Intel Broadwell Architecture Preview: A Glimpse into Core M
by Ryan Smith on August 11, 2014 12:01 PM ESTPutting It All Together: Small Core M
Next to power constraints, the final element of Intel’s fanless challenge is the size of the SoC itself. Sub-10mm thickness doesn’t just put constraints on the heat capacity of the device but it also constrains just how large an SoC and its supporting circuitry can be. As a result Intel has focused on making Broadwell-Y the smallest Core processor yet, making the entire SoC under 500mm2 in size.
As was the case with power, reducing the size of Broadwell-Y is a multi-faceted effort. The 14nm process plays a big part here, allowing for one of the smallest Core CPU dice yet. At 82mm2 the Broadwell-Y CPU die is some 37% smaller than the Haswell-Y CPU die, none the less packing a dual-core CPU and a full GPU slice.
With such a small die Intel was in turn able to reduce the size of the entire SoC package through the combination of the reduced die area and further optimizations to the packaging itself. Haswell-Y’s already small ball pitch of .65mm was further reduced to just .5mm, producing a package with Intel’s smallest solder ball pads yet. Intel considers the reduction in the ball pitch to be the key change that allowed Broadwell-Y to be so small, as they were already pad-limited on Haswell-Y despite having ample excess packaging even after taking the CPU die’s larger size into account. As a result Broadwell-Y takes up almost 50% less surface area (XY) than Haswell-Y.
Intel has also made a number of changes for Broadwell-Y to reduce the Z-height of the Y SoCs, as even 1.5mm for the SoC starts to become a significant design constraint in a sub-10mm device. Again owing to the 14nm process, the Z-height of the Broadwell-Y die itself is down to 170um. Meanwhile the Z-height of the substrate has been cut in half from 400um to 200um, which accounts for nearly half of the total reduction in SoC Z-height.
The final element in reducing the SoC Z-height, and what’s likely the most unorthodox change for Broadwell-Y’s packaging, is Intel’s 3DL inductors. The 3DLs aren’t just to improve energy efficiency as we discussed before, but they are part of Intel’s efforts to reduce the SoC size. For Broadwell-Y the 3DLs are on their own PCB on the back of the SoC, extending well below the back of the package. To accommodate this, logic boards housing Broadwell-Y will have a hole in them where the 3DL PCB would be in order to allow the complete SoC to fit. Because there are no BGA connections here this change isn’t quite as radical as it first appears, but it’s a very good example of just what lengths Intel was willing to go to reduce the package Z-height.
All told then, the combination of these space optimizations has reduced Broadwell-Y’s Z-height by nearly 30%, from 1.5mm on Haswell-Y to 1.04mm on Broadwell-Y (3DL PCB not included). By bringing Broadwell-Y’s thickness under 1.1mm, the SoC is now no taller than the other common components on a logic board (e.g. RAM), meaning the SoC will no longer stick out above the other components, which is useful both for saving space and for allowing simpler (flatter) heatsinks.
Finally, the smaller size of the Broadwell-Y package will also have a knock-on effect on the size of the logic board, further feeding into Intel’s goals to get Broadwell-Y into smaller devices. Intel tells us that the size of a complete platform (logic) board for Broadwell-Y has been reduced by roughly 25% as compared to Haswell-Y, allowing Broadwell-Y to better fit into not just thinner devices but overall smaller devices too.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
158 Comments
View All Comments
AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
You should look at discrete graphics HW sales.tuxRoller - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
Nvidia, which has around 60% of the discrete gpu market, has a yearly revenue of around $4 000 000 000. So, you're looking at a total market of around $7 000 000 000.Johnmcl7 - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
"Maybe not obsess, but to characterise the PC gaming market as ridiculously small, is pretty far off the mark...."I think the original comment was fairly accurate, even in the PC gaming market there's a large proportion of people using Intel graphics cards. Looking at the current Steam survey results, 75% are using Intel processors and 20% overall are using Intel graphics which means around 1 in 3 people with Intel processors on Steam are using the onboard graphics card. The means even among the gaming market there's a lot of integrated cards in use and that's just one small portion as I'd expect most other areas to mainly be using integrated cards.
There are workstation graphics cards but professionals using those are unlikely to be using consumer processors and the enthusiast/workstation processors do not have an integrated graphics card.
zepi - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
I have had steam on my company laptop with just internal GPU just to take part into the sales campains etc. This makes my contribution to 50:50 in terms on dGPU / iGPU, even though 100% of gaming happens with dGPU.AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
So....how do NVIDIA and ATI stay in business? Obviously many people use discrete cards. The fact you say "obsess" tells me you probably don't realize the massive performance difference, and it's not limited to gaming. CAD uses 3D.AnnonymousCoward - Wednesday, August 13, 2014 - link
Doesn't Intel make X-version CPUs that can be overclocked? The OC market is gonna be much smaller than dGPU, and they're already making a dedicated product for that.Krysto - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
Because they are using that anti-competitive tactic to drive out the discrete competition. They force OEMs to buy them bundled, so more and more people say "why should I pay twice for the GPU...I'll just get the Intel one".It's a nasty tactic, Intel has been employing for years, and unfortunately it's working. But it's terribly uncompetitive.
Krysto - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
It's akin to Microsoft bundling IE with Windows "Why would I need to get another browser...I'll just use IE". That tactic WORKED for Microsoft. It only stopped working when they became lazy. But they could've hold the 90 percent market share of IE for a lot longer, if they didn't get lazy.AnnonymousCoward - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
I dunno--anyone who plans to get a discrete card is going to get one, regardless of Intel forcing it onto the CPU.I wonder what percent of the desktop die will be GPU. Maybe with the GPU disabled, the CPU turbo will work better since there will be less heat.
name99 - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
"we’ll still have to wait to see just how good the resulting retail products are, but there shouldn’t be any technical reason for why it can’t be put into a mobile device comparable to today’s 10”+ tablets. "There may not be TECHNICAL reasons, but there are very definite economic reasons.
People think of tablets as cheap devices --- iPad at the high end, but the mass market at $350 or so. This CPU alone will probably cost around $300. MS is willing to pay that for Surface Pro 4; no-one else is, not for a product where x86 compatibility is not essential.
We'll see it in ultrabooks (and various ultrabook perversions that bend or slide or pop into some sort of tablet) but we're not going to see a wave of sub<$1000 products using this.