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
mapesdhs - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link
Yeah, sure, and that's exactly what everyone was saying back when we were waiting for
the followon to Phenom II; just wait, their next chip will be great! Intel killer! Hmph. I recall
even many diehard AMD fans were pretty angry when BD finally came out.
Benchmarks show again and again that AMD's CPUs hold back performance in numerous
scenarios. I'd rather get a used 2700K than an 8350; leaves the latter in the dust for all CPU
tasks and far better for gaming.
Btw, you've answered your own point: if an 8350 is overkill for a game, giving 120fps, then
surely one would be better off with an i3, G3258 or somesuch, more than enough for most
gaming if the game is such that one's GPU setup & sscreen res, etc. is giving that sort of
frame rate, in which case power consumption is less, etc.
I really hope AMD can get back in the game, but I don't see it happening any time soon.
They don't have the design talent or the resources to come up with something genuinely
new and better.
Ian.
wurizen - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link
an fx-8350 isn't holding anything back. come on, man. are you like a stat paper queen obsessor or something? oh, please. an fx-8350 and an amd r9290 gpu will give you "happy" frame rates. i say happy because it i know the frames rates will be high enough. more than good enough even. will it be lower than an i7-4770k and an r90? maybe. maybe the fx-8350 will avg 85 fps on so and so game while the i7-4770k will avg 90 fps. boohoo. who cares about 5 more frames.also, while you mention i3 as a sufficient viable alternative to an fx-8350. remember that the cost will probably be about the same. and fx-8350 is like $190. maybe the i3 is 20 dollars less. but, here's the big but, an i3 is not as good as an fx-8350 in video editing stuff and photo editing stuff if one would like to use their pc for more than just games. an fx-8350, while not as power efficient as an i3 (but who cares since we are talking about a desktop) literally has more bang for the back. it has more cores and is faster.
amd will get back in the game. it is just a question of when. an fx-8350 is already toe-to-toe with an i7-2600k, which is no slouch in todays standard. so, amd just needs to refine their cpu's.
as for talent? amd came up with x64, or amd64 before intel. intel developed their own x86-64 later.
the resource that intel has over amd is just die shrinking. that's it. architecturally, an fx chip or the phenom chip before it seems like a more elegant design to me than intel chips. but that's subjective. and i don't really know that much about cpu's. but, i have been around since the days of 286 so maybe i just see intel as those guys who made 286 which were ubiquitous and plain. i also remember cyrix. and i remember g4 chips. and to me, the fx chip is like a great chip. it's full of compromises and promises at the same time.
Drumsticks - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link
I think AMD might have a way back into the game, but the difference right now is way worse than you say.http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=287
FX-8350 trails the 2600k frequently by 10-20% or more (in gaming).
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/product/697?vs=288
i5-2500k beats it just as badly and actually sells for less than the 8350 used on ebay. Games love single threaded power and the 8350 just doesn't have it.
wurizen - Monday, August 11, 2014 - link
the games they have in that comparison are starcraft 2 and dragon age. 47 fps at 768 p for 8350 looks suspect on starcraft 2. what gpu did they use?it's not way worse as i say. omg.
i have an i7-3770k oc'd to 4.1Ghz and a stock FX-8320 at stock. both can run cod: ghost and bf3. haven't tested my other games. might do the starcraft 2 test tomorrow. i don't have the numbers nor care. what ppl need to realize is the actual game experience while playing games and not the number. is the game smooth? a cpu that can't handle a game will be very evident. this means it's time to upgrade. and there are no fx cpu's from amd that can't handle modern games. again, they will trail intel, but that is like a car going at 220mph so that car wins but the other car is going at 190mph and it will lose but realistically and the experience of going at 190mph will still be fast. the good thing is that amd or cpu don't race each other unless you care about benchmarks. but, if you look past the benchmarks and just focus on the experience itself, an fx series cpu by amd is plenty fast enuff.
omg.
silverblue - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
We're well within the realms of diminishing returns as regards standard CPU IPC. AMD has the most to gain here, though with HSA, will they bother?kaix2 - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
so your response to people who are disappointed that broadwell is focused more on TDP instead of performance is to buy an AMD cpu with even lower performance?wurizen - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
well, they don't have to get the fx-9590, which has serverlike cpu of 2008 like tdp or a gpu like tdp of 220 watts. there is a more modest tdp of 125w with the fx8350. all overclockable. seems like a good cpu for tinkerers, pc/enthusiast, gamers and video editors. i don't even think it's a budget cpu. there is the 6-core and 4-core variants which are cheaper. i am also not saying that an fx-8350 is like the best cpu since it's not and falls way down in the benchmark charts. but, it's not a bad cpu at all. it gets the work done (video editing) and let's you play games (wit's a modern cpu after) even though it's sort of 2 yrs old already. the 990FX chipset is even an older chipset. there's something to be said about that and i think im trying to say it. in light of all the news about intel, which we are guaranteed to get every year with each tick and tock... there is that little AMD sitting in the corner with a chipset that hasn't been updated for yrs and an 8-core cpu that's remarkably affordable. the performance is not that low at all. i mean, video editing with it or playing games with it doesn't hamper one's experience. so, maybe one will have to wait a couple more minutes for a video to render in a video editing program versus say an i7-4790k. but, one can simply get up from one's chair and return. instead of staring at how fast their cpu renders a video on the screen.know what i'm saying?
so, yeah. an fx-8350 with an old 990fx mobo and now intel's upcoming broadwell cpu's with z97 chipsets and all the bells and whistles and productivity for either one will probably be similar. also, most video editing programs now will also leverage the gpu so an old fx-8350 w/ a compatible gpu will have help rendering those gpu's....
i guess it's like new doesn't mean anything now. or something. like m2 sata and pci 3.0, which intel chipsets have over amd is kinda superflous and doesn't really help or do much.
know what im saying?
rkrb79 - Tuesday, November 18, 2014 - link
Agreed!!name99 - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
Oh yes, Skylake.Intel has given 5% IPC improvements for every generation since Nehalem, but now Skylake is going to change everything?
If you're one of the ten people on the planet who can actually get value out of AVX-512 then, sure, great leap forward. For everyone else, if you were pissed off at IB, HSW, BDW, you're going to be just as pissed off with Skylake.
DanNeely - Tuesday, August 12, 2014 - link
No, the interest in Skylake is for all the non-CPU speed things promised with it. PCIe 4.0 and a bump from 16 to 20 CPU lanes (for PCIe storage) are at the top of the list. Other expected, but AFAIK not confirmed, benefits include USB3.1 and more USB3.x on the chipset than the current generation. We should have consumer DDR4 with Skylake too; but that's not expected to be a big bump in the real world.