3 ms·
This conjecture sounds wrong to me. 3D stacking and chiplets are complementary; going only 3D has thermal and cost issues, so it makes sense to combine both. On
by Veedrac 7y ago
This conjecture sounds wrong to me. 3D stacking and chiplets are complementary; going only 3D has thermal and cost issues, so it makes sense to combine both. One shouldn't replace the other any time soon.
- ATsch 7y agoWell, the Lakefield design is fully 3D, and Intel has not announced any chiplet based designs, so either they made it all up, or they're convinced they can make it work in the next few years.
- Veedrac 7y agoLakefield is a 1+4 core part, it's tiny and won't need chiplets. Chiplets are necessary only once you get to core counts that won't fit on a single square of silicon. Intel have announced co-EMIB, which seems to be their solution to 2D integration of 3D-stacked parts. https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/2503/intel-introduces-co-emib-to-stitch-multiple-3d-die-stacks-together-adds-omni-directional-interconnects/ https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/2503/intel-introduces-co-emib...