Analog Bits and TSMC!

Analog Bits and TSMC!
by Daniel Nenni on 01-10-2017 at 12:00 pm

TSMC Wafer

As a long time semiconductor IP professional I can tell you for a fact that it is one of the most challenging segments of semiconductor design. Given the growing criticality of semiconductor IP, the challenges of being a leading edge IP provider are increasing and may be at a breaking point. The question now is: What does it take to be a successful leading edge semiconductor IP company?

First and foremost, you must have a high tolerance for pain! Not only do you compete with other IP companies, big and small, you compete with internally developed IP which is like selling shoes to a shoemaker.

Second, you have to have a VERY close “silicon proven” relationship with the foundries. All was well in the Semiconductor IP business until FinFETs came about. Not only are FinFETs a significant design challenge requiring early access to leading edge processes, the foundries have locked down that early access. Do you remember back at 28nm and above when the foundry processes were all “T like”? IP companies developed products at TSMC and ported them to UMC, SMIC, and Chartered making it much easier to scale your IP development, right? That portability is now gone with FinFETs and as we move down the process path to 7nm and 5nm the design challenges and security restrictions are growing rapidly, absolutely.

Third, your business model had better be mean and lean with the ability to pivot at a moment’s notice. The good news is that silicon proven commercial IP is much more attractive now that design cycles are tight, the tightest I have ever seen actually. I am also seeing more systems companies making their own chips using commercial IP. Then there is the semiconductor company consolidation which is a double edged sword. It is good news if your customer takes over your competitor’s customer and not so good news if it is the other way around. So you had better be nimble, you had better be quick, and that brings us to the poster child for a successful leading edge IP company: Analog Bits.

Founded in 1995 here in Silicon Valley, Analog Bits has zero external funding and has enabled billions of chips from .25 micron down to FinFETs via more than 350 customers worldwide and more than 70 unique processes. They are experts (1st time right) at low power mixed signal IP and a pioneer in Multi-Protocal SERDES. Analog Bits is also an ardent TSMC supporter (which is where I know them from) and a member of the exclusive “TSMC Partner of the Year” club.

In fact, Analog Bits presented twice at the previous TSMC OIP Ecosystem Forum. The first presentation was Silicon-proven, low power IP for TSMC 16nm FFC for Automotive to Datacenter SOC’s and the second was Design and Verification of 16nm FFC Low Power SERDES for Datacenter and Automotive Applications. The theme of course is leading edge SoC design for two of the hottest semiconductor vertical markets. If you click on the links it will take you to the abstracts on the TSMC site. To see the full presentation you will need to have a TSMC account or you can contact Analog Bits and talk to them directly.

You can hear a bit more about Analog Bits in the recruitment video below. They are hiring big time:


The 2017 Leading Edge Semiconductor Landscape

The 2017 Leading Edge Semiconductor Landscape
by Scotten Jones on 12-27-2016 at 6:00 pm

In early September of 2016 I published an article “The 2016 Leading Edge Semiconductor Landscape” that proved to be very popular with many views, comments and reposting’s. Since I wrote that article a lot of new data has become available enabling some projections to be replaced by actual values and new analysis and projections to be made.
Continue reading “The 2017 Leading Edge Semiconductor Landscape”


Advanced Semiconductor Process Cost Trends

Advanced Semiconductor Process Cost Trends
by Scotten Jones on 12-13-2016 at 4:00 pm

The cost trend for leading edge semiconductor technologies is a subject of some controversy in the industry. Cost is a complex issue with many interacting factors and much of the information out in the industry is in my opinion misleading or incorrect. In this article, I will discuss each of the factors as well as present a view of the status and a future forecast.
Continue reading “Advanced Semiconductor Process Cost Trends”


Design for Fanout Packaging

Design for Fanout Packaging
by Bernard Murphy on 12-12-2016 at 12:00 pm

In constant pursuit of improved performance, power and cost, chip and system designers always want to integrate more functions together because this minimizes inter-device loads (affecting performance and power) and bill of materials on the board (affecting cost). However it generally isn’t possible to integrate everything onto one piece of silicon; digital, RF, memory and sensor functions typically must be built using incompatible processes and often depend on isolation from other functions. So product teams have turned to advanced packaging options in which multiple die, potentially built in different processes, can be integrated within a package. This still reduces inter-die loads significantly and still results in a single device at the board level.

