← Back · anthropic-design diagram gallery← 返回 · anthropic-design 图示案例库 hardware · how a chip is assembled硬件 · 一颗芯片是怎么装出来的

From a board you can hold
to a joint you cannot see.从一块拿得动的板
到一个看不见的接点。

Three figures, and each one is really about a way of drawing. A zoom chain that walks three orders of magnitude without losing the reader. A process drawn as one part six times rather than six drawings. An exploded view that answers the question a section cannot: what can still come apart. Between them they cover most of what a hardware page ever has to show.三张图，而每一张真正讲的是一种画法。一条跨三个数量级还不把读者丢掉的放大链；一道工序流程，画成同一个零件的六次，而不是六张独立的图；一张爆炸视图，回答剖面图答不了的那个问题：什么还拆得下来。三张加起来，覆盖了硬件页面要展示的大部分东西。

3orders of magnitude in the zoom chain放大链跨过的数量级
6steps, all at the same coordinates六道工序，坐标完全相同
4rules an isometric view has to keep等距图欠下的规矩条数
what is representative here这一页哪些是示意

There is no kernel source on this page and nothing to grep. Every dimension is representative of a desktop-class part, chosen so the ratios between the four scales are honest; the process is the common shape of a build-up substrate rather than any particular line. Each figure states this on its own face, which is where a reader will actually look. What is not representative is the drawing method — that part is meant to be copied exactly.这一页没有内核代码，也没有什么可以 grep 的。每一个尺寸都是桌面级器件的示意值，选它们是为了让四个尺度之间的比例老实；那道工序是积层基板常见的形状，不是某一条产线。每张图都在自己身上写了这句话——读者真正会看的地方就是那儿。不示意的是画法本身：那部分是照抄用的。

A zoom chain is four pictures that happen to be the same object.放大链是四张碰巧画的是同一个东西的图。

The temptation is to draw the board, then draw the die, and let the reader work out that the second is inside the first. They will not. A chain needs three things at every hop: a dashed box saying which region is next, two lines carrying that box into the next panel, and a real dimension so the reader can tell a threefold step from a fiftyfold one. Leave out the dimension and the even spacing on the page quietly claims the steps are even, which here they are very much not.很容易的做法是：画一张板，再画一颗 die，然后指望读者自己想明白后者在前者里面。读者不会。每一跳都要三样东西：一个虚线框说明下一格看的是哪一块、两条线把这个框带进下一格、以及一个真实尺寸，好让读者分得清「放大三倍」和「放大五十倍」。少了尺寸，页面上均匀的排布就在不出声地宣称这几步是均匀的——而在这里，它们差得很远。

FOUR PANELS, THREE ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE · EACH ONE OPENS THE LAST a zoom chain only works when each step says where it came from and how much bigger it is. two lines between panels, and a real dimension on every one. 1 a board 100 mm across 2 one package 30 mm across 3× 3 one die 10 mm across 3× 4 the bumps 0.2 mm across 50× the package one of these is the part the next panel opens logic die memory two dies under one lid, joined below core core cache input / output the corner where it meets the world below 40 µm pitch one connection THE SAME FOUR WIDTHS, ON ONE RULE 0.1 mm 1 mm 10 mm 100 mm the board the package the die the bumps the four panels are evenly spaced on the page and nowhere near evenly spaced in reality. the rule underneath is what stops the layout from making that claim on its own. two lines between panels, never one: one line reads as “goes to”, two read as “this region, opened”. it is the same pair of lines a cross-section uses for a detail. every panel carries a real width. a zoom chain without dimensions is decoration — the reader cannot tell a 3× step from a 50× one, and here the last step is the big one. the dimensions are representative of a desktop-class part, chosen so the ratios are honest. they are not a specific product. Scale ladder · zoom chain
four panels, three orders of magnitude四格，三个数量级 Two lines between panels, never one: one line reads as “goes to”, two read as “this region, opened”. It is the same pair of lines a cross-section uses to attach a detail, which is the point — a reader who has met the convention once does not have to learn it again.格与格之间用两条线，永远不是一条：一条读起来是「通向」，两条才读成「这一块，打开」。这跟剖面图挂放大面板用的是同一对线——而这正是重点：读者认过一次这个约定，下次就不用再学。
the part that is easy to skip最容易省掉的那一部分

