Intel Details 3D Chip Packaging Tech for Meteor Lake, Arrow Lake and Lunar Lake

Intel revealed more new details about the 3D Foveros chip design it will use for its Meteor Lake, Arrow Lake, and Lunar Lake chips today as a teaser to the company's presentation at Hot Chips 34, a semiconductor industry conference that sees the titans of tech sharing the architectural details of their new processors. Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger will keynote the event, and the company also has four technical presentations, including the consumer 'Lake' processors we'll discuss here and Ponte Vecchio GPUs, FPGAs, and the Xeon D processors. 

First and foremost, there have been recent rumors that Intel's Meteor Lake will be late to market due to Intel switching from the TSMC 3nm node to the 5nm node for its GPU tile/chiplet. While Intel still isn't sharing information about which specific node it will use for the GPU, company representatives say the planned node for the GPU tile has not changed, and the processor is on track for an on-time release in 2023. Notably, Intel will only manufacture one of the four tiles used to construct its Meteor Lake chips — TSMC will produce the other three. Industry sources indicate the GPU tile is TSMC N5 (5nm).

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • MarioAndLuigiPlumbing
    First and foremost, there have been recent rumors that Intel's Meteor Lake will be late to market due to Intel switching from the TSMC 3nm node to the 5nm node for its GPU tile/chiplet.

    Let's be clear. This chip is 4D, not 3D, as evident by Intel's traveling back in time for their technology.
    Reply
  • jasonf2
    So is the magic here that the 3d Foveros acts as a substrate that acts as the fabric interconnect bus and just makes it simpler to arrange chiplets (tiles) in a close package density or are the chiplets themselves stacking? With heat being the biggest limiter won't stacking just amplify thermal issues?
    Reply
  • spongiemaster
    Intel needs to quit releasing details and start releasing products on time.
    Reply
  • Giroro
    I think the most telling detail in all of this is the slide that is targeting "2024+" for Performance per watt Leadership. That is the only metric that matters for server and mobile - which is where the money is at.
    Intel is basically saying they don't expect to have a competitive product on the market for at least 3 years.

    Maybe they'll be able to crank out some 250W+ monstrosity that will get the best gaming performance... but high performance gaming PCs aren't really that big of a market, especially since everybody just upgraded their home PC within the last year or two.
    Reply
  • Johnpombrio
    As Jason says above, heat is always an issue with chip stacking. I believe the trick is to stack components that do not generate very much heat. Keep the performance cores cool without stacking and stack things like I/O and perhaps memory.
    Reply
  • rluker5
    jasonf2 said:
    So is the magic here that the 3d Foveros acts as a substrate that acts as the fabric interconnect bus and just makes it simpler to arrange chiplets (tiles) in a close package density or are the chiplets themselves stacking? With heat being the biggest limiter won't stacking just amplify thermal issues?
    Looks like the first. Not all that 3d, just grouped on an interposer like vega and hbm. Probably won't be any harder to cool.
    Hopefully they won't have too much for current limitations. Not that I want to dump 350w into my cpu, I just like to have the option available.
    I just thought of my vega comparison. 350w should be fine.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    Giroro said:
    That is the only metric that matters for server and mobile - which is where the money is at.
    That's not even close to being the only metric for servers, having finite space heat and just physical space, how many cores you can fit into a case or how many CPUs you can fit into a single mobo, is just as important.
    Then a lot of software charges per cores used so the fewer cores can do the same amount of work is going to be king there.
    Then there is hardware support.
    Also software support.
    And also just availability in large enough numbers that a server would need.

    If AMD only wins in perf/watt that is a very small percentage of server customers that want only that and nothing else.
    Reply
  • dalek1234
    spongiemaster said:
    Intel needs to quit releasing details and start releasing products on time.

    So true and so sad. Intel talks a big game, but hardly ever walks-the-walk....not for a long time now anyway.
    Reply
  • escksu
    jasonf2 said:
    So is the magic here that the 3d Foveros acts as a substrate that acts as the fabric interconnect bus and just makes it simpler to arrange chiplets (tiles) in a close package density or are the chiplets themselves stacking? With heat being the biggest limiter won't stacking just amplify thermal issues?

    No, there won't be any heat issue. There is no stacking here at all. It's still all in 2D.

    AMD did almost the same thing back in 2015 with Fiji and hbm. The only difference is that Fiji itself is a single die (hbm not part of the GPU) while Intel has 4 separate dies.

    Using silicon interposer is obviously a lot more expensive compared to organic one (using the substrate itself). But there are benefits like ability to place the tiles much closer and reduce latency. Having multiple dies also means you need to flatten the surface since there will be minute height variations for each die. More work needed to be done.

    Having said that I like this method of puting different dies together. It allows you to use different process and best of all you can go beyond the recticle limit.
    Reply
  • shady28
    TerryLaze said:
    That's not even close to being the only metric for servers, having finite space heat and just physical space, how many cores you can fit into a case or how many CPUs you can fit into a single mobo, is just as important.
    Then a lot of software charges per cores used so the fewer cores can do the same amount of work is going to be king there.
    Then there is hardware support.
    Also software support.
    And also just availability in large enough numbers that a server would need.

    If AMD only wins in perf/watt that is a very small percentage of server customers that want only that and nothing else.

    That's 100% correct.

    To put this in perspective, I'm looking at a bill I pulled up from 2020 on a purchase of 48 core licenses for SQL Server. They charge per core and for outright purchase (not subscription) it's like $160,000 with corporate discount. It looks like it costs about 30% more right now.

    In that kind of model, the per-core performance is paramount. If I can get 30% more transactions with core X than with core Y then I need 30% fewer licenses, and that will translate directly into lowering my licensing cost by 30% - which is going to be upwards of $60,000 in the 48 core example above.

    And this is just for SQL Server, the OS also charges based on cores. The retail pricing according to Microsoft for Data Center version of of the OS is $6,155 per core.

    And Oracle.. jeez. $47,000 per core * a core factor. For Intel/AMD that is $47,000 * .5 = $23,500 per core.

    Whoever has the fastest core here wins.
    Reply