Among the best-known approaches, 2.5D and 3D packaging are particularly popular for memory, FPGA and CPU/GPU applications. But another related packaging methodology, Fanout Wafer-Level Packaging (burdened with the unappealing abbreviation FOWLP) is already seeing wider adoption in automotive, RF and mobile applications (as seen in recent iPhones).

Avoiding the gory details, the essence of FOWLP is to embed die side-by-side in an epoxy mold compound with IO pads exposed; routing distribution layers (RDLs) are then grown over the exposed faces to connect die together, and to connect to locations for external IOs. TSVs and traditional interposers are not required, which reduces cost and allows for thinner packages.

This might be no more than an interesting alternative for packaging were it not for the fact that TSMC (among other foundries) now offers an integrated FOWLP solution they call Integrated Fanout or InFO (a much more appealing abbreviation). You can fab die with TSMC and you can integrate them into an InFO package also with TSMC. This contrasts with FOWLP solutions offered by out-sourced assembly and test (OSAT) companies who obviously do not fab die themselves.

OSATs provide features that integrated foundry solutions do not (such as integrating die from multiple foundries) but with multiple suppliers in a package customers are ultimately responsible for managing yield issues. However, with an integrated solution like InFO and sufficient market muscle to force partner die providers to fab at TSMC, managing yield should be more tractable. As a friend once told me, it’s good to have just one throat to choke when you run into problems.

Which brings me to the EDA tooling you need to design this kind of integration. FOWLP packaging methods blur the line between die design (using Linux-based design tools with all kinds of disciplined design and verification automation) and package design (usually PC-based and driven more by expert judgment than automation). More information must be communicated between package designers and chip designers and it is increasingly common to expect some level of co-design between these two, to optimize die pinouts and power distribution networks for example. Analysis at the package level must also be much more comprehensive, considering electromigration, thermal, stress and warping effects, requiring more comprehensive analysis than commonly expected in package design.


Mentor offers a very complete flow covering both design and signoff verification of FOWLP systems, starting with the Xpedition Package integrator. In conventional PCB applications Xpedition helps IC, packaging, and printed circuit board (PCB) co-design teams visualize and optimize complex single or multi-chip packages integrating silicon on board platforms. In FOWLP flows, the platform offers a single layout tool supporting fan-out as well as PCB, MCM, silicon photonics, RF and BGA designs. Users can drive rule-based I/O-level optimization and perform pin and ball-out studies from their respective domains, visualizing the impact across the complete system.

Electrical modeling and analysis of the package (die, package, substrate, board, etc.) is provided by Mentor’s HyperLynx simulation software. This analyzes design rule checks, power and signal integrity, EM, EMI and thermal; it also provides package model creation for use at the PCB level.

All of that is very necessary to design the integration but how do you get to a concept of signoff in these flows? Yields can’t be guaranteed or improved unless there is some kind of contract between customer and packager. In the IC world, this is accomplished through process design kits (PDKs). The customer signs off a design based on a PDK and the foundry guarantees their performance based on that signoff.

Mentor has introduced an approach for sign-off quality physical verification of packages which they call an assembly design kit (ADK). The purpose is similar to a PDK—to enable a contract for manufacturability and performance. What makes that happen, in both PDKs and ADKs, are standardized rules that ensure consistency across a process, qualified tool flows, interface formats, input/output formats—in short, everything a designer needs for successful design, tested and qualified and proven to produce working products. In one sense the ADK concept is not new. OSATs are already providing rules and tools for their own solutions. But the Mentor approach offers the hope of standardized requirements definitions, usable by OSAT and foundry providers and by EDA tool providers, just like we now expect for PDKs.


The platform to implement those signoff checks is the Calibre 3DSTACK functionality in Calibre nmPlatform. This is not just the IC Calibre you know and love, since it has to deal with a much more complex verification space. It requires a better understanding of the z-dimension than required for IC design. It has to deal with non-Manhattan shapes common in package design. And it must understand a wider range of formats such as ODB++ and comma-separated values for package netlists. Given these capabilities, package DRCs, package LVS, and interface checks can all be combined into a single Calibre 3DSTACK deck and checked in one run. The only individual runs required are for die-specific DRCs and LVS.

