Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (
More info?)
Kai Harrekilde-Petersen wrote:
> "David Kanter" <dkanter@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>Yousuf Khan wrote:
>>
>>>Del Cecchi wrote:
>>>
>>>>HT can go maybe a foot, if you are really lucky. Work out the skew
>>>>budgets. At 2000 MT, the board is allocated less than 100 ps as I recall.
>>>>
>>>>PCI-E on the other hand can go several meters.
>>>>
>>>>Totally different approaches.
>>>
>>>Which is why PCI-e never got adopted as a CPU to CPU interconnect.
>>
>>One never knows what the future holds. Anyway, it's pretty obvious
>>that parallel transmission (read HT) is the way of the past. If you
>>look at any high performance interconnect, they are all serial. Talk
>>to the Rambus guys, they know what they are doing...
>
>
> While a serial (and encoded) link is way easier to handle, the sky is
> not the limit. Consider that at 10Gb/s standard FR-4 board material
> have quite frightening losses, which limits the length you can send
> it. The several meters that Del talk about is on cables, I think.
>
> And just exactly why would you want to go several meters on a CPU to
> CPU interconnect (at least in the x86 mass-market)?
>
> Sure, the parallel link as other problems, also pointed out by Del,
> but my point here is that blindly claiming that either technology is
> the "right thing" is not a good idea.
>
> Latency, bandwidth, die area, power consumption, and maximum trace
> length should all be considered.
>
>
>>Now, as to whether serial connections between CPUs is a good idea, I am
>>not entirely sure; I suspect Del is far more qualified to discuss that
>>topic than I am. Generally, serial connections can be driven far
>>faster, but there is slighly longer latency for SERDES.
>
>
> Definitely - and as we know: money can buy you bandwidth, but latency
> is forever.
>
> Think of the performace of SDRAMs - while the DDR's have awesome peak
> BW numbers, they rarely translate into real-world benefits that is
> worth taking about.
>
>
> Kai
PCI express is an IO expansion network, I don't know where the cpu-cpu
talk came from. Architecturally it is sort of master slave.
As for length, it is limited by the loss budget to 8db of loss at
1.25GHz as I recall, and by ISI to about 100 ps. HT on the other hand
transmits data in parallel with a clock to provide timing and no
alignment so distance is limited primarily by skew as defined in the HT
spec.
The 2.5 Gbit interfaces like PCI-e can go a couple of feet on a
backplane. IB used 20 inches as an objective.
The serdes based standards do indeed have somewhat longer latency due to
the 10 bit penalty on each end. But HT also has to make the data wider
for convenient handling.
This kind of stuff is what I do. So I am familiar with the various
limitations.
--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”