The rule at the bottom is not decoration底下那把尺子不是装饰

The four panels are evenly spaced on the page and nowhere near evenly spaced in reality: the first three hops are threefold, the last is fiftyfold. Without the rule underneath, the layout itself makes a claim about proportion that is simply false, and the reader has no way to catch it.四格在页面上是等距排开的，在现实里差得很远：前三跳各放大三倍，最后一跳放大五十倍。没有底下那把尺子，排版本身就在宣称一个错误的比例关系，而读者没有任何办法察觉。

A process is one part drawn six times, not six drawings.一道工序是同一个零件画六次，不是六张图。

Six independent drawings make the reader find the part again in every panel, and by the third they have stopped comparing. Lock every coordinate and the series stops being a row of pictures: the eye holds still and the change moves. Then outline only what the step added, and reading a step costs a glance instead of a comparison — which matters because comparison is the expensive operation, not looking.六张独立的图，会让读者在每一格里重新找一次这个零件，到第三格他们已经不再对比了。把每一个坐标都锁死，这一排就不再是一排图片：眼睛不动，变化在动。然后只把这一步新增的东西描出来，读一步的代价就从「对比」降成「看一眼」——这件事要紧，因为贵的是对比，不是看。

ONE PART, SIX STEPS · ONLY THE NEW FEATURE IS OUTLINED every panel is the same section at the same coordinates. what a step added is the only thing outlined in orange, so reading a step costs one glance instead of a comparison. 1 bare core copper on both faces STILL RECOVERABLE? yes, at panel cost scrap costs one sheet of laminate 2 drill a hole straight through STILL RECOVERABLE? yes, at panel cost a hole in the wrong place cannot be moved 3 plate the wall the two faces are joined STILL RECOVERABLE? yes, at panel cost a thin wall shows up much later, in the field 4 etch top copper into traces STILL RECOVERABLE? no over-etch reads as an open circuit, not as a process fault 5 build up one dielectric, one copper STILL RECOVERABLE? no every added layer multiplies the alignment risk 6 finish pads, ready for parts STILL RECOVERABLE? no a bad finish is at least caught at assembly, cheaply from here on, no way back orange outline · what this step added copper core laminate build-up dielectric six independent drawings would make the reader re-find the part six times. keeping every coordinate identical is what turns a row of pictures into a process. outlining only the new feature is the other half: without it the reader has to compare two panels to work out what a step did, and comparing is far slower than looking. the recoverability line under each panel is what a process diagram usually leaves out, and it is the thing a schedule actually turns on. this is the common shape of a build-up substrate, drawn to carry the idea. a real line has more steps than six, and its own order. Process steps · one part, six panels
one part, six panels同一个零件，六格 Reading ① to ⑥ is reading one part being built, not six parts being introduced. The line under each panel is the part a process diagram usually leaves out: whether the part can still be recovered after that step. It is also the line a schedule actually turns on, and the dashed rule marks where the answer changes from yes to no.从 ① 读到 ⑥，读的是同一个零件被造出来，不是六个零件被介绍一遍。每一格下面那行，是工序图通常会省掉的东西：这一步之后这个零件还救不救得回来。而它恰恰是排期真正取决于的那一行；中间那条虚线标出答案从「能」变成「不能」的位置。
the panels are not the same size几格画得不一样大
Then the reader is comparing two things at once — what changed and how big it is now — and will get the second one wrong. Same canvas, same origin, same scale, in every panel. A step that genuinely changes the size of the part is worth its own note rather than a silent resize.那读者就在同时比两件事——变了什么、以及现在多大——而第二件他会看错。每一格同样的画布、同样的原点、同样的比例。真的会改变零件尺寸的那一步，值得单写一句，而不是悄悄换个大小。
everything is coloured什么都上了色
Then nothing is. The colour in a step series has one job, which is to say “this is what is new”. Give the standing parts a muted fill and spend the accent on the single feature the step introduced.那就等于什么都没上色。工序图里颜色只有一个职责：说清「这是新的」。已经存在的部分用弱色，重色只花在这一步引入的那一个特征上。
the series stops at the last step这一排到最后一步就停了
The useful question is not what the last step produced, it is where recovery stopped being possible. Mark that boundary explicitly. Everyone downstream of it is working without a net, and most process diagrams never say so.真正有用的问题不是最后一步产出了什么，而是从哪一步起就救不回来了。把那条界线明确画出来。界线之后的每一个人都是在没有安全网的情况下作业，而大多数工序图从来不说这件事。

A section says what touches what. Only an exploded view says what comes apart.剖面图说清谁挨着谁。只有爆炸视图能说什么拆得开。

These are different questions and they want different drawings, which is why the two figures are not variants of each other. A section is about adjacency and thickness. An exploded view is about order and reversibility: which step came first, and which joints a repair shop can still undo. The second question is the one that decides whether a board is repairable at all, and a section cannot answer it no matter how carefully it is drawn.这是两个不同的问题，要两种不同的图，所以这两张图不是彼此的变体。剖面图讲的是挨着谁、多厚。爆炸视图讲的是顺序和可逆性：哪一步在前，哪些接合处维修店还拆得开。第二个问题才决定一块板到底能不能修，而剖面图画得再仔细也答不了。

EXPLODED VIEW · IN WHAT ORDER, AND WHAT CAN EVER COME APART AGAIN ASSEMBLED one part, from outside the thumbnail is not decoration — without it the column below is just a list of rectangles ASSEMBLY AXIS logic die CPU + GPU memory stack silicon interposer package substrate printed circuit board 1 2 3 4 5 heat spreader lid comes off first in any rework · separable thermal interface one use only — lift the lid and it is scrap two dies, already bonded bonded to the interposer, not to each other underfill cured · from here down nothing separates silicon interposer carries the wide bus between the two dies one broken trace here scraps the whole part copper bumps a joint, not a part · reflowed once package substrate fans the fine pitch out to something a board can take solder balls the only joint here a repair shop can undo printed circuit board everything above arrives as one component solid border · this really does come apart dashed border · permanent once cured or reflowed round elements are joints between two parts, not parts of their own assembly order is ① substrate first, ② interposer onto it, ③ dies onto the interposer, ④ underfill and lid, ⑤ and only then the finished package onto the board. that order is the whole reason to draw this instead of a cross-section: a section shows what touches what, and says nothing about what happened first, or what you can still get back apart. the axis is one straight line and every part is centred on it — that line is the reader’s only clue to how the pieces go back together. the gaps are equal on purpose. unequal gaps get read as real distance, and then two parts that merely sit next to each other look like they are related. Exploded view · chip package
in what order, and what still separates什么顺序，以及什么还分得开 Everything hangs on one straight axis at equal spacing, because that axis is the reader’s only clue to how the parts go back together, and unequal gaps get read as real distance. The numbered badges run in assembly order rather than top to bottom — ① substrate, ② interposer, ③ dies, ④ underfill and lid, ⑤ the whole package onto the board.所有件挂在同一根直轴上、间距相等：这根轴是读者判断「它们怎么合回去」的唯一线索，而间距不等会被读成真实距离。编号走的是装配顺序，不是从上到下——① 基板、② 中介层、③ die、④ 填胶加盖、⑤ 最后整颗上板。
the two figures together两张图合起来

Border style is doing the work a caption usually has to边框在干平常要靠图注干的活

Solid means the joint separates; dashed means that once it is cured or reflowed, it does not. That single convention answers “can this be reworked” for every part at once, without a word of prose — and it is why the figure can afford to spend its labels on what each part does instead.实线表示这个接合处拆得开，虚线表示一旦固化或回流就回不去了。这一个约定，一次性回答了每个零件的「这能返修吗」，一个字都不用写——也正因如此，这张图才腾得出标注去讲每个零件是干什么的。

A front view cannot say whether two chips sit side by side or one behind the other.正视图说不了那两颗芯片是并排，还是一前一后。

Which is fine, until the layout is part of what you are explaining. Then you need a projection — and a projection has to earn it, because the same trick that shows layout is also the one that can quietly lie about size. The four rules on the figure are the price: the real transform rather than freehand angles, every label upright, three flat tints of one hue instead of fake lighting, and a dimension line on the page. This page ships that rule as a correction: an earlier version of our own diagram guide banned three dimensions outright, which was too wide. What was worth banning was decoration — drop shadows, perspective, a gradient standing in for a light source — never projection itself.这本来没问题，直到「怎么摆」也成了你要讲的东西。这时就需要一种投影——而投影得自己挣来资格，因为让布局可见的那套手法，同时也是能悄悄在尺寸上撒谎的那套。图上那四条规矩就是价钱：用真正的变换而不是随手画的斜边、每个标注保持正立、三个面用同一 hue 的三档平涂而不是假打光、页面上必须有一条尺寸线。这一节同时是一次更正：我们自己的制图规范早先一版把三维一刀切禁掉了，那条写宽了。值得禁的一直是装饰——投影阴影、透视、拿渐变冒充光源——从来不是投影本身。

ISOMETRIC · WHEN THE ARRANGEMENT ON THE PLANE IS ALSO PART OF THE ANSWER a front view states every thickness and hides the layout. isometric states both, at the price of four rules it has to keep — they are on the strip below. FRONT VIEW · EVERY THICKNESS, NO LAYOUT package two memory chips thicknesses: exact, and readable at a glance. what it cannot say: are those two chips side by side, or is one behind the other? ISOMETRIC · BOTH, IF IT KEEPS THE RULES package memory 0 memory 1 connector 100 mm now the layout is the easy part: two chips in a row, to the right of the package. four rules, and the projection is only honest while it keeps all four 1 use the real transform sx = (x−y)×0.866, sy = (x+y)×0.5 − z. freehand angles drift, and a drifting angle reads as a shape difference. 2 keep every label upright tilted text is harder to read and its effective size drops after scaling. put it outside on a leader. 3 three flat tints, one hue top lightest, right middle, left darkest. no gradients, no drop shadows — those are fake lighting, not information. 4 always carry a dimension two faces that look equal in isometric can differ by a factor of two. without a dimension line it is a sketch. this replaces a blanket ban. the thing worth banning was never projection — it was decoration: drop shadows, perspective, fake thickness, a gradient standing in for a light source. isometric earns its place only when layout and thickness are both part of the answer. thickness alone wants a section; order alone wants a flat exploded view; this wants both at once. whatever is hidden in an isometric view is simply gone. to show something behind something else, move it apart or make the front one see-through — a reader will not fill it in. the shapes here are one board with four parts on it, sized so the proportions are plausible. the projection is exact; the object is an example. Isometric · four rules
isometric, and the four rules it owes等距，以及它欠下的四条规矩 The left half of the figure is the front view, stating every thickness and unable to answer one obvious question. The right half answers it. The strip underneath is not decoration either: two faces that look the same size in this projection can differ by a factor of two, so without a dimension line the drawing is a sketch that looks like a measurement.图的左半是正视图，把每一层的厚度都说清了，却答不了一个明摆着的问题。右半答得了。底下那条规矩带也不是装饰：在这种投影里看起来一样大的两个面，实际可能差一倍——所以没有尺寸线的时候，这张图是一份长得像测量结果的草图。
the correction this page carries这一页带着的一次更正

A rule that is too wide is a rule people route around写宽了的规矩，人们会绕着走

The blanket ban read as “no three dimensions in engineering figures”, and the sibling apple-design skill had been drawing isometric infographics the whole time. A rule contradicted by the repository it governs does not get obeyed, it gets ignored — so it was narrowed to the thing that was actually doing harm, and the permitted case was given conditions strict enough to check.那条一刀切的禁令读起来就是「工程图不许有三维」，而同一个仓里的 apple-design 一直在画等距信息图。一条被自己所管辖的仓库当场反驳的规矩，不会被遵守，只会被无视——所以把它收窄到真正有害的那一部分，再给放开的那一部分配上严到可以核对的条件。