Array
(
[content] =>
[params] => Array
(
[0] => /forum/threads/any-updates-on-glofo-12fdx-has-anyone-made-anything-mainstream-on-it.21541/
)
[addOns] => Array
(
[DL6/MLTP] => 13
[Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
[SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
[SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
[SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
[SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
[ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
[ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
[XF] => 2021770
[XFI] => 1050270
)
[wordpress] => /var/www/html
)
Guests have limited access.
Join our community today!
Join our community today!
You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Any updates on GloFo 12FDX? Has anyone made anything mainstream on it?
- Thread starter Paul2
- Start date
12FDX has been coming "real soon now" for many years, but -- like many others, I suspect -- I never saw the point of it...
22FDX is a great niche process for some applications like high-speed low-power mixed-signal/analog, having very fast low-capacitance low-power NMOS and PMOS transistors with tuneable back-bias, higher voltage devices, and dense enough (and low-power) logic for most such applications -- you can get a lot of logic in, though obviously not as much as the bleeding-edge processes. It's also reasonably low cost because it only has the minimum number of double-patterned metal layers. If you want really big low-power digital with minimum area, it's the wrong process, you want FinFET - or nanosheet, if your pockets are deep enough... ;-)
AFAIK 12FDX doesn't improve the transistors (which are the reason customers choose FDX) much, it adds a more costly metal stack which still gets nowhere near the density of smaller-geometry processes, and ends up costing more per gate with much bigger die size because of this, and higher die cost compared to much bigger volume processes. So it's neither fish nor fowl -- if you want the FDX advantages then 22FDX does the job, if you want big digital there are much better processes.
22FDX is a great niche process for some applications like high-speed low-power mixed-signal/analog, having very fast low-capacitance low-power NMOS and PMOS transistors with tuneable back-bias, higher voltage devices, and dense enough (and low-power) logic for most such applications -- you can get a lot of logic in, though obviously not as much as the bleeding-edge processes. It's also reasonably low cost because it only has the minimum number of double-patterned metal layers. If you want really big low-power digital with minimum area, it's the wrong process, you want FinFET - or nanosheet, if your pockets are deep enough... ;-)
AFAIK 12FDX doesn't improve the transistors (which are the reason customers choose FDX) much, it adds a more costly metal stack which still gets nowhere near the density of smaller-geometry processes, and ends up costing more per gate with much bigger die size because of this, and higher die cost compared to much bigger volume processes. So it's neither fish nor fowl -- if you want the FDX advantages then 22FDX does the job, if you want big digital there are much better processes.