The chiplet design is interesting, and I suspect it could greatly increase yields by utilizing lots of tiny chips like that. There should be a greater percentage of "perfect" chips per wafer, and if there's a defective part of the chip, it seems more likely that it will be located within individual cores that can be disabled for use in "cut-down" processors, rather than in a part of the chip that is shared between cores and needs to function. That could be good for a new process that might initially be prone to an increase in imperfections per wafer.
Meanwhile, the central IO interconnect is built on 14nm, allowing them to better utilize limited 7nm production resources for the cores themselves, where it likely makes more of a difference.
none12345 :
Now the real question, is the next desktop chip doing a io+computer chiplet? You could use the same compute chiplet, smaller i/o chiplet, and an optional gpu chiplet for the apus.
3 chiplets would cover everything from desktop to mobile to hedt to server. Also gives them 16 cores in the mainstream desktop if they want.
If I had to guess, the desktop chips would probably be a single piece of silicon. A multi-chip design would likely be more expensive to manufacture, and that could be more of an issue for lower-cost processors. And they're obviously not going to need a large interconnect chip like that, as there should be significantly less IO, as well as less area dedicated to connecting cores to one another.
In the consumer desktop space, having even 8 cores with 16 threads is currently kind of overkill for common applications, and they already have the Threadripper platform to provide greater core counts for those who have need of them. Maybe they could offer more cores to stand out from Intel, but past a certain point, the availability of more cores becomes of questionable value for most of the those who will be using the chips. There's also the likelihood that separating the IO like that will impact performance to some degree, and for less heavily-threaded applications that consumers are likely to run, that can be of more importance than access to core counts that most won't even care about. If they can offer similar or better performance in most applications compared to Intel's leading chips at better prices, that could be enough to stand out.