Compilation Integration

In order to maximize performance, the NV3x pipeline needs to be as full as possible all the time. For this to happen, special care needs to be taken in how instructions are issued to the hardware. One aspect of this is that the architecture benefits from interleaved pairs of different types of instructions (for instance: issue two texture instructions, followed by two math instructions, followed by two texture instructions, etc). This is in contrast to ATI's hardware which prefers to see a large block of texture instructions followed by a large block of math instructions for optimal results.

As per NVIDIA's sensitivity to instruction order, we can (most easily) offer the example of calculating a^2 * 2^b:

mul r0,a,a
exp r1,b
mul r0,r0,r1

-takes 2 cycles on NV35

exp r1,b
mul r0,a,a
mul r0,r0,r1

-takes 1 cycle on NV35

This is a trivial example, but it does the job of getting the point across. Obviously, there are real benefits to be had from doing simple standard compiler optimizations which don't effect the output of the code at all. What kind of optimizations are we talking about here? Allow us to elaborate.

Aside from instruction reordering to maximize the parallelism of the hardware, reordering can also help reduce register pressure if we minimize the live ranges of registers within independent data. Consider this:

mul r0,a,a
mul r1,b,b
st r0
st r1

If we reorder the instructions we can use only one register without affecting the outcome of the code:

mul r0,a,a
st r0
mul r0,b,b
st r0

Register allocation is a very hefty part of compiler optimization, but special care needs to be taken to do it correctly and quickly for this application. Commonly, a variety of graph coloring heuristics are available to compiler designers. It seems NVIDIA is using an interference graph style of register allocation, and is allocating registers per component, though we are unclear on what is meant by "component".

Dead code elimination is a very common optimization; essentially, if the developer includes code that can never be executed, we can eliminate this code from the program. Such situations are often revealed when performing multiple optimizations on code, but it’s still a useful feature for the occasional time a developer falls asleep at the screen.

There are a great many other optimizations that can be performed on code which have absolutely no effect on outcome. This is a very important aspect of computing, and only gets more complicated as computer technology gets more powerful. Intel's Itanium processors are prohibitive to hand coding, and no IA64 based processor would run code well unless the compiler that generated the code was able to specifically tailor that code to the parallel nature of the hardware. We are seeing the same type of thing here with NVIDIA's architecture.

Of course, NVIDIA has the added challenge of implementing a real-time compiler much like the java JIT, or Transmeta's code morphing software. As such, there are other very interesting time saving things they need to do with their compiler in order to reduce the impact of trying to adequately approximate the solution to an NP complete problem into am extremely small amount of time.

A shader cache is implemented to store previously compiled shaders; this means that shaders shouldn't have to be compiled more than once. Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) of the code are used to fingerprint compiled shaders. There is also a stock set of common, precompiled, shaders that can get dropped in when NVIDIA detects what a developer is trying to accomplish. NVIDIA will need to take special care to make sure that this feature remains a feature and doesn't break anything, but we see this as a good thing as long no one feels the power of the dark side.

Also, until the most recent couple driver releases from NVIDIA, the real-time compiler didn't implement all of these important optimizations on shader code sent to the card by a game. The frame rate increases of beyond 50% with no image quality loss can be attributed to the enhancements of the real-time compiler NVIDIA has implemented. All of the performance we've previously seen has rested on how well NVIDIA and developers were able to hand code shaders and graphics subroutines.

Of course, writing "good code" (code that suits the hardware it’s written for) will help the compiler be more efficient as well. We certainly won't be seeing the end of NVIDIA sitting down at the table with developers to help them acclimate their code to NV3x hardware, but this Unified Compiler technology will definitely help us see better results from everyone's efforts.

Architecture Image Quality
Comments Locked

114 Comments

View All Comments

  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    The review at Extreme Tech lines up with Anadtechs review. Both on FPS and IQ. Im still checking out other reviews on other sites though. So far it seems to me that there anrt any worthy problems with AT's review.
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    It's so sad that when ATi might have real competition in the midrange, the fanATIcs are still out in full force, labeling any site that doesn't trash nVidia as "biased" and "bought".

    And when in the blue hell has having an ad from a company meant the site is biased? THG, for example, has AMD, Intel, ATi, nVidia, and XGI ads on its pages. Ads are how sites make money.
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    Some of you guys have to get out more.
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    face fact girls who keep complaining. from what i see, both ati and nvidia both make great cards. buy whichever suits your needs.
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    Whats going on with that Ti4200 on homeworld 2!!!!
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    jesus, fanatics get all pissy if their card loses in FPS tests... you act like every consumer who reads this review will be swayed into believing that NV sells a superior midrange card... its obvious that the "ATI v NV" battle is personal to u... my only question is why? are you guys trying to justify your purchases by bashing something that poses a threat? personally, i dont let hardware sites choose what i buy... i often times purchase 2 contending cards, and take it upon myself to determine which is better... the winner stays in my machine, the loser goes back to where it came from...
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    Kyle is just pissed he didnt get invited to NVIDIA's editorial day (or he didnt get paid enough to go to Editorial Day), while NVIDIA probably just canceled an advertisement deal with Tom.
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    #10: ATI ads are in the same article on the right sidE!!!!
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    Well I am going to read the 5950 review in this site. If the comments section will be this lame, that will be my last...

    Sorry, but the gfx card reviews are getting worse and worse in each review.. No in depth analysis, no IQ comparisons.. At the end, given the frame rates, I still believe that 9600XT is a better card than 5700 given that that card has almost %60 of the bandwidth that 5700 has and still beats it in most of the AA tests.

    I appreciate the amount of work here, but if you can not do it right, that do not do it..

    Best,
  • Anonymous User - Thursday, October 23, 2003 - link

    #28 sorry but i was in a big hurry.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now