TSMC 2015 Technology Symposium

TSMC 2015 Technology Symposium
by Paul McLellan on 03-25-2015 at 7:00 am


This year’s North American TSMC Technology Symposium is fast approaching. There are three, starting in Silicon Valley.

  • San Jose on Tuesday April 7th at the San Jose Convention Center
  • Boston on Tuesday April 14th at the Burlington Marriott
  • Austin on Thursday April 16th at the downtown Hilton

The symposium will also take place in Shanghai (date tbd), Hsinchu (tbd), Amsterdam (6/16), Herzliya (6/29), Yokohama (tbd).

Another save-the-date to put on your calendar is the 2015 TSMC OIP Ecosystem Forum which will take place in Santa Clara on 17th September.

What will you hear about if you attend? The current status of all things TSMC and roadmaps for the future. In more detail:

  • update on TSMC’s processes including 16FF+, progress at 10nm, to infinity and beyond
  • specialty technology portfolio including image sensor, embedded flash, power IC, MEMS, and the ultra-low-power ULP processes
  • GIGAFAB ramping capabilities and plans
  • advanced backend technologies including CoWoS, InFO and more
  • OIP (open innovation platform) EDA and IP ecosystem: 16FF+ and 10FF status

Of course, if you are going to attend, you should go all day. But the program for the day (at all 3 locations) is:

  • 8.30 onwards: registration is open
  • 9.35 to 9.50: welcome remarks (Rick Cassidy, President TSMC America)
  • 9.50 to 10.30: industry overview and corporate update (Mark Liu, co-CEO)
  • 10.30 to 10.50: coffee (and ecosystem pavilion will be open)
  • 10.50 to 11.20: technology leadership
  • 11.20 to 11.40: design solution and enablement
  • 11.40 to 12.10: manufacturing excellence
  • 12.10 to 13.10: lunch (and ecosystem pavilion will be open)
  • 13.10 to 14.10: advanced technology updates
  • 14.10 to 14.40: design enablement, flows and services
  • 14.40 to 15.10: coffee (and ecosystem pavilion will be open)
  • 15.10 to 16.10: specialty technology updates
  • 16.10 to 16.40: advanced backend technology
  • 16.40 to 17.30: social hour in the ecosystem pavilion

I will be there. The reason that I think you should be too (assuming you work with TSMC) is that this is one of the very few occasions during the year where you will hear senior TSMC executives talk about their future direction and current status. It is much more compelling, for example, to hear the head of TSMC’s manufacturing talking about fab ramp plans or to hear about 10nm from the head of the organization responsible for developing the process than it is to read a dry press release later in the year.


You can register for the technology symposium here.

“The future of the semiconductor industry is promising with many growth opportunities ahead. To capture these opportunities, we need to continue to work as a collaborative innovation force. Together, we will help each other grow business and stay competitive. This vision is the foundation for the TSMC Grand Alliance. At TSMC, customers are always at the center of all our efforts. With this spirit, TSMC has become our customers’ TRUSTED technology and capacity provider along the way.”


TSMC ♥ UMC?

TSMC ♥ UMC?
by Daniel Nenni on 03-18-2015 at 8:00 pm

The relationship between TSMC and UMC is one of the more interesting ones in the fabless semiconductor ecosystem in my opinion. Both are headquartered in Hsinchu Taiwan and it is very hard to visit one company without seeing the other as they have facilities right across the street from each other. They also share humble beginnings from inside the same incubator (ITRI) so to me TSMC and UMC are brothers.

Industrial Technology Research Institute is a nonprofit R&D organization (incubator) for applied research and technical services based in Taiwan. ITRI is credited with transforming Taiwan’s labor-centric economy into a technology powerhouse originating more than 260 companies including UMC and TSMC. In fact, UMC spun out of ITRI in 1980 as Taiwan’s premier semiconductor company. TSMC spun out in 1987 as the world’s first pure-play foundry and the rest is as they say history.

Having worked with both UMC and TSMC for much of my career I can tell you that they are two very different companies with unique business models. While TSMC has always been a leading edge company, UMC has perfected the “second source” foundry business model like no other. Chartered Semiconductor tried it and failed, SMIC tried it and is failing, Dongbu, X-Fab, Siltera, the list goes on and on… The jury is still out on GlobalFoundries but with the acquisition of the IBM Semiconductor business they have a legitimate claim to leading edge foundry technology, absolutely.