Calibre 3DSTACK is designed to support FOWLP designs for OSATs and foundries through ability to express die-by-die and package layer characteristics and rules. This is a big topic for which there’s a lot more detail than I have room (or expertise) to cover here. I recommend you read the more detailed white paper from Mentor to get a better understanding of capabilities and requirements.

More articles by Bernard…


5 of the Top 20 Semiconductor Suppliers to Show Double-Digit Gains in 2016!

5 of the Top 20 Semiconductor Suppliers to Show Double-Digit Gains in 2016!
by Daniel Nenni on 11-15-2016 at 4:00 pm

Semiconductor Market Researcher IC Insights released an update to the 2016 semiconductor sales forecast which is interesting on many different levels. It really has been an exciting year for the semiconductor industry, absolutely. Two of the stars of this year’s report happen to be two of my favorite fabless companies, Nvidia and MediaTek, who will post record gains of 35% and 29% respectively.

The fastest growing top-20 company this year is forecast to be U.S.-based Nvidia, which is expected to post a huge 35% year-over-year increase in sales. The company is riding a surge of demand for its graphics processor devices (GPUs) and Tegra processors with its year-over-year sales in its latest quarter (ended October 30, 2016) up 63% for gaming, 193% for data center, and 61% for automotive applications.

The second-fastest growing top-20 company in 2016 is expected to be Taiwan-based MediaTek, which is forecast to post a strong 29% increase in sales this year. Although worldwide smartphone unit volume sales are expected to increase by only 4% this year, MediaTek’s application processor shipments to the fast-growing China-based smartphone suppliers (e.g., Oppo and Vivo), are forecast to help drive its stellar 2016 increase.

Nvidia and MediaTek serve different markets but they have two important things in common: VERY strong leadership and a VERY strong foundry partnership with TSMC.

Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang and MediaTek CEO Tsai Ming-Kai could not be two more different CEOs. Jen-Hsun is loud and arrogant while Tsai is quiet and humble. The traits they do share are vision and a laser like focus on market opportunity. They both also have Dr. Morris Chang Exemplary Leadership Awards from the Global Semiconductor Association in recognition of “exceptional contributions to driving the development, innovation, growth and long-term opportunities of the fabless semiconductor industry”.

On the foundry side, Nvidia and TSMC are collaborating on a cost effective HPC specific 7nm process to be introduced in Q4 2017. MediaTek is also collaborating with TSMC on an SoC version of 7nm but more importantly will be TSMC’s top customer for the 16FFC fab in China due to go online in 2018. Right now the China SoC market is 28nm centric but that will change in 2018. Mediatek will also use TSMC InFO technology for added cost reduction and performance improvement distancing themselves from the other 14nm SoC offerings for China and other emerging SoC markets (India).

The interesting thing to note about Nvidia’s Q3 2016 results is the surge in data center and automotive business (which is what I mean by vision and market opportunity focus). Given their success in two of the hottest semiconductor market segments, one might predict that Nvidia is a prime acquisition target. In fact, I had wrongly predicted that QCOM would buy Nvidia instead of NXP and I still think they should have but I digress…

My feeling today is that Nvidia should be the one doing the acquiring so I’m working on a shopping list for Jen-Hsun. Please post your suggestions in the comment section and I will make sure he gets them.

You can get a PDF version of the IC Insights research bulletin HERE.


Foundry CAPEX Jumped from 17% to 37% of LAM Business

Foundry CAPEX Jumped from 17% to 37% of LAM Business
by Robert Maire on 10-23-2016 at 4:00 pm

Lam- in line qtr but guides above street over near term. As with ASML, foundry is driver with subdued memory, The Math implies biz peaking-Looking for DRAM in 2017.

Lam reported another great, record quarter, more or less in line with expectations with revenues coming in at $1.632B and shipments of $1.708B, generating EPS of $1.81. As we had previously predicted, forward guidance was off the charts with the December quarter revenues expected to be $1.84B +- $75M and shipments to be $1.85B +- $75M, generating $2.18 in EPS.

