New UCIe Chiplet Standard Supported by Intel, AMD, and Arm

UCIe Standard

(Image credit: UCIe)

A broad range of industry stalwarts, like Intel, AMD, Arm, TSMC, and Samsung, among others, introduced the new Universal Chiplet Interconnect Express (UCIe) consortium today with the goal of standardizing die-to-die interconnects between chiplets with an open-source design, thus reducing costs and fostering a broader ecosystem of validated chiplets. In the end, the UCIe standard aims to be just as ubiquitous and universal as other connectivity standards, like USB, PCIe, and NVMe, while providing exceptional power and performance metrics for chiplet connections. Notably, all three of the leading foundries will adopt this tech, along with the x86 and Arm ecosystems (RISC-V and Nvidia are curiously absent).

The benefits of chiplets, like reduced costs and using different types of process nodes in a single package, are well known and essential as chipmakers grapple with increasingly difficult scaling issues in the waning light of Moore's Law. The long-term vision for chiplets has always been for chipmakers to be able to develop their own types of specialized chiplets and then pair them with off-the-shelf chiplet designs from other companies, thus allowing them to build their own chips in Lego-like fashion to improve time to market while reducing costs.

However, the lack of a standardized connection between chiplets has led to a wide range of customized proprietary interconnects, so modern chiplets certainly aren't plug-and-play with other designs. Additionally, the industry has long suffered from a glaring lack of standardized validation and verification for chiplet designs and interconnects, making an off-the-shelf chiplet ecosystem impossible.

This new UCIe interconnect will enable a standardized connection between chiplets, like cores, memory, and I/O, that looks and operates similar to on-die connections while also enabling off-die connections to other componentry — the designs can even enable low enough latency and high enough bandwidth for rack-scale designs – and relies on existing protocols, like PCIe and CXL.

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.

  • nopslide
    this stuff sounds interesting but way over my head. what exactly is a chiplet, how do they impact stuff for consumer or server level hardware?

    my understanding is that this is part of a move from general purpose CPUs to specialized chips for lots of little things - like say matrix multiplies for AI or video decoders or crypto miners. this common standard would let different players specialize in different sorts of chiplets and bundle it all into one chip that say a consumer building their own PC or a mobile phone manufacturer could buy. is that sort of in the right ballpark?
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    nopslide said:
    my understanding is that this is part of a move from general purpose CPUs to specialized chips for lots of little things
    Chiplet/tile designs have three key benefits:
    by breaking down large chip design into multiple smaller parts, each part can be tested separately to reduce the amount of wafer space lost on fill factor (you can fill a wafer closer to the edge with smaller dies) and the amount of space lost on dies with fatal defects on them
    you can mix-and-match processes to use the best process available for things that generally cannot be done on one single chip without massive compromises, ex.: DRAM requires a low-leakage process that produces transistors too slow for high-speed logic, chiplets lets you bring the two processes together in one design and
    you can create a whole product range out of semi-standard legos, which could possibly include more semi-custom options like what you mentioned.
    The downside is that chip-to-chip interconnects do add chip manufacturing complexity, latency and consume more die area than monolithic, especially when you add standardized protocol layers in-between. So as far as CPU designs are concerned, I doubt they will be breaking those down smaller than compute clusters sharing their local L3 cache like AMD has been doing with Zen 2/3.
    Reply
  • nopslide
    InvalidError said:
    Chiplet/tile designs have three key benefits:
    by breaking down large chip design into multiple smaller parts, each part can be tested separately to reduce the amount of wafer space lost on fill factor (you can fill a wafer closer to the edge with smaller dies) and the amount of space lost on dies with fatal defects on them
    you can mix-and-match processes to use the best process available for things that generally cannot be done on one single chip without massive compromises, ex.: DRAM requires a low-leakage process that produces transistors too slow for high-speed logic, chiplets lets you bring the two processes together in one design and
    you can create a whole product range out of semi-standard legos, which could possibly include more semi-custom options like what you mentioned.The downside is that chip-to-chip interconnects do add chip manufacturing complexity, latency and consume more die area than monolithic, especially when you add standardized protocol layers in-between. So as far as CPU designs are concerned, I doubt they will be breaking those down smaller than compute clusters sharing their local L3 cache like AMD has been doing with Zen 2/3.

    Oh okay, so it sounds like the purpose of these designs is about better internal manufacturing efficiencies and not necessarily something that translates directly into a consumer visible change beyond price then. Thanks i appreciate the answer.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    nopslide said:
    Oh okay, so it sounds like the purpose of these designs is about better internal manufacturing efficiencies and not necessarily something that translates directly into a consumer visible change beyond price then. Thanks i appreciate the answer.
    And you could add:
    4) (as a corollary to #1) with defects limited to smaller pieces of silicon eliminating the high risk of massive monolithic designs especially on cutting-edge processes, it also enables the fabrication of multi-die monstrosities like Ponte Vecchio (40+ active tiles) and whatever even more ambitious projects are likely to follow.
    Reply