Unfortunately for UMC the foundry landscape has changed. With the re-entrance of leading edge IDM Foundries (Intel and Samsung) technology requirements are moving at a much faster pace and the Capital Expenditure requirements are well out of UMC’s reach. UMC’s CAPEX for 2015 is less than $2B while TSMC’s 2015 CAPEX is greater than $10B! This CAPEX explosion started at 28nm but with FinFETs (16nm and 10nm) plus new devices coming at 7nm the CAPEX requirements will continue to skyrocket as we desperately try to keep up with Moore’s Law.

What is UMC to do?

If you remember, at 28nm UMC joined the Common Platform Fab Club and licensed the IBM Gate-First implementation. Fortunately UMC changed to the Gate-Last version of 28nm which is used by TSMC and is now reaping the rewards of its continued “T-Like” compatibility. I do not see UMC licensing the Samsung version of 14nm like GF did so what choice do they have but to develop their own T-Like 16nm? With the help of TSMC and UMC shared customers: Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, MediaTek, etc…

The alternative of course is for TSMC to license the FinFET technology to UMC in a similar “copy exact” agreement to what Samsung and GF did. Morris change joked that this made GF Samsung’s “accessory” but as you may have read both Apple and Qualcomm pushed for this agreement so it needs to be taken seriously. There is no way the big fabless companies will be satisfied with just one foundry source moving forward. It is no coincidence that Apple is ping ponging between Samsung and TSMC, right?

So what do you think will happen here? Will TSMC help a brother out?

Also Read: Apple Leaks Chip Sources?


Apple Leaks Chip Sources?

Apple Leaks Chip Sources?
by Daniel Nenni on 03-15-2015 at 10:00 pm

Take a look at the figure below and tell me this information did not come from inside Apple. The question is: Was it voluntary or involuntary? Inquiring minds want to know! There are some minor surprises which I will get to in a minute but the actual source information is spot on to what I have heard the past few quarters. This spicy little piece of information comes from the SemiWiki Semiconductor Process Technology Forum by the way. SemiWiki has always been about crowdsourcing and you will not find a better semiconductor crowd than on SemiWiki.com, absolutely.


In the fabless semiconductor industry there is always a lively debate on who will supply chips to whom. For Apple at 20nm it was TSMC versus Samsung. The Taiwan Press said TSMC and the Korean Press said Samsung. Even after it was clear that TSMC had won the A8 business the Korean press still said Samsung was supplying 20-30% of the chips. The Apple A9 has been all over the map. My prediction was that Samsung would get the A9 since their 14nm LP was ahead of TSMC by 3-6 months and TSMC would get the A9x which jibes with the figure above. I also believe that TSMC has the A10. Samsung having the A10x with 10nm is news to me. It was my understanding that Apple was still evaluating 10nm processes. The 10nm PDKs just came out so I would not bet on this one yet.

The other surprises for me are with the specific process nodes. The A9x should not be using TSMC 16nm, it should be TSMC 16FF+, and the A10 should not be 16nm FF+, it should be a new and improved Apple “tuned” version of 16nm. One interesting note, GlobalFoundries is mentioned as a second source for 14nm but not 10nm and obviously Intel Custom Foundry is nowhere to be seen but more on that later.

Notice that the figure says iPad & MAC for the A9x and A10x? Not really a surprise. In fact, I say it’s about time! Sign me up for six of those as long as they are iOS compatible. I really, really, really am sick of Microsoft Windows!

For the Apple iWatch I agree completely. The S1 is a scaled down version of the A7 which is Samsung 28nm. Given that, it is easy to assume the S2 is a scaled down version of the A8 which is TSMC 20nm.

The baseband processors for the next two versions of the iPhones (iPhone 6s and iPhone 7?) are a bit of a surprise as well. Not the vendors so much (QCOMM and Intel) but the fact that Apple does not have them integrated into the A9 and A10 SoCs. To me this is a total technology fail on their part. And it is not only cost but also power and packaging. As THE leading SoC design company Apple should be publicly shamed for this unless I’m missing something here. Why would Apple not integrate the baseband processor like Qualcomn, MediaTek, and other SoC companies already have?

The takeaway I have from this figure is that Apple is intentionally splitting orders amongst the foundries, not necessarily based on technology, but for business reasons. Clearly Apple wants multiple wafer sources and they will do whatever it takes to make that happen.


Three Colorful Bytes from the NXP History

Three Colorful Bytes from the NXP History
by Majeed Ahmad on 03-04-2015 at 7:00 pm

The proposed merger of NXP and Freescale, which creates a bigger semiconductor outfit, also brings forth some fascinating history bytes from the technology heritage that these two spin-offs carry from their respective corporate parents. In 2006, Philips Electronics sold its chip business division Philips Semiconductors to a consortium of private equity investors. The name NXP stood for the consumer’s “next experience.”

Likewise, Motorola Inc. made the Motorola Semiconductor Products Sector autonomous in 2004 and renamed the new silicon-focused outfit as Freescale Semiconductor. This blog traces some parts of the NXP heritage that spans over the past four decades.

NXP: A Fabless Model Pioneer

The Semiwiki Forumuser hist78 has chronicled how TSMC’s Morris Chang found a small audience among semiconductor companies for his revolutionary idea of a pure-play fab back in the mid-1980s. Intel, TI, and Philips gave him a chance to make a presentation, and eventually, both Intel and TI said no.


Philips’ early investment and technology transfer were vital in TSMC success

It was Philips Electronics that agreed to invest and do the technology-transfer to help jumpstart TSMC while owning a 28 percent stake of TSMC during its formative years. Later on, Philips gradually sold all of its shares in TSMC with huge profit, but that’s another story. In retrospect, it was Philips decision to invest in TSMC during the mid-1980s that kick-started the fabless revolution, which in turn, changed the semiconductor landscape forever.

Buy VLSI, Buy SoC

San Jose, California–based VLSI Technology was a pioneer in ASIC, SoC and semiconductor process technologies. It became an early vendor of standard cell ASICs during the early 1980s and dominated the PC chipsets business in the next decade. In 1999, Philips Semiconductors—the precursor of NXP Semiconductors—made a hostile bid for VLSI Technology and eventually acquired the ASIC pioneer for around a billion dollars.


VLSI was an ASIC and SoC pioneer

Apparently, Philips faced difficulties in custom designs quickly moving to new process generations, an area where VLSI excelled with its broad array of chip design libraries and tools. Moreover, the purchase seemed to be stimulated by Philips’ growth and success in the mobile handset chips business. The VLSI buy went a long way for the Dutch company in the unfolding SoC era that followed in the years after this acquisition.

NFC: First Invent, Then Rescue

NXP is a pioneer in near-field communication (NFC) technology; its parent company Philips Electronics developed and launched the contactless access technology in collaboration with Sony back in the early 2000s. The NFC technology was originally developed for the transport and convenience store segments in large Asian cities like Hong Kong and Tokyo. The NFC-based Octopus Card for Hong Kong’s subway service has been a smashing success.


Hong Kong’s Octopus Card: An Early NFC Success Story
(Image: MLP Forums)

But it was tap-to-pay mobile service where NFC was going to make it big. Mobile commerce advocates said that cash would become a thing of the past and that the future of digital money was inside the NFC chip residing in smartphones. However, the promise of mobile payments remained in doldrums until 2014, when Apple and NXP joined hands to develop the first viable tap-to-pay service on the iPhone 6.

Also Read: CDN is Live in Silicon Valley!

Apple Pay—a hugely successful mobile payment service that provided a seal of approval to the NFC technology—used an NXP SoC device that combined the Secure Element (SE) microcontroller with an NFC radio. The SE-centric hardware in the iPhone 6 allowed over-the-air provisioning by the banks and credit card companies and kept mobile operators out of the payment ecosystem.

Majeed Ahmad is author of books Smartphone: Mobile Revolution at the Crossroads of Communications, Computing and Consumer Electronicsand Mobile Commerce 2.0: Where Payments, Location and Advertising Converge.


ASML ASyMptotic progress- When will we get to EUV?

ASML ASyMptotic progress- When will we get to EUV?
by Robert Maire on 02-24-2015 at 5:30 pm

  • ASML making progress – but is it fast enough?
  • ASML has missed 10nm , can it catch 7nm? An economic question
  • Day one at SPIE- Better tone than last year but still cautious

1000 simulated wafers versus 700 simulated
At the opening of the SPIE conference ASML announced that TSMC had reached 1000 wafers a day “exposed” (not printed or produced) by TSMC.

This is significant in two ways; though still just a simulation and not a real test of real wafer production it is a higher theoretical number than the test numbers “leaked” out by IBM over 6 months ago. The second and perhaps more important is that the test was run by a real contender in the semiconductor arms race, TSMC who last year embarrassed ASML at SPIE by announcing that the tool had shot itself in the foot. This would seem to imply that TSMC is more supportive which is also evidenced by their continued purchases of tools.

Is progress fast enough? Zeno’s paradox…

Though progress is clearly being made , we remain concerned that the amount of money and effort being put into EUV is producing fewer and smaller gains as we try to get closer to a “production” system. It would appear much like Zeno’s paradox or an asymptotic curve that incremental progress is slowing as we get closer to the goal.

The announcement of 90 watts of power is certainly better than the 75 watts previously discussed but it would have been a lot better to be talking about a doubling to 150 watts especially as we live in a binary world of Moore’s law.

Catching a moving Moore’s law train … That already left the 10nm station
The reason for our concern about progress rates is that the industry and Moore’s law is not waiting around for EUV to catch up. From discussions with a number of people at the show its clear that 10nm is long gone (as has been known by those in the industry) but the new question is how much, if any, of 7nm can ASML catch. Whereas there never seemed much very serious talk of ASML making 10nm (except by ASML) there is a lot of speculation about a 7nm intercept.

Economics enters the picture
Everything always comes down to the final arbiter of money. This year at SPIE there is clearly more talk about the cost of EUV versus multi-patterning. There was a good presentation of the cost of HiNA (high numerical aperture ) EUV versus multi-patterning.

We have suggested in the past that there should be an economic crossover point from multi-patterning where the EUV production decision becomes clear but it sounds as if that line is blurring a bit. Part of the reason is that the delay in EUV has caused other complications that may confuse the simple economic choice for EUV. One example is the need for multi-patterning in EUV anyway by the time it gets to HVM, thereby taking away one of the positive attributes . However its still hard to see how multi-patterning can win in the long run as we hear talk about quad and “oct” patterning as if they were viable alternatives forever.

It would be wrong to underestimate the semiconductor industry’s aversion to change…..and the industry has gotten very comfortable with multi-patterning.

No Breakthroughs or new news…

There does not appear to be any new news or break through moments so far at SPIE with ASML’s announcement being a ho hum confirmation of the slow pace rather than a positive surprise.

Alternatives not ready
DSA (directed self assembly) , NIL (nano imprint lithography) and direct write E beam lithography are still works in progress further behind than EUV but also not showered in money as EUV has been.

Canon appears to be furthest along with using NIL at Toshiba for NAND production and we wouldn’t be surprised to see it in limited use at some point. The talk of alternative technologies at the show has quieted as discontent with EUV has abated a bit.

Infrastructure not ready
The “ecosystem” for EUV is further behind than EUV itself and will clearly limit the introduction of EUV whenever it really becomes available. This is not new news as we have been talking about it for a long time and the problem has not changed nor have there been any changes in the significant participants, such as KLAC. This remains a major bottleneck for EUV’s progress to HVM.

No stock impact
As there isn’t anything incrementally positive to find at SPIE so far, we see no reason for any significant change in stock valuation. EUV remains a work in progress without a clear insertion point and alternatives have their issues as well.

We do continue to believe that both Lam and AMAT will have a long positive run in etch and dep to support multi-patterning which will clearly be around for quite a while.

