Putting 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.

Putting It All Together: Low Power Core M Closing Thoughts
Comments Locked

158 Comments

View All Comments

  • sherlockwing - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link

    Tskin=41C?!? Is Intel out of their mind? Did they not read how much trouble iPad 3 got into for a Tskin of 33.6C? http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/mar/20/...

    I hope they/OEMs do keep Tskin undercontrol with better throttling when actually shipping these chips in products.
  • ZeDestructor - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link

    People are cool with high TSkins on their devices. I know my phone passes 35°C easily if I load it up, and I'm fine with that. Then again, I'm completely fine with a 60°C idle, because that's where ICs like to live...
  • Gondalf - Saturday, August 23, 2014 - link

    Ummmm present iPad Air scores a 42.1°C skin temperature with an A7 running inside.
    So not a concern, all recent tablets are pretty hot.
  • magnusmundus - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link

    Looking forward to seeing benchmarks and desktop 14nm parts.

    Also, I found a typo on the closing thoughts page "Though laptops at a category" should be "Though laptops as a category"
  • DanNeely - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link

    I'm surprised they didn't move the PCH to 22nm. Relatively low power consumption or not, they pushed everything else to the wall to get Core M's TDP as low as possible and between doing custom designs for it anyway and soft sales meaning they've got the spare 22nm capacity available I don't see any obvious reason why they couldn't've done so.
  • klmccaughey - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link

    Vastly diminishing returns for the expense seem the most likely answer to that.
  • mkozakewich - Thursday, August 14, 2014 - link

    The process nodes are very expensive to produce, so they need to get as much life out of them as possible. Also, a new(er) process isn't going to have a high enough yield. 22 Might have worked, but I bet the older process gave them a better bang for their buck.
  • Flunk - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link

    I was thinking of buying one of these, but it sounds like the focus is still on TDP over all else so it looks like waiting to Skylake is the plan for anyone with Sandy Bridge or newer.
  • klmccaughey - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link

    Yup :( Is there no hope for us gamers?
  • wurizen - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link

    i think AMD is your hope. if you don't have a sandy bridge cpu or in phenom land, an FX series cpu is a great cpu that will hold one over until AMD updates their desktop FX series line of cpu's. i mean a 990FX mobo has all you need. i think pci 2.0 is still adequate for today's video cards so that doesn't really matter. even though on paper, intel has pci 3.0 and usb 5.0 (just kidding) and thunderbolt 9.9, they're superflous and doesn't make you game better. i mean, an fx-8350 with a decent gpu should give one smooth framerates. i mean who cares if in the benchmark, an fx-8350 with so and so gpu will run so and so game at, say 120fps, while an intel chip will run it at 190fps? 120 fps is like very good and that person who has an intel chip running 190 fps probably paid hundreds of dollars more for their system and i bet they wouldn't be even to decipher those 70 or so of more frames. i mean, it's not total fps that matters but the average frame rate and i think an fx-8350 will deliver that. it's a beast of a cpu. and broadwell? who cares. 90% of the words in the article above are buzz tech fancy words to get gadget heads salivating and stock wigs greasing their palms.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now