Increasing the symbol complexity of each channel does more than just move the bottleneck around, because it allows fewer chip to chip interconnects to carry more data.
I don't work in this regime, but as a layman I'm not convinced using full QAM for on-board chip to chip interconnects makes sense. One major advantage you natively have over the RF case is you can be easily coherent (shared clock). Throwing this away to do carrier recovery introduces a lot of complexity and potentially reduces the available bandwidth. Assuming you transmit without a carrier, can you have "baseband" QAM without a separate I and a Q signal? If you transmit an I and Q signal separately, does that not just become the same thing as two PAM-32 signals?
Did you mean higher?
- one needs 2 signals instead of one (2x total bandwidth) - requires each channel bandwidth to extend to to DC, which had many other challenges
If one modulates the signal to shift it away from DC, the “negative/mirror” frequencies also shift, which means now bandwidth has doubled.
A QAM signal still has double the bandwidth of an equivalent PAM one but pays for it by encoding two PAM signals.
Of course, Discrete Multitone Modulation puts QAM to shame for non-flat channels as it can adapt near-perfectly to such. Not likely to happen for high speed interconnects in our lifetime. I suspect photonics will happen first.
This more complex encoding scheme is just the next level in that process, indeed moving it closer to techniques used in RF engineering.