Robert Maire
Semiconductor Advisors LLC


IoT Sensor Node Designs Call for Highly Integrated Flows

IoT Sensor Node Designs Call for Highly Integrated Flows
by Tom Simon on 02-21-2015 at 7:00 pm

Applications for IoT sensors are becoming more sophisticated, especially for industrial usage. Building optimal sensors for different applications requires multi-domain design, optimization and verification flows. The sensor devices are usually MEMS, and as such have electrical properties that need to be tailored to the analog circuitry they are connected to. Many MEMS devices are not completely passive: they often have drive systems to keep them in their most linear range of operation. For example an accelerometer will have two comb capacitors, one is for sensing, the other is to control the proof mass.

Cadence, Coventor and ARM recently held a webinar that showed how many important considerations in designing an industrial IoT sensor node can be addressed. The full session is available here.

In these designs the analog circuity needs to be designed and optimized at the same time as the MEMS structures. Chris Welham, Worldwide Applications Engineering Manager at Coventor, points out in the webinar that Coventor offers their MEMS+ product as a vehicle for building 3D design of MEMS elements in conjunction with circuit design tools. The key to making this effective is that after the MEMS designer creates a device, they can export it to Cadence, where it is represented as a parametric simulation model, symbol and PCell. The parameters exposed to the circuit designer are specified when the MEMS+ model is generated. This means that the circuit designer can alter specific parameters of the MEMS device easily and independently. In the webinar Cadence showed how Virtuoso ADE GXL can be used to concurrently optimize the circuit and MEMS parameters to meet the system design spec. The PCell that is produced by MEMS+ produces the necessary layout for mask generation.

IoT sensors need to be compact, rugged and have battery life considerations. These needs often drive the specific packaging configuration for the various SOC’s and MEMS chips in the unit. Designers can utilize BGA, bond wires and TSV’s in an assortment of configurations that can include stacked die with silicon interposer. In the webinar Ian Dennison, Solutions Group Director at Cadence, shows examples of each of the 3D-IC approach alternatives and highlights design and verification aspects of each.

For designs with bond wires, stacked die present special challenges. Manufacturing and coupling noise considerations play a major role in wire placement and shape. Cadence SIP allows wire profiles to be defined and then viewed in 3D. The webinar showed several examples where wire profiles need to be configured to provide adequate clearances to avoid things like overhanging shelves or neighboring wires.

TSV’s offer many advantages over bond wires, but working with them adds complexity to the chip design process. First off, on the plus side, TSV’s reduce overall system cost. On-chip they save routing resources that would otherwise be needed to get signals to the chip boundary and they lower parasitic capacitance and inductance. However the chip floorplan must account for their location. In the webinar Cadence discussed how Encounter and Virtuoso let designers work with TSV’s.

Tim Menasveta, CPU Product Manager at ARM went last but covered the critical aspects of how creating a sensor hub in the IoT sendor device can help the IoT senor meet its many design requirements. Without a hub, all the raw sensors would be transmitting to the aggregation point continuously. This wastes power and bandwidth. Instead with a local processor the IoT sensor node can decide when and what data should be sent. Additionally sensor fusion is extremely important. Many of us are familiar with the necessity of combining the raw inputs from a gyroscope and accelerometer to obtain accurate real world results. Also temperature is an important input for most sensor interpretation. Sensor fusion is useful for dealing vibration or effects of nearby iron objects when calibrating a compass.

The new Cortex-M7 boasts an improved DSP and floating point unit when compared to its predecessor the Cortex-M4. The M7 is ideal for bare metal code. The M8 is more suitable for higher level OS’s. There is also an optional double precision floating point unit available for the M7. To facilitate development of designs using the Cortex-M7, Cadence and ARM have collaborated on an implementation reference methodology built on TSMC’s 40LP process. This design uses Physical IP by the ARM Physical IP Division. It is a low power design that has support for power gating.

The webinar pulled together a wide range of technology, all of which is necessary for putting together leading edge IoT sensor based designs. For a more in depth review of the technology,I suggest following the link at viewing it.


TSMC 20nm Essentially Worthless?

TSMC 20nm Essentially Worthless?
by Daniel Nenni on 02-15-2015 at 7:00 am

It happens at every process node, professional journalists write that something is broken and blames TSMC like a worn out record. To be fair they are not semiconductor professionals with access to the fabless semiconductor rank and file and are easily manipulated which is what happened again at 20nm. Remember when NVIDIA suggested that TSMC 20nm was economically challenged? And the media changed that to “essentially worthless?” Thankfully Apple knew better otherwise we would not have the amazing iProducts we have in our hands today.

