Thermal Management on Stacked Silicon

With a standard processor design, there is a single piece of silicon doing all the work and generating the heat – it’s bonded to the package (which doesn’t do any work) and then depending on the implementation, there’s some adhesive to either a cooler or a headspreader then a cooler. When moving to a stacked chiplet design, it gets a bit more complicated.

Having two bits of silicon that ‘do work’, even if one is the heavy compute die and the other is an active interposer taking care of USB and audio and things, does mean that there’s a thermal gradient between the silicon, and depending on the bonding, potential for thermal hotspots and build-up. Lakefield makes it even more complex, by having an additional DRAM package placed on top but not directly bonded.

We can take each of these issues independently. For the case of die-on-die interaction, there is a lot of research going into this area. Discussions and development about fluidic channels between two hot silicon dies have been going on for a decade or longer in academia, and Intel has mentioned it a number of times, especially when relating to a potential solution of its new die-to-die stacking technology.

They key here is hot dies, with thermal hotspots. As with a standard silicon design, ideally it is best to keep two high-powered areas separate, as it gives a number of benefits with power delivery, cooling, and signal integrity. With a stacked die, it is best to not have hotspots directly on top of each other, for similar reasons. Despite Intel using its leading edge 10+ process node for the compute die, the base die is using 22FFL, which is Intel’s low power implementation of its 14nm process. Not only that, but the base die is only dealing with IO, such as USB and PCIe 3.0, which is essentially fixed bandwidth and energy costs. What we have here is a high-powered die on top of a low powered die, and as such thermal issues between the two silicon die, especially in a low TDP device like Lakefield (7W TDP), are not an issue.

What is an issue is how the compute die gets rid of the heat. On the bottom it can do convection by being bonded to more silicon, but the top is ultimately blocked by that DRAM die. As you can see in the image above, there’s a big air gap between the two.

As part of the Lakefield design, Intel had to add in a number of design changes in order to make the thermals work. A lot of work can be done with the silicon design itself, such as matching up hotspots in the right area, using suitable thickness of metals in various layers, and rearranging the floorplan to reduce localized power density. Ultimately both increasing the thermal mass and the potential dissipation becomes high priorities.

Lakefield CPUs have a sustained power limit of 7 watts – this is defined in the specifications. Intel also has another limit, known as the turbo power limit. At Intel’s Architecture Day, the company stated that the turbo power limit was 27 watts, however in the recent product briefing, we were told is set at 9.5 W. Historically Intel will let its OEM partners (Samsung, Lenovo, Microsoft) choose its own values for these based on how well the design implements its cooling – passive vs active and heatsink mass and things like this. Intel also has another factor of turbo time, essentially a measure of how long the turbo power can be sustained for.

When we initially asked Intel for this value, they refused to tell us, stating that it is proprietary information. After I asked again after a group call on the product, I got the same answer, despite the fact that I informed the Lakefield team that Intel has historically given this information out. Later on, I found out through my European peers that in a separate briefing, they gave the value of 28 seconds, to which Intel emailed me this several hours afterwards. This value can also be set by OEMs.

Then I subsequently found one of Intel’s ISSCC slides.

This slide shows that a basic implementation would only allow sustained power for 2.5 seconds. Adding in an adhesive between the top die and the DRAM moves up to 12.4 seconds, and then improving the system cooling goes up to 20 seconds. The rest of the improvements work below the compute die: a sizeable improvement comes from increasing the die-to-die metal density, and then an optimized power floor plan which in total gives sustained power support for 150+ seconds.

Lakefield: Top Die to Bottom Die Hybrid CPUs: Sunny Cove and Tremont


View All Comments

  • SarahKerrigan - Thursday, July 2, 2020 - link

    Not only does it not have AVX-512, it appears to have no AVX at all. For a premium product in 2020, that's embarrassing. Reply
  • shabby - Thursday, July 2, 2020 - link

    Atom... premium? Don't be silly 😆 Reply
  • SarahKerrigan - Thursday, July 2, 2020 - link

    Hey, I agree, but it's going into devices that start at US$1k. It's clearly being positioned as a premium chip, despite showing every sign of not actually being very good. Reply
  • shabby - Thursday, July 2, 2020 - link

    It'll be a tough sell that's for sure. Reply
  • Smell This - Thursday, July 2, 2020 - link

    No where to go but up ... or 6.5 years back:

    HP Pavilion TouchSmart 11-e115nr - 11.6"
    AMD A6-1450 7w 'Temash' - 8 GB RAM - Samsung SSD

    CB15: 109
    OpenGL: 10.42

    Ice Storm 1.2: 20243

    Fire Strike 1.1: 236
  • eastcoast_pete - Thursday, July 2, 2020 - link

    Yes, premium this ain't. Really disappointed, as I see this overall concept as being the most innovative thing to come out of Intel in a long time. However, this way - no dice. Reply
  • sharath.naik - Friday, July 3, 2020 - link

    Worst is the cinebench r15 scores of 89 and 250 for single and multi thread scores. That's ridiculous, you can actually undervolt and power limit a i5-1035G7 and still get at least twice the performance in single thread. Reply
  • dersteffeneilers - Saturday, July 4, 2020 - link

    Well the thing goes into laptops smaller than phones, if it's pulling <2W during bursts, it's gonna overheat really badly. Reply
  • Spunjji - Monday, July 6, 2020 - link

    So they've sacrificed speed *and* cost-effectiveness for area. Oh dear. Reply
  • ProDigit - Friday, July 3, 2020 - link

    It would be, if you paired 100 of them together. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now