The company paid back some debt that was earmarked for the KLAM deal and will likely restart and potentially increase buybacks and/or increase dividends with some leftover cash. Foundry jumped from 17% to 37% of business, with memory down and logic flattish. The subdued memory likely limited upside in the just reported quarter and Samsung was likely slower than previous memory spend.

TSMC terrific….
Foundry spending was the big driver with 10NM/7NM being at the core and we are sure TSMC, the biggest foundry, is prepping to produce parts for Apple’s next Iphone next year. While foundry spending was up 25%, Lam said its foundry business was up 40% suggesting significant share gains and SAM expansion.

2017 will depend a lot on DRAM….

With 3D NAND and foundry continuing their strong pace the missing link is DRAM which saw a drop of 40% in spending this year. The most significant variable in spending outlook in 2017 is wether or not DRAM comes back. So far the signs look promising as pricing is good but we still wouldn’t count our chickens before they are hatched.

A new beginning (in New York)

Lam pushed back its analyst meeting , which was originally intended to be a KLAM celebration, back by two days and East by 2500 miles to New York. Much as Applied did after the failed TEL merger, we heard the new business model and targets set forth. We expect both a reset on the Lam business model as well as renewed returns to shareholders either through buy backs or dividends.

One issue we have is that its a bit of short time period to come up with a new plan and business model in 5 or 6 short short weeks after the end of the KLAM deal when planning for the KLAM deal went on for almost a year. We expect the real recovery to be more like 6 months or more to get fully back on track, much as we saw at Applied. But at least we will get an idea of the new strategic direction.

Running the numbers…
When we do the math on the guidance for the December quarter versus Lam’s expectations for the overall capex market next year it seems clear that the rate of growth will either slow or reverse. Much of the math is dependent on the state of DRAM and its recovery. Lam’s SAM has expanded greatly but we would likely to hear where the new SAM is coming from now without KLA, ….hopefully at the analyst meeting.

As we had previously predicted the next few quarters will be strong but investors will want to understand the longer term as fear increases that we are nearing a top because in previous cycles we saw a similar spurt of growth before a downturn started.

Predicting KLAC ….

If foundries were good for Lam, they will be fantastic for KLAC as they get a much bigger benefit from foundry/logic spending trends we are currently seeing. The reports out of both ASML and Lam confirm the current foundry ramp.

The stock…

Given the December guidance of $2.18 EPS, we are looking at a potential of a $9+ in EPS in 2017 , even if we flat line earnings. $9 in earnings is likely worth $110 a share or better but investors need to be comfortable that growth will continue and not top out or fall off in 2017 after several strong quarters. We are sure management will make the case at the analyst meeting….so far the track record has been good…

About Semiconductor Advisors
Semiconductor Advisors provides this subscription based research newsletter, Semiwatch, about the semiconductor and semiconductor equipment industries. We also provide custom research and expert consulting services for both investors and industry participants on a wide range of topics from financial to technology and tactical to strategic projects.


Webinar Offers View into TSMC IP Design Methodology

Webinar Offers View into TSMC IP Design Methodology
by Tom Simon on 10-21-2016 at 12:00 pm

Standard cell and memory IP are key enablers for new process node availability. These two items must be in place early and be completely ready for a process node to scale to volume. Development of both leaves no room for error and they require the highest performance possible. Foundries are extremely focused on this and spend a lot of time and energy in delivering this IP in a timely fashion. Variation aware analysis is a critical part of this IP development. However, with the introduction of FinFET devices at 16nm and below, some assumptions about the nature of variation are changing.

Usually with Gaussian distributions, when we talk about sigma, we can draw an equivalence between the number of standard deviations needed to reach a given sigma. Sigma is really a way of specifying the percentage of cases under the curve: thus 3 sigma is 99.865%. This comes about because with a true Gaussian distribution, 3 standard deviations covers this percentage of the cases.

With variation analysis, designers seek to put to rest concerns that outliers can cause a greater percentage of chips to fail due to process variation, voltage fluctuation, high temperature, missed timing margins, etc. Additionally, designers can use statistical design analysis methods to determine optimal design parameters for the highest performance. However, these methodologies rely on being able to simulate the design cases farthest from the mean.