Nvidia deeply unhappy with TSMC, claims 20nm essentially worthless
By Joel Hruska on 3/23/2012

Back at 40nm I was the foundry liaison for an IP company and the GPU part of AMD was a big customer. I was the executive sponsor for AMD meaning that whenever there was an escalated problem it landed on my desk. And there were ALWAYS escalated problems at the bleeding edge of GPU design, absolutely.

As 40nm was ramping NVIDIA came out and said their GPUs would be delayed because of yield problems and they pointed fingers at TSMC. The media jumped all over this of course but the AMD guys and I had a good laugh because AMD did not have the same yield problems. At 40nm they had these things called “recommended design rules” (RDRs) to increase yield. One of them was doubling the vias in case there was a one in a billion failure. Of course this increased area and capacitance so the clever NVIDA designers did not do it and had billions of single vias. AMD on the other hand respected the RDRs and beat NVIDIA to 40nm. When the dust settled NVIDIA did admit to design related yield issues but that was not front page news of course.

The same thing happened at 28nm when the fabless guys talked about wafer shortages on conference calls as an excuse for not making their Wall Street targets. The media immediately played the yield card and threw TSMC under the bus. Come to find out TSMC built 28nm capacity based on customer forecasts which were half of what they should have been. TSMC ended up with 100% market share at 28nm versus the 50% forecast and the rest is history.

Nvidia Blames TSMC’s 28nm Process Technology for Slow Sales
by Anton Shilovon 05/11/2012

In March of 2012 NVIDIA came out saying 20nm was not economically feasible and blamed TSMC. In fact, NVIDIA made a detailed presentation at the International Trade Press Conference. The media was all over it reporting in detail WHAT was said but not once considered WHY it was being said and WHY at that particular venue. The entire fabless semiconductor ecosystem had a good laugh because silicon doesn’t lie like people do and the last laugh would be ours.

Some points to ponder:
[LIST=1]

  • Why was this presented at a press conference versus a technical conference?
  • The NVIDIA CEO and TSMC CEO are very close friends, right?
  • The media says GPUs will skip 20nm for 16nm
  • 16nm is really 20nm with low power FinFETs, right?
  • NVIDIA has a 20nm Tegra SoC in production
  • Apple has two 20nm SoCs in production
  • Oracle has a 20nm high performance CPU in production
  • Xilinx has 20nm FPGAs in production

    So tell me, what really happened to the 20nm GPUs?

    Disclaimer: This is written from my aging memory so correct me if I’m wrong here…


  • Do You Need a Silicon Catalyst?

    Do You Need a Silicon Catalyst?
    by Daniel Nenni on 02-14-2015 at 7:00 pm

    Lately there has been significant concern over the rising costs of designing in silicon and the troubling decline in venture investments in semiconductors. These alarming trends include fewer IPOs, a falloff in the amount and frequency of early stage seed investments, and comparatively low industry organic growth rates. A new company called Silicon Catalyst has recently been formed to address some of the key challenges facing entrepreneurs attempting to innovate in semiconductors … namely the challenge of raising sufficient funding and obtaining the appropriate design, prototyping, and test capabilities to move from concept to working prototypes.

    While there are other incubators for software and some for hardware, Silicon Catalyst looks to be the first focused exclusively on startups creating solutions in silicon. Co-founded by three semiconductor veterans: Mike Noonen, Rick Lazansky and Daniel Armbrust, the incubator announced its initial partners last month. They are industry leaders Synopsys, TSMC and Keysight (formerly Agilent) who will provide design tools, fabrication and test capabilities respectively.

    “The launch of this startup incubator parallels TSMC’s emphasis on a ‘Grand Alliance’ of collaborating companies in the semiconductor industry to increase innovation,” said Rick Cassidy, President, TSMC North America. “TSMC is pleased to join the efforts of Silicon Catalyst to help the next wave of fabless semiconductor start-ups achieve success.”


    “A vibrant start-up community is a valuable component in the development of any business and the multi-trillion-dollar industries that we enable,” commented Aart de Geus, Chairman and co-CEO, Synopsys. “Synopsys is proud to be a Silicon Catalyst founding partner to support semiconductor solution start-ups.”

