Intel Opens a New Front with ASML

Intel Opens a New Front with ASML
by Ed McKernan on 07-10-2012 at 4:00 pm

Behind great humor often lies irony. In the midst of a struggle by the European Union to extract $1.3B from Intel in an ages old Anti-Trust case, the latter makes a strategic move to embolden the Dutch firm ASML to accelerate the development of 450mm and EUV and thus save a continental jewel. What now say EU? When disfunction and bankruptcy abound, beware the need of sovereigns to extract not pints but gallons of blood. Intel sees an end game at hand, not today but in just a couple of years and it plays into its plans to win all of mobile: including Apple and Samsung. They parry the EU assault with a massive $4B investment and prepare to watch the poker players ante up or fold.

Intel Always Fights a Multi-front war knowing that it eventually wears down the enemy. Please, please we don’t speak of enemies unless we are in the realm of politics! However, one should be aware that without TSMC there is no Qualcomm, nVidia, AMD, Broadcom, Marvell and the rest of the ARM camp (especially ARM). And what of Apple and Samsung, the two leaders of the mobile Tsunami who will have 80%+ of the Smartphone and Tