Intel's Haswell Moves Voltage Regulator On-Die

MojoKid writes "For the past decade, AMD and Intel have been racing each other to incorporate more components into the CPU die. Memory controllers, integrated GPUs, northbridges, and southbridges have all moved closer to a single package, known as SoCs (system-on-a-chip). Now, with Haswell, Intel is set to integrate another important piece of circuitry. When it launches next month, Haswell will be the first x86 CPU to include an on-die voltage regulator module, or VRM. Haswell incorporates a refined VRM on-die that allows for multiple voltage rails and controls voltage for the CPU, on-die GPU, system I/O, integrated memory controller, as well as several other functions. Intel refers to this as a FIVR (Fully Integrated Voltage Regulator), and it apparently eliminates voltage ripple and is significantly more efficient than your traditional motherboard VRM. Added bonus? It's 1/50th the size." Update: 05/14 01:22 GMT by U L : Reader AdamHaun comments: "They already have a test chip that they used to power a ~90W Xeon E7330 for four hours while it ran Linpack. ... Voltage ripple is less than 2mV. Peak efficiency per cell looks like ~76% at 8A. They claim hitting 82% would be easy..." and links to a presentation on the integrated VRM (PDF).

Comments

sinking heat?

[p51d007]

with the on die regulator, won't that area of the chip be a tad warmer than the rest of the chip, or will the heat be a moot point?

Heat

[girlintraining]

Intel refers to this as a FIVR (Fully Integrated Voltage Regulator), and it apparently eliminates voltage ripple and is significantly more efficient than your traditional motherboard VRM. Added bonus? It's 1/50th the size."

I have yet to come across a voltage regulator that doesn't run hot. Typically, it's one of the hottest components in an electrical circuit. And we're integrated this into a slab of silicon already well-known for getting so hot it can catch fire?

Can someone please tell me why this is a good idea, because all of my experience in electrical engineering says that when things heat up, they become more unstable and prone to failure, and the one thing you do not want going critical is your voltage regulator. If that goes, the whole computer catches fire.

Re:Heat

[Anonymous Coward]

Most likely, because it's integrated into the CPU itself, the voltage regulator can be made more efficiently and thus save power and heat etc. Discrete parts have their limitations, and doing it on-die might just mitigate that.

Re:Heat

[Virtucon]

Well even at 10W I'm wondering how they'll address the heat.
With the density of circuits in the adjacent silicon I would wonder how they're providing enough isolation to prevent it from becoming a very small brick.

Re:Heat

[petermgreen]

You can reduce the inductor and capacitor sizes a lot by increasing the switching frequency. Of course doing so will likely increase your switching losses but it may still be worth it if it lets you put the regulator closer to the load. Especially given the ever lower voltages that modern chips are running at.

Re:Heat

[ebno-10db]

You can reduce the inductor and capacitor sizes a lot by increasing the switching frequency.

But you can do that w/ an external regulator too. Apparently the secret is on-chip inductors. Now that's impressive. I'm surprised that some of the "analog" companies making switchers didn't come up with that first. I know Intel has good fab tech, but this seems more like the sort of funky thing analog guys would come up with first.

http://www.psma.com/sites/default/files/uploads/tech-forums-nanotechnology/resources/400a-fully-integrated-silicon-voltage-regulator.pdf

Re:Heat

[viperidaenz]

If you core requires 1V and 90 watts you need to transfer 90A through your PCB traces, up in to the chip, across the bond wires (if there are any) and on to the die.
If your die has a regulator on board and accepts 12V instead, and is 80% efficient you only need to transfer 9.4A. You've just lowered your resistive losses by about 100x. If the connection between the external VRM and die is 0.001ohms, at 90A you waste 8.1W. at 9.4A you waste 0.088W.

From a former power supply designer - Neat!

[jimmyswimmy]

That's some amazing work. The current state of the art in CPU power supply designs hasn't changed in 15 years. 12V in, low voltage out, and the output voltage has been moving lower and lower for years, with designs below 1 V. If you figure you had a few percent of tolerance in the early years when everything ran off 2.5V and that few percent remains constant, then at 1 V you have almost no room for slop. So there are a lot of output capacitors there, both those electrolytics (you always hear people complaining about them but they're CHEAP) and ceramics. The ceramics cost a fortune and you need a lot of them to get your tolerance down - the first half microsecond of a load step is entirely the ceramic capacitor's response, not the controller or anything else. Moving part of the VR onboard allows them to reduce the parasitics significantly and they can probably tolerate a little higher tolerance as a result, but moreover they can get rid of some of those ceramics in the whole system - ultimately many of those on the motherboard.

So this is taking a lot of cake out of company mouths. Analog, Intersil, IRF, ON, who else - manufacturers of controllers, MOSFETs. Inductors, ceramic and 'lytic vendors are all going to lose out a bit here. Potentially Intel can reduce the platform cost vs. AMD as well, which is interesting. There is still an onboard VR but it will be 12 - 2.4 V, wherever they think the sweet spot is for efficiency and size. And the first real change in this industry for a long time. Cool work.