    The Silicon Catalyst incubator’s initial location in Silicon Valley is expected to be announced shortly. Startups are expected to come from universities, industry entrepreneurs and spinouts not just in Silicon Valley but from all around the world. Silicon Catalyst plans to collaborate with local incubators to enable these entrepreneurs to leverage the Silicon Catalyst partner resources without needing to relocate. The first round of screening is expected to begin within the next two months.

    Silicon Catalyst is engaged in discussions with many industry strategic partners who are expected to help select, guide, invest in and be potential acquirers once the startups graduate from the incubator (over a maximum of 24 months). In addition to some modest funding of up to $500k and providing access to the essential services needed for new designs, Silicon Catalyst intends to pair each startup with an experienced mentor who can provide relevant advice and assistance which is viewed as essential to address the challenges that these early stage companies inevitably encounter.

    Investors are mostly ignoring early stage semiconductor investments, however Silicon Catalyst and its partners believe we are entering a long term wave of innovation that requires new semiconductor innovation at their core to address opportunities in IoT, biotech, energy, transportation and mobile. Inspiration for an improved business incubation model and an accompanying vibrant startup community came from the biotech and pharmaceuticals industries that have found ways to address the high upfront costs of device and drug development. Since upfront costs are significantly reduced, start-ups are expected to become much better investments since funding can go directly to innovation and value creation. Silicon Catalyst expects to see renewed interest over time from angel, strategic, and venture investors as a result.

    It will be interesting to see how the semiconductor industry embraces and supports this new model. Optimistically, with sufficient backing, we will look back on this as an important part of today’s fabless semiconductor ecosystem, absolutely.


    TSMC’s OIP: Everything You Need for 16FF+ SoCs

    TSMC’s OIP: Everything You Need for 16FF+ SoCs
    by Paul McLellan on 02-13-2015 at 7:00 am

    Doing a modern SoC design is all about assembling IP and adding a small amount of unique IC design for differentiation (plus, usually, lots of software). If you re designing in a mature process then there is not a lot of difficulty finding IP for almost anything. But if you are designing in a process that has not yet reached high-volume manufacturing (HVM) then there is a new set of challenges. If you are really on the bleeding edge and the volumes are going to justify the cost, then the company has to design its own IP since commercial IP just is not available (think companies like Qualcomm or Apple). For everyone else, they need to wait for a broad portfolio of IP to be available. But they don’t want to wait forever. TSMC has its OIP program to ensure that IP is available as soon as possible, that it is tested in silicon and generally is getting ahead of the curve. After all, TSMC makes money when designs go into production and the critical path for getting a design into production goes right through the middle of having EDA tool flows and IP available.TSMC’s IP ecosystem surpassed the mark of 8,000 registered IPs in 2014, from more than 40 IP partners. TSMC IP Alliance partners, together with TSMC internal IP teams, form the largest and fully qualified IP platform available to IC designers in the world. It is a live ecosystem, constantly evolving to adapt to customer needs. With the new creation of ULP processes targeted to IoT applications, a more comprehensive solution is now necessary. TSMC 3rd party IP vendors will add their expertise, creating updated and new low-power IP for TSMC processes.Last year’s Open Innovation Platform 2014 (OIP) Ecosystem Forum was held in September. Over 1000 customers and partners participated. The main focus was on TSMC’s latest processes, in particular 16FF+. TSMC and its partners made the following announcements:

    • OIP has provided over 12 years of ecosytem enablement
    • a new 28nm 28HPC high performance process offering available
    • 20nm in mass production
    • 16FF+ ready for product design
    • Reference flows for 16FF+ delivered
    • ARM big.LITTLE vaiidated in 16FF+
    • 10FF EDA tools ready for early customer design starts

    At the forum, the TSMC OIP Partner of the Year Awards were announced. First for IP:

    • Foundation IP: ARM
    • Interface IP: Synopsys
    • Analog/Mixed-Signal IP: Analog Bits
    • Embedded Memory IP: eMemory Technology
    • Emerging IP Company: Silicon Creations
    • Specialty IP: Dophin Integration
    • Soft IP: Cadence

