4 ms·

I'm not sure that's a fair area comparison? AMD only has around 600 mm2 of expensive leading edge 7nm silicon and uses chiplets to up their yields. The rest i

I'm not sure that's a fair area comparison? AMD only has around 600 mm2 of expensive leading edge 7nm silicon and uses chiplets to up their yields. The rest is the connecting bits from an older and cheaper process. Intel's full size is a single monolithic die on a leading edge process.

ineedasername 6y ago
Do chiplets underperform compared to a monolithic die?
- wmf 6y ago
  Yes.
- monocasa 6y ago
  Pretty much any time you have signals going off chip, you lose out on both bandwidth and latency.
- Symmetry 6y ago
  All things being equal a chiplet design will underperform a monolithic die. But we've already seen the benchmarks on the performance of Milan so looking at chiplets versus monolithic is mostly about considering AMD's strategy and constraints rather than how the chips perform.
- gsnedders 6y ago
  As others have said, in isolation and perfect manufacturing capability, it's absolutely true a monolithic die is better. However, because each die is smaller, you can be more aggressive with your binning, potentially having a larger number of chips which you can bin into a higher frequency bucket. Ultimately, it's a matter of trade-offs, and what's right in one place might be wrong in another (see, e.g., AMD manufacturing mobile APUs on monolithic dies versus all their desktop and server parts using chiplets). We are seeing more of the industry moving to chiplets and similar solutions, notably Intel with their tiles.
HelloNurse 6y ago
An interesting observation, which is even more damning for Intel: moderately multicore CPUs from AMD are made in an effective and efficient way, while Intel, despite boasting about their advanced packaging technology, is slow to adopt heterogeneous chiplets and is paying the price of this technological rigidity. This is in addition to miserable failure with new processes. Do you see getting the most of limited 7nm production capacity as "cheating"? The only fair comparison is in the resulting performance and TDP, and Intel remains seriously behind.

ineedasername 6y ago

Do chiplets underperform compared to a monolithic die?

wmf 6y ago
Yes.
monocasa 6y ago
Pretty much any time you have signals going off chip, you lose out on both bandwidth and latency.
Symmetry 6y ago
All things being equal a chiplet design will underperform a monolithic die. But we've already seen the benchmarks on the performance of Milan so looking at chiplets versus monolithic is mostly about considering AMD's strategy and constraints rather than how the chips perform.
gsnedders 6y ago
As others have said, in isolation and perfect manufacturing capability, it's absolutely true a monolithic die is better. However, because each die is smaller, you can be more aggressive with your binning, potentially having a larger number of chips which you can bin into a higher frequency bucket. Ultimately, it's a matter of trade-offs, and what's right in one place might be wrong in another (see, e.g., AMD manufacturing mobile APUs on monolithic dies versus all their desktop and server parts using chiplets). We are seeing more of the industry moving to chiplets and similar solutions, notably Intel with their tiles.

HelloNurse 6y ago

An interesting observation, which is even more damning for Intel: moderately multicore CPUs from AMD are made in an effective and efficient way, while Intel, despite boasting about their advanced packaging technology, is slow to adopt heterogeneous chiplets and is paying the price of this technological rigidity. This is in addition to miserable failure with new processes. Do you see getting the most of limited 7nm production capacity as "cheating"? The only fair comparison is in the resulting performance and TDP, and Intel remains seriously behind.