Buzz #13
12 февраля 1998 |
|
Amiga UMA - Pros and cons of Unified Memory Architecture.
_ ___ ___ __[_]__ ____ ___ / _ \ / ___ _ \ / _ \ / / _ \ / / _ _ \ _ /______ _ \ \ / _ / \ _ \ \ _ \ -------------------------------------------------- ------------- Phase 5 Digital Products ----------------------------- Phone: +49 6171 583787 Fax: +49 6171 583789 WWW: www.phase5.de FTP: ftp.phase5.de E-Mail: mail@phase5.de -------------------------------------------------- ------------- Codename: A \ BOX Step to the dream -------------------------------------------------- ------------- Pros and cons of Unified Memory Architecture After opublikatsii most basic specifications A \ BOX and all still under development "CAIPIRINHA, public began discussing the pros and cons of this development. The main topics of discussion was the use of the Unified Memory Architecture and why now standard components in the computer world pointless to use A \ BOX. The main argument, which lead to the use of UMA - a common access to all the memories of all system devices, For example, processor and video controller. Cited such Examples: "1600x1200x24 = 432 MB / sec - a continuous shuttle service from the memory of the first video-DMA, plus a second video output, plus a calculation 3D with lots of textures, plus multi-channel music, plus anything - and time to access the memory processor is not remain. "Citing such reasons, some full screenshot the concept of separate buses for the graphics and everything else proposing to use the AGP and PCI. Other offer use other, cheaper modular system or tires. Below we prokomentiruem these points of view with undisguised smile: 1) First, the current architecture with a separate system and graphics memory, for example, PCI, has a very low transfer. Second, because memory is divided, must be constantly send data over the bus from system memory to video memory. Here are three examples of such a system: - PC processor calculates the 3D-animation script. For this He reads the tens of thousands of coordinates from the memory, makes complex calculations and then writes the results back to memory. Then the data must be collected and forwarded through PCI-bus card with a 3D-processor. Then, the Shipment of textures in video memory to 3D-processor carded out polygons. Since the script can be quite complex, and the amount of memory on the graphics card is limited, have to constantly load new textures from the main memory. But you can use unpretentious script with a small number of simple textures, so they all got into the whole video memory ... This Hi-End technology;) - Videodigitayzer digitizes the image in real time and received video data stored in the memory PC, where they like can be edited or processed. Further, in order to the digitized image data were displayed in a window on the screen, going to transfer to video memory with 25 MB second (1 frame - 1 MB), ie with half of the real transfer PCI-bus in most systems. What a pity that the rest of the transfer is already being used videodigitayzerom ... - A virtual screen size of 4000x4000 pixels and a depth of 24 bits (= 48 MB) is displayed on the screen with a resolution of 1280x1024 and to his proskrollirovat. Of course, this possibility on a PC-architecture, not taking into account only the fact that the PCI-bus and data bus will be completely overwhelmed by the transfer of data from main memory to video memory and the processor is almost nothing can do at this time. In all the examples (and they can cause many more) UMA-architecture has a distinct advantage - no need to send ogrommnyh masses of data, since all funktsianalnye computer parts have easy access to them. Using a combination of UMA and DLRP (see below), on-screen data can be placed anywhere in memory and displayed in any place screen without using the CPU for transmittal to the "video memory". So it is with other data, for example, 3D-coordinates textures, sound data, etc. In conclusion, we can say the following: properly constructed UMA-system not only has a greater transfer of memory than today's (and future), a modular system, but also significantly reduces the load data bus, thereby providing more power and resources. 2) For standard cards need to reflect data were continuous and were all in the same place at the paiyati. Thus, the volume of data and color depth is always should be at maximum, which is not always necessary. Progressive Technology Display List RISC-CPU (DLRP) CAIPIRINHA offers a very different concept of building screen. DLRP one command can, for example, 100 points in line output with any color depth other than the color depth of other points. Thus, the user may have system 24-bit windows of any shape and size, and the background with a smaller color depth, or even mono, thereby greatly saving memory and reducing the flow of data from memory into video controller. Here's how, roughly, to "human language" will look through the map size is 1600 points, using command DLRP: } Show 312 points RGBA 128,128,256,0 And this background Show 10 points with a depth of 8 bits from the address in the cache $ xxxxxxxx And this line is a slider that is displayed from the cache Show 700 points RGBA with depth 32 bits of address $ yyyyyyyyy , 700 points 24-bit images Show 350 points palette with depth of 8 bits of address $ zzzzzzz ; A window on a picture that contains the control panel displayed on its 256-color palette Show 312 points RGBA 128,128,256,0 ; It again von } In this example, the line consists of about 3,150 bytes, plus several commands to DLRP, while similar "Traditional" line will have a capacity of 6400 bytes (1600 pixels depth of 32 bits). Thus, the video stream from the memory decreased almost twice - instead of the maximum 576 MB / sec He amounted to 284 MB / sec. As you can see, using UMA and DLRP possible appropriate to use computer resources. We believe that such a concept is most suitable for operating systems using a GUI (Graphic User Interface - GUI user), since in both cases the constant need for all more and faster processors to accelerate