had microsoft "insiders" commenting on them, and most of them were true. if people really believe in this "area 51" security crap and whatnot there's not much else to do though.
 

Cidd

Member
Because good sources of "insider" information about unannounced Sony products are unlikely to also be good sources of "insider" information about unannounced Microsoft products?

I'm not saying VGLeaks doesn't have both. But I am saying they've only proven credibility when it comes to Sony stuff at this point.

Well they have leak docs for both consoles allegedly from the same source? (not sure).
they leaked specs for both and one console turned out to be 99.9% correct why would anyone not believe the leak specs of the other console at this point?

Not to mention they go into details about the parts being used in the 720, if that's fake then they really put a lot of work into bull shitting people and their reputation.
 
Heh, yeah, technically we could say that.

There is a well defined set of baseline rumors though, that all make sense, and are even more likely since the prevailing Ps4 rumors were confirmed (except the late RAM surprise, which even that was rumored just before).

I continue to think that whats strange is no consistent whispers of Orbis clubbing Durango from devs. That I know of anyway. Some of that may have been before the PS4 RAM upgrade to be fair. But that makes me continue to think something may be more than meets the eye here.

But I guess if you presuppose Durango is the more powerful of the two, then there's not really any consistent word of that either. But the general feeling is Orbis>Durango, so the absence of whispers in that direction is more odd to me.

Devs almost never comment on such things, as they're interested in selling games. The last thing I want to do as a multiplatform dev is to proclaim one console weaker than the other.

If I'm trying to sell a game I want to put out the message that the game I'm making is going to be equally brilliant on both consoles. You're $60 equally worthy of both versions.

If you follow Digital Foundry face-offs of multiplatform games you'll know that there have been countless times a developer has proclaimed in the months prior to their game launching that their game is nearly identical on both the Xbox 360 and PS3. Only to have the Digital Foundry breakdown completely blow that claim out of the water. Of course the developer knows they're not identical, but they're always going to make that claim anyway, because it's in their best interest to do so.

So why exactly are you finding it "strange" that they're not doing this now, especially considering one of the consoles isn't even officially revealed to the public yet? A little wishful thinking perhaps.
 

KidBeta

Junior Member
So the GPU can only spill/draw/whatever to one of the memory pools at a time (102GB/s max).

This is all the proof we need for 102+68 != 176GB/s.
 

twinturbo2

butthurt Heat fan
Two CPU modules?

Hmmm, what are the chances that one of them is the X360 CPU for full backwards compatibility? They could also use it to offset all that power the Kinect sensor is using.

I understand that they need a motherboard that can take both PPC and X86 chips, but MS did allegedly hire some IBM people, so maybe they have a solution.

The mind boggles. And it makes the wait for the unveil even harder to bear.
 

KidBeta

Junior Member
Two CPU modules?

Hmmm, what are the chances that one of them is the X360 CPU for full backwards compatibility? They could also use it to offset all that power the Kinect sensor is using.

I understand that they need a motherboard that can take both PPC and X86 chips, but MS did allegedly hire some IBM people, so maybe they have a solution.

The mind boggles. And it makes the wait for the unveil even harder to bear.

Its 2x 4 core Jaguar Modules.
 

mrklaw

MrArseFace
Two CPU modules?

Hmmm, what are the chances that one of them is the X360 CPU for full backwards compatibility? They could also use it to offset all that power the Kinect sensor is using.

I understand that they need a motherboard that can take both PPC and X86 chips, but MS did allegedly hire some IBM people, so maybe they have a solution.

The mind boggles. And it makes the wait for the unveil even harder to bear.

no chance. four jaguar cores is one 'module'. So 8 cores = 2 modules
 

RoboPlato

I'd be in the dick
Two CPU modules?

Hmmm, what are the chances that one of them is the X360 CPU for full backwards compatibility? They could also use it to offset all that power the Kinect sensor is using.

I understand that they need a motherboard that can take both PPC and X86 chips, but MS did allegedly hire some IBM people, so maybe they have a solution.

The mind boggles. And it makes the wait for the unveil even harder to bear.

It's two quad core jaguars, same as PS4.
 
Top Bottom