With a Gaussian distribution, getting to 6 sigma, or 99.9999999013% of the cases, would require analyzing out to 6 standard deviations from the mean. With a brute force simulation approach this would mean running billions of samples. To make things worse, circuit design behavior does not have Gaussian distributions. Instead they have long tails, drastically increasing the number of standard deviations that are needed to reach a given sigma.

This point was driven home by Jacob Ou from TSMC and Kris Breen from Solido during their webinar late last September. They point out that a single standard cell, sense amp, or bit cell/slice is really only one small part of a larger design that depends on all the elements working. A tolerable error in a single cell or circuit, becomes intolerable when the likelihood of chip failure depends on thousands, or millions of instances of the same in a larger chip.


Jacob from TSMC talks about how the non-planar nature of FinFET devices leads to new parasitic elements coming into play that can no longer be considered negligible. These include additional capacitive couplings within the FinFET device. The result is a long tail on the performance histogram. In some cases, the distribution curves can even become bi-modal. In the webinar TSMC discusses their use of Solido tools to tackle tough issues in standard cell library development. In many cases they were able to get results more quickly, or in some cases even perform analysis that would have otherwise been impossible.

Solido’s High Sigma Monte Carlo uses a self-validating approach to quickly find cases that are above of the desired sigma and simulate them. An ordering of samples around the sigma threshold is generated and simulated, which also provides algorithmic feedback on the effectiveness of the sample selection process. Because SPICE is used for simulation, there is no doubt in the final outcomes.

TSMC usually keeps their cards close to their chest, but in this webinar they go into details about the results achieved when Solido tools are used in their internal flow. The good news is that the webinar is available for replay in case you missed the live session.

More articles by Tom Simon


Will TSMC be alone at 10nm and 7nm?!?!?

Will TSMC be alone at 10nm and 7nm?!?!?
by Daniel Nenni on 10-01-2016 at 7:00 am

Now that the dust has settled let’s talk about the recent TSMC OIP Ecosystem Forum. This was the 6[SUP]th[/SUP] annual OIP which hosts more than 1,000 attendees from TSMC’s top customers and partners. Presenting this year were TSMC VP and CTO Dr. Jack Sun, TSMC VP of R&D Dr. Cliff Hou, and ARM EVP of Incubation Businesses Dr. Dipesh Patel. First let’s talk about some of the key manufacturing milestones that were mentioned.

Also read:Top 5 Highlights from the 2016 TSMC Open Innovation Platform Forum

TSMC announced that the new 16FFC process is currently in high volume manufacturing (HVM). As we know from the recent iPhone7 teardown the A10 SoC inside is TSMC 16FFC. Additionally, the new TSMC InFOs packaging is in HVM which is also used by Apple for the A10. The iPhone 7 teardown also showed that the majority of the chips inside the iPhone 7 are manufactured by TSMC including the Intel modem (TSMC 28nm) and the QCOM modem (TSMC 20nm). This represents a significant upside for TSMC in Q3 and Q4 of this year so get ready for some very upbeat investor calls.

TSMC announced that 10nm is ahead of schedule and will enter HVM in Q4 2016 versus Q1 2017. This supports my belief that the new Apple iPad A10x (to be announced next month) uses TSMC 10nm and will be the fastest SoC on the market, absolutely. I also believe that the next iPhone SoC (iPhone8) will use TSMC 10nm exclusively.

The chatter in the conference hall from people who would know was that due to unexpected yield challenges involving other 10nm processes, TSMC may be running unopposed at 10nm for the next 3-4 quarters. If so, this is huge for TSMC and the TSMC Ecosystem!

TSMC announced that 7nm is ahead of schedule and will start risk production in Q1 2017 meaning HVM will be Q4 2017 (just in time for the iPad A11x SoC). TSMC 7nm will use the same fabs as 10nm so the ramp will be predictably fast. This leaves TSMC again unopposed at 7nm for 1-2 years so congratulations to the hardworking people of TSMC.

And congratulations to TSMC partners and customers who will now lead the industry in semiconductor process development and will deliver industry leading chips for the rest of this decade. Just to name a few: Apple, ARM, Broadcom, MediaTek, Nvidia, Xilinx, etc…

Bottom line: TSMC has the strongest roadmap I have ever seen and will continue to dominate the foundry business for years to come (déjà vu 28nm).

