CHIPLETS: Divide and Conquer | The Future of Processors

One die to control everything - this has been the paradigm of processor manufacturers for a long time. But everything is changing, and first AMD, and then Intel again remembered the forgotten chiplet technology. Now the rule of divide and conquer has come to the chip market. But what problems do the chiplets bring about? Why are GPUs almost always monolithic? Why will processors become huge in the future? Today we will talk about everything you wanted to know about chiplets.
#chiplets #amd #intel #processor

[@lawrencecortez2562]

This is called the real knowledge of Technology. I love your content, Sir 💚 Thank you for sharing such realistic knowledge😊💜

[@phoebusmusic]

I have Vega64 Liquid Cooled Version, I have done Mining on Vega64 for 3 years and it's still alive and kicking, very good for Editing Videos

[@blckwaterpark]

Great video!

[@WaschyNumber1]

I bet GaN will be in the future also in chips, lije they are using it in small power supply this days.

[@cyrusramsey4741]

The future of processors will be larger chips, once they can do them error free, eventually everything will be on a single chip.

[@ababdjdj801]

Merci.

[@WaschyNumber1]

I bet they are ssd storages that don't go bad with time or heat but they don't sell them because they can't make much money in the long run with them. Like many planed obsolete devices. 🤔😞 It's disgusting how company's think, Instead for the greater good only for profit like ferengis.

[@techluvin7691]

I do not like the “p” core “e” core thing by Intel. I want all my cores to be “p” cores…………but Intel can’t control the heat. Too bad for them.

[@WaltuhBlackjr]

The e cores allow for better multicore core performance over traditional designs, and should reduce power consumption under light loads with meteor lake (laptop only) and 15th gen(both laptop and desktop)

[@alschneider5420]

You may be interested in: Ultra High Density Processor Chips kzbin.info/www/bejne/jHvJlpSNep58esk 1000 cores on single chip

[@techluvin7691]

There is no core count race……..Intel lost that. “E” cores cannot be counted in the core count. Sorry

[@faultboy]

And you are who to make that rule?

[@GOGPlays]

Yet AMD has higher benchmarks, lower TDP per benchmark point and it's cheaper. What you told in video doesn't fit to reality. Anyway, I hope future of CPUs evolve around RISC V.

[@charlesbiztonelidisco5152]

What's the deal with Intel and lakes? My last Intel was a Hasswell, and a Wolfdale before. I made a promise to myself - my next Intel won't have "lake" anywere. It might never happen. Until then, AMD and it's piglets get my money.

[@andrej_sefcik]

wtf xddd

[@DJaquithFL]

First, I'm much prefer a monolithic design than the cheaper and slower designs from AMD and Intel. AMD's Chiplets design is just simply bad. Their CPU chiplets are millions of nanometers apart defeating their expensive lower nanometer lithography. At least Intel is using a different but more effective use of tiles (chiplets) CPU tile, SoC tile, and GPU tile where each tile has a logical consolidated structure and purpose.

[@marios3761]

AMD's original design is about chiplets on passive or active interposers - same as Intel FOVEROS They have implementations using passive interposers with their GPU HBM designs But cost, volume and failure rates are much better when using classic packaging, with the biggest factor being volume imo, the tradeoff is latency, which is why they use huge L3 caches So far AMD has a huge list of chiplet products, but Intel has nothing...so they are not using it, they keep postponing until the benefits become more prominent (probably in 5+ years)

[@DJaquithFL]

@@marios3761 .. AMD chiplets are just purely cheap and flawed. Their "3D" version half your cores are disabled, stuck at parked, and the separation between CPU chiplets adds a huge latency impact from the millions of nanometers of separation, It's really a bad and cheap design that completely defeats any lithography advantage AMD has or had over Intel.