• SharkAttak@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    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?

    • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      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.

      • SharkAttak@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        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.

        • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          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.