The other interesting thing to note is that the 30 technical OIP presentations made by partners and customers are now available via TSMC Online:

Held Sept. 22th, 2016 at the Santa Clara Convention Center, the fifth TSMC’S Open Innovation Platform Ecosystem Forum was attended by more than 1,000 TSMC customers and the Open Innovation Platform design ecosystem partners from EDA, IP and Design Services. The Forum brought TSMC’s design ecosystem member companies together to share with our customers real-case solutions to customers’ design challenges and success stories of best practice in TSMC’s design ecosystem. In an adjacent Partner Pavilion, 50 design partner companies staffed booths, showcased their products and services, and took questions throughout the day from leading designers. 30 technical papers were presented during the forum, showing real solutions and how the complete OIP ecosystem achieves faster time to market.

Live EDA Technical Presentations:

Live IP Technical Presentations:

Live Design Service Technical Presentations

Print-Only Technical Presentations


Top 5 Highlights from the 2016 TSMC Open Innovation Platform Forum

Top 5 Highlights from the 2016 TSMC Open Innovation Platform Forum
by Tom Dillinger on 09-26-2016 at 7:00 am

Recently, TSMC conducted their annual Open Innovation Platform forum meeting in San Jose. Although TSMC typically eschews a theme for the forum, David Keller, EVT TSMC North America, used a phrase in his opening remarks that served as a foundation for the rest of the meeting – “celebrate the way we collaborate”.

The forum begins with a technology overview session from TSMC. Jack Sun, VP and CTO TSMC R&D, provided the keynote, entitled: ”Technology Leadership for Collaborative Innovation”. Cliff Hou, VP R&D Design Technology Platform, provided an update on the design flow enablement and IP readiness for TSMC’s advanced process nodes.

Their presentations were followed by 3 tracks of customer and EDA vendor presentations, highlighting areas where their collaboration with TSMC has resulted in pushing the envelope of new designs and design methods.

The following list highlights five key impressions from the forum, mostly related to TSMC’s roadmap update. (I should note that there are subjective comments included, which solely represent my opinions, not those of TSMC.)

(5) Platforms: End-market requirements are driving broader design enablement releases
TSMC has adopted a design enablement strategy with 4 platforms, to address unique characteristics of key market segments. Customers will be incorporating the associated PDK models, techfiles and reference flows for their specific market. (Clearly, this strategy entails much greater support from Cliff’s team.) The four platforms are:

a) High Performance Computing platform
The majority of the HPC platform discussion pertained to the 7nm node.
Characteristics of device models and tool qualification include:

  • FEOL device models need to support VDD overdrive and hyper-overdrive performance boost modes
  • BEOL interconnect design rules use wider upper level metals, larger vias
  • TSMC is providing an “H360” standard cell foundation IP library
  • power-grid construction flows focus on minimizing IR, addressing EM issues
  • clock-tree synthesis must meet very low skew requirements
  • improved wiring delay optimization will be needed in APR flows
  • statistical timing analysis support is required
  • statistical EM analysis is required

b) Mobile platform
As with HPC, the focus was on the availability of the 16FFC platform, and the development underway for the upcoming 7nm node. Relative to N10FF, the 7nm mobile platform offering offers improvements of ~15% performance (iso-power), ~35% power (iso-performance), with a gate density improvement of 1.65X.

  • TSMC is providing an H240 standard cell dense library, for maximal gate density
  • Similar EDA reference flow requirements as the HPC platform

c) Automotive platform
Clearly, there is an expectation for a growing market for automotive electronics, to address a growing set of ADAS feature requirements, as guided by the ISO-26262 standard.

The TSMC automotive platform is currently focused on the N16FFC process node, with PDK support for extended operating environment conditions:

  • models qualified to 150 degrees C (from 125 C for HPC)
  • EM model analysis to 125 C, statistical EM sign-off
  • TSMC IP qualification reports provided for NBTI, PBTI, HCI, TDDB, device aging
  • SRAM soft error model enhancements

d) IoT platform
TSMC is working on ensuring Ultra Low Power PDK support across a wide set of process nodes, focusing on IP qualification at lower operating voltages – i.e., 40ULP (1.2V à 0.9V), 28HPC (0.9V à 0.7V), 16FFC (0.8V à 0.55V).