    Then the EDA awards for the joint development of the 16FF+ design infrastructure (alphabetical):

    • Apache business unit of ANSYS
    • AtopTech
    • Cadence
    • Mentor
    • Synopsys

    The key to the diagram above is purple is Synopsys, red is Cadence, green is Mentor (I think of blue being Mentor based on their website), yellow is Apache, blue is Atoptech and pink is Invarian.These tools go to create a digital SoC (synthesis, place & route) reference flow that captializes on 16FF+ PPA through optimized tool and standard cell implementation, with a constraint variation model for accurate timing signoff, a self-heating model to address thermal concerns, rush current analysis for powering blocks down and up, and more. They also create a customer reference flow for custom digital and analog/mixed-signal with a complete “number of fins” methodology to replace length/width of planar processes. The flow takes into account layout dependent effects, voltage dependent rule checks and a full transistor-level electromigration (EM) and IR drop analysis flow for power analysis.The release of new ultra-low-power (ULP) processes at mature nodes to support the upcoming IoT opportunities, does not lower the focus of TSMC on wide set of Foundation, Interface and Soft-IP from both TSMC and its IP Alliance partners for the leading edge.


    TSMC vs Samsung!

    TSMC vs Samsung!
    by Daniel Nenni on 02-10-2015 at 9:30 pm

    One of the trending topics in Taiwan last week is the escalating conflict between Samsung and TSMC. This time however it is of a legal nature which has been a long time coming for the semiconductor industry. Reverse engineering has been an integral part of the semiconductor business since the beginning, as has intellectual property theft. The difference being employees with prior knowledge are doing the reverse engineering and the resulting email trails are their undoing every time.

    The driving force behind this of course is the demand for second source foundry manufacturing. As I have mentioned before, at 40nm and above TSMC design databases (GDS II) were given to UMC, Chartered, and SMIC for second, third, and sometimes fourth source production. At 28nm and 20nm it is much more difficult to do and at 14/16nm and 10nm it will require a copy exact strategy or a significant redesign. In fact, at 10nm you will not even be able to use the same design team for different foundries due to strict legal constraints.

    Take a look at this blog about the legal action TSMC took against SMIC at 180nm and 130nm. It is an interesting story, one that will certainly have some commonality with the Samsung legal action:

    TSMC versus SMIC
    byDaniel Nenni
    Published on 09-28-2009

    The recent events surrounding the TSMC vs Sasmung legal action are detailed in this article. Please note that I have not fully fact checked this yet but will do so in the coming weeks. You should also know that this is a Taiwanese publication known for “Solid, sober reporting, CommonWealth magazine gives Taiwan’s entrepreneurs and decision-makers the insights they need to keep ahead…”

    Hunting Down a Turncoat
    By Liang-Rong Chen
    Published: January 23, 2015

    It really is a sordid story if you have the time and interest. The bottom line, as with the SMIC case, is that it alleges Samsung hastened the delivery of 14nm by using technology that they obtained from a former TSMC executive. Right now the legal action is against the former employee but that may change when the Samsung 14nm silicon is fully investigated.

    “The 16nm and 14nm FinFet products that both companies will mass produce this year were even more alike. It could be hard to tell (if the product) came from Samsung or TSMC if only structural analysis is used, the report said.”

    One of my former employers had a similar experience when a consultant “borrowed” code from a competitor to hasten a product delivery. The result was hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, jail time, and a forced acquisition. At one time I remember customers using the software in question were also under legal threat but fortunately cooler heads prevailed. It really is a bad idea to take legal action against customers.

    The FinFET technology at the heart of today’s fierce battle between TSMC and Samsung was also one of Liang’s strengths. In its claim against Liang, TSMC stressed: “Liang Mong-song was deeply involved in TSMC’s FinFET process research, and he was the inventor behind related patents.”

    According to Patent Buddy, 47 patents were filed and 15 issued between June 2001 and July 2012:

    Mong-Song Liang Inventor – TSMC Patent Owner

    I would be interested to know which of these patents are FinFET related if someone out there has the time, expertise, and interest to investigate. Hopefully the result of this blog will be a lively conversation in the comments section, just remember that this is but one side of a very complicated story.