this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2023
49 points (96.2% liked)

Technology

58011 readers
3076 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

This is because it's the first client processor to be made using chiplets instead of a monolithic design.

Wasn't AMD already using chiplets for their CPUs?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago (1 children)

For years. 2017 if you argue the separate CCXs in Zen1 Threadripper to be chiplets.

2019 with Zen2 if you're not counting that.

AMD is pretty ahead of everyone when it comes to packaging tech.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 9 months ago

Next thing they'll declare to be the first to use 3D packaging in their CPUs.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Amd's chiplets are different from Intel's.

AMD's chipltets are discrete "modules" that are physically separate from each other.

Intel is trying to make an almost monolithic die, but using distinct chips sitting directly next to each other with (I believe) an almost direct link.

AMD's chiplet design isn't very good for low power low load uses (like laptops) while Intel's approach should be much better for laptops. Sapphire rapids is closer to AMD's chiplet design, but dear god do those CPUs use a lot of power.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Honestly I see little difference, the parts of the cpu are divided differently and Intel's are closer and designed to have more modularity overall, but still declaring it to be the first made using chiplets is basically not true.
I'm not bieng an AMD fanboy here, I just don't like when company boast/hyping goes too far.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Who's saying it's the first attempt at chiplets? It's not even Intel's first attempt, that would be sapphire rapids more recently, or those old awful pentium extreme dual "cores" that were almost literally two CPUs glued together.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

In the article, the bit I quoted in my top post.