An extra-high Vt device offering (EVHT) adds to the available set of Vt targets. A low-leakage SRAM bitcell IP is also available.

TSMC expressed support for working with customers on near Vt characterization, as well.

4) High capacity memory array technology alternatives in R&D
Jack S. briefly alluded to the R&D activity underway to investigate alternative memory array technologies, specifically embedded Resistive RAM (eRRAM) and embedded Magnetoresistive RAM (eMRAM). Yet, no specific timeline for process node introduction was provided.

This is in contrast to announcement from other foundries, which have provided (preliminary) dates for eMRAM introduction. I found this distinction to be interesting.

3) N10, N7 development “on track”
TSMC shared dates for N10 and N7 production availability. N10FF will ramp this year. The very aggressive N7FF schedule (for HPC and mobile platforms) is an extremely impressive feat.

Reference flow support for the 7nm EDA features listed above will be available in 4Q’16.

N7FF foundation and SRAM IP will be available to the v0.5 PDK release this year.

Risk production tapeouts will be accepted in 1Q’17. High-speed SerDes IP will be available to the v1.0 PDK in 2Q’17.

This is especially impressive, given the additional design enablement resource required for the two platforms – with different design rules, PDK models, standard cell IP, etc.

2) DRC waivers at 7nm? Fuhggedaboudit…
One of the indirect benefits of attending the TSMC OIP forum is the opportunity to chat with TSMC’s EDA and IP partners at their booths. Another is the chance to network with TSMC customers over lunch and coffee breaks. I ran into a colleague from years past, who shared an insight that has since stuck with me.

His contention (not necessarily TSMC’s) was that: “Design rules at 7nm, with 193i photolithography, require a new way of thinking. Design rules are strict. In essence, TSMC is confirming ‘We can print this with these rules, but don’t expect any significant process latitude.’ The days where a custom designer could approach TSMC with a request for a tapeout DRC waiver to realize a PPA benefit for a specific set of cells are long gone.”

He further commented, “At 7nm, I wouldn’t consider any IP that hasn’t been proven in silicon. I’d like to see the IP tapeout signoff review data, and the post-silicon characterization reports. There’s simply no layout design margin anymore.”

Those comments really resonated with me.

1) new 7nm requirement, with a significant tool/flow impact
Each new technology brings new challenges – the exciting nature of our industry is how those challenges are solved. N7FF introduces a unique requirement.

Throughout the scaling of process nodes, interconnect resistance per unit length and via resistance have increased. FinFET’s provided an increase in the areal current density. For high performance designs, the scaling of interconnects strongly impact both interconnect delays and electromigration reliability. For long routes, the goal is to promote signals to higher (thicker) levels of metallization for optimal timing. For EM robustness, the goal is to provide sufficient metal for the associated current density, an issue that is of specific concern at the output of a FinFET cell (through an output pin).

The photolithographic limitations at 7nm preclude traditional methods to address these issues, such as large via bars on dog-bone metal ends. Instead, via pillars will be required, with a significant impact on routing track resources.


A presentation from Synopsys highlighted the extent to which the insertion of via pillars as part of both timing and EM optimization has influenced tools and design methods. The full set of synthesis and implementation flows from Design Compiler-Graphical through IC Compiler-II APR has to be adapted to the via pillar design style. Clock-tree synthesis and optimization involves inserting buffers and optimal pillars to balance loading. Signal routing and post-route optimizations are strongly impacted, as you might imagine. The promotion/demotion of route layers for optimization has to include the congestion impact of associated pillars. All these optimization algorithms rely upon accurate parasitic extraction of the pillar structure.

In summary, the TSMC OIP forum highlighted the collaboration needed among customers, EDA vendors, and the foundry, to enable design success at advanced nodes. And, the coming introduction of 7nm design enablement will include several challenges, necessitating pretty significant changes in design styles and methods. With every challenge comes an opportunity to pursue new innovations in our industry.

-chipguy