the work with a GUI. 3) Many critics of the A \ BOX like to compare features CAIPIRINHA, having only a superficial understanding of its concept, today's high-end graphics card with standard components, exemplifying a screen with very high resolution and frame rate. Despite all the praise today standards, here are a few examples "of their lives: - Today's PCI-card does not meet the requirements of multimedia and 3D-applications vaunted PCI-bus has been running at maximum speed. Does not change anything and AGP with a peak speed of about 400 MB / sec. First, you need to make users not only buy a new graphics card, but a new motherboard. Secondly, it may take one or two years, until AGP will be a marketing strategy and will begin production effectively supporting its software. A This, in turn again leads to the requirement of a new, more powerful hardware ... - Today's low-cost PCI-cards rarely have the support of grafichekih permits more than 1280x1024x24 bits - even the most new. To use higher resolutions, you can buy high-end cards that use the VRAM or WRAM. But these "cool" What if the video card and can be compared with the possibilities CAIPIRINHA, then is it that only supported image permissions. - A set of graphics cards from leading manufacturers are already have chips with support for fast 3D-graphics, using low resolution and color depth. In other words, most chips do not work with 3D-graphics at resolutions better than 800x600x16 bit (some 3D-chips do not support 24-bit at all). Such permission may be practiced elementary CAIPIRINHA even with the frame rate 150 Hz, using less than 15% Transfer from memory. Thus, it is not difficult implement the REAL, fast 3D-graphics (just nice looking, as well as on consoles), while most of today's systems do not even equipped with maps support 3D. - To more fully imagine the possibilities A \ BOX, we can say following: the theoretical maximum of today's systems are practical minimum capacity CAIPIRINHA. Even if the industry refuses to PCI, and in future all development will be carried out only for AGP, it will only increase in speed graphics bus three times and did not provide even of the opportunities offered by UMA-architecture and CAIPIRINHA. 4) Some of the lead following an argument against UMA: Processor will have slow access to memory. CAIPIRINHA has processor bus to the theoretical frequency of 100 MHz (incidentally, current PowerPC models can not yet with such frequency work with the bus). Thus, the maximum shuttle bus could be around 800 MB / sec, which is only half of the maximum possible transfer with memory (1.6 GB / sec), which is the theoretical maximum in the system and almost never be exceeded, even if all components of the system will work with her to the limit of their opportunities. But that's the theory. But in practice, even the fastest model PowerPC can not work today with a stream of data in 400 and, more, 800 MB / sec. In addition, data transfer can be performed using CAIPIRINHA, thereby relieving and processor bus and the processor itself, using it in a more useful purposes. Comparing the standard PC-controllers CAIPIRINHA, you can result the following fact: Recalling the results of tests various independent magazines, real access to basic memory in the most powerful systems based on Pentium and PentiumPro is less than 100 MB / sec. But even when using controller MPC106 firm Motorola (controller cache memory PCI-Bus for the PowerPC), operating with 60 ns memory and having a her with a 64-bit bus, shuttle does not exceed 133 MB / sec (a actually it is still below). Thus, even if the PowerPC in the A \ BOX will be read-only data speeds of 200-300 MB / sec, this will still be far beyond the capabilities provided by today's system. 5) Another argument presented against the high integration components of the system - the inability to expand. People criticize that the controller (such as video and audio) is built on the motherboard and replaced by a standard bus (which not really because of inability to create a standardize a tire that meets the required performance). CAIPIRINHA will use existing technology in their limit, for example, 100-MHz SDRAM, which appeared two years ago and has only recently begun to be applied, the 100-MHz CPU-bus, although none of the existing processors will not work with bus at this frequency. Due to the unique and innovative concept CAIPIRINHA, it guaranteed the year lidirstva in productivity, which can not be expected from today's modular systems. Who buy now PCI-graphics card that invests in quickly out of date technology. At the same time, faster AGP-video cards require a new motherboard, which means that, that the user must change, and the graphics card and motherboard board with all controllers. But a new motherboard AGP support only increases the speed of the graphics bus with 132 MB / sec to about 400 MB / sec, while maintaining restrictions imposed by the architecture that does not guarantee a "big" future. Another concept, where a processor with memory and cache is on a separate module (similar to the accelerator CYBERSTORM on AMIGA 4000), requires the user to more investing money to upgrade the system, since it usually involves buying a new CPU, cache and system controller plus new slots for memory and cache. The meaning of the overpayment of money remains under question, as if the user wants to upgrade More and controller cache memory (eg SDRAM), then it it will be more convenient, as with the new processor it and get a new controller. So it is not clear yet whether acceptable such a modular concept in the future. [To be continued ...] -------------------------------------------------- ------------- revision 1.2 Translation prepared MagiC / Magicsoft / Extreme (Victor Moskalev) e-mail: magic_x7m@usa.net fido: 2:5020 / 661.30 amiganet: 39:241 / 3.6 I express my gratitude for the help: Mac Buster / Magicsoft / Extreme / / \ / / Rulez! date: 9-dec-97 -------------------------------------------------- -------------
Other articles:
Similar articles:
В этот день... 21 November