From WikiChip
Editing intel/microarchitectures/bonnell

Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.

The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.

This page supports semantic in-text annotations (e.g. "[[Is specified as::World Heritage Site]]") to build structured and queryable content provided by Semantic MediaWiki. For a comprehensive description on how to use annotations or the #ask parser function, please have a look at the getting started, in-text annotation, or inline queries help pages.

Latest revision Your text
Line 346: Line 346:
 
Traditionally, Intel has been using A[[GTL]]+ transceivers (Advanced [[Gunning Transceiver Logic]]) for their [[front-side bus]] communication. With bonnell (and the [[chipset]]) Intel also introduced a [[CMOS]] signaling logic mode. CMOS has the advantage of only drawing power during transition. The switch to CMOS saves 200-500 mW at the cost of worse latency and slower bus which ranges from 400 to 533 MHz. Bonnell's intended applications is not heavy processing machine, the lower bus speed was likely a worthy compromise.
 
Traditionally, Intel has been using A[[GTL]]+ transceivers (Advanced [[Gunning Transceiver Logic]]) for their [[front-side bus]] communication. With bonnell (and the [[chipset]]) Intel also introduced a [[CMOS]] signaling logic mode. CMOS has the advantage of only drawing power during transition. The switch to CMOS saves 200-500 mW at the cost of worse latency and slower bus which ranges from 400 to 533 MHz. Bonnell's intended applications is not heavy processing machine, the lower bus speed was likely a worthy compromise.
  
Bonnell implements both mode, so designers who prefer the faster [[front-side bus|bus]] can opt for the traditional AGTL+ transceivers while those who seek low power can opt for the CMOS implementation. Intel offers both types by simply fusing the appropriate circuitry. This is done by reprogramming the NFET control pull-down and the PFET control accordingly, activating or deactivating the resistor and switching the voltage.
+
Bonnell implements both mode, so designers who prefer the faster [[front-side bus|bus]] can opt for the traditional AGTL+ transceivers while those who seek low power can opt for the CMOS implementation. Intel offers both types by simply fusing the appropriate circuitry. This is done by reprogramming the NFET control pull-down and the PFET control accordingly.
 
[[File:bonnell split power planes.png|left|400px]]
 
[[File:bonnell split power planes.png|left|400px]]
 
Note that during deep sleep, the design team designed the power rails using two power planes. To further save power, only keeping 21 pins are kept alive, reducing the average power by another 10% while killing off 182 of the other I/O which are not necessary for that state.
 
Note that during deep sleep, the design team designed the power rails using two power planes. To further save power, only keeping 21 pins are kept alive, reducing the average power by another 10% while killing off 182 of the other I/O which are not necessary for that state.

Please note that all contributions to WikiChip may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here.
You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see WikiChip:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission!

Cancel | Editing help (opens in new window)