Why hasn't Intel moved the PCH to the leading edge?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,208
4,940
136
NTMBK,

Thanks for the response. That's what I was thinking, but I also have the following potential counterargument.

If Intel integrated the PCH onto the die of the main chip, then obviously the new chip gets a bit bigger, and you see power consumption improvements. Further, Intel can charge CPU + PCH prices for the new SoC.

In that case, Intel gets a shorter usable life from its old fabs, but since you would presumably need more leading-edge wafers per product generation, then your fabs -- though they have a shorter effective life -- get depreciated faster.

But more leading-edge wafers means more leading-edge fabs to feed that demand! ;)

Honestly? We'd probably have to dig into Intel spreadsheets to find out the real cost/benefits. There's too many variables that aren't publicly available.
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,208
4,940
136
One other thing to consider- PCH sizes are probably dictated by I/O bump sizes. You need a die big enough to have enough connections to and from it. This is part of the reason why both Kabini and Silvermont have such limited connectivity. Not much point moving the PCH to a small process if you can't actually fit the necessary I/O bumps onto a small die.
 

Insert_Nickname

Diamond Member
May 6, 2012
4,971
1,691
136
Not sure how much any of this actually applies to PCH. What I do know is that Lynx Point has several SKUs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_Controller_Hub#LYNX-POINT), meaning that if they integrate it onto the CPUs they either give up market segmentation or they explode the already high number of CPU SKU permutations.

Doesn't Intel use the same physical die for every PCH SKU? With differences being determined by BIOS(UEFI)/firmware?

From a cost perspective it doesn't make much sense to use separate dies for every PCH permutation.
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
In that case, Intel gets a shorter usable life from its old fabs, but since you would presumably need more leading-edge wafers per product generation, then your fabs -- though they have a shorter effective life -- get depreciated faster.

Since the amount of bleeding edge capacity is finite, especially at a ramp up, the PCH must become more profitable than a bunch of processor lines in order to Intel to move them to the bleeding edge first than, say, desktop processors. Do you think that's the case?
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,785
136

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106

Your link says Y and U got it on, S and H dont.

Its also quite obvious fromt his. MCP=On package.
Intel-Skylake-Platform-Details1.jpg