4 ms·
I took the ambitious part to be changing how the gpu was connected to the rest of the system. Seems like a decent jump although not exactly risky. But the conc
by nsteel 3y ago
I took the ambitious part to be changing how the gpu was connected to the rest of the system. Seems like a decent jump although not exactly risky.
But the conclusion sums it up well:
> Meteor Lake abandons the familiar Sandy Bridge client design that characterized Intel’s consumer CPU offerings for more than a decade. In its place, we get a flexible chiplet strategy that lets Intel pile on accelerators in response to market demands.
- FuriouslyAdrift 3y agoSo they're basically following AMD's lead by going to a modular chiplet based package...
- nsteel 3y agoI don't think it's really about followimg AMD. It's the only sensible thing to do given the state of scaling and economics. All interesting things Intel are doing are chiplet based. I think it's partly about showcasing their packaging tech in an attempt to differentiate their fab offering. You could argue there's nothing very special in that respect here, they've done this process and vendor mixing before elsewhere. Except this will be a high volume product line so they need good yield and capacity. But that's just my read on it, maybe it's just the cheapest way to stay relevent.
- clamchowder 3y agoI simply meant it was ambitious compared to prior Intel iGPUs, especially stuff like Skylake GT2 where you could be playing at 720P low and still not get 30 FPS. The chiplet strategy is kind of ambitious too because there's power overhead and they're targeting battery powered devices with Meteor Lake. Eh, writing is hard. I never liked English class anyway
- gautamcgoel 3y agoDon't let the haters get you down, I love your articles.
- clamchowder 3y agoOh I don't mind the discussion here at all, I'm just occasionally puzzled at things I thought I was pretty direct about. Honestly though I don't like writing. Finding stuff out about hardware is fun. Weaving it into a coherent article is a chore.
- nsteel 3y agoI think most people don't appreciate how hard it is for hardware companies with established products to make non-trivial architectural changes. It's risky and it usually snowballs and becomes more risky. Especially when others in the market are already doing similar things, it downplays the change. I love researching things too but I can't write coherently. I really enjoyed your article, thank you.
- nsteel 3y agoRe the power overhead. They probably get some power back by using smaller nodes on some chiplets than they'd otherwise be able to afford if doing the whole design with the same process. And they are betting on the benefits of backside-power delivery.