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 should know that imec in itself is not a company that commercializes chip manufacturing; I've been there in the lithography department. It's a research institute that does research on the building blocks for scaling the microelectronics manufacturing. It would surprise me if they don't have research on new ways of cooling chips.
In the end it is up the IDMs and foundries to put together the building block in a commercial offering or product. It seems in the last 10 years TSMC has been better at this than anyone else.
And TSMC is already a long time partner in the big imec research programs while Intel has for the longest time thought they could do everything on their own...
And it's all getting gradually worse and worse as processes evolve, because power/current density per mm2 is gradually increasing as more funtionality clocked faster is squeezed into a smaller and smaller area, FinFET had worse SHE than planar, GAA is worse again -- and BSPD throws more fuel onto the fire since this increases both density and clock speeds, as well as having the extra thermal resistance to the heatsink and poorer heat-spreading which makes hotspots worse.
Is there any future possibility of running certain circuits without BSPD and the rest of the chip with BSPD to try to get better cooling in critical spots, or is that not possible due to yields, design rules, etc.?
For example, on 18A -- SRAM cells do not have BSPD because they would actually lose about 10% density. (I've also read claims 14A makes some changes to how BSPD is connected to the transistors that should allow more scaling with BSPD). In the 18A SRAM case, would there be some 'filler' material in place of the PowerVIAs that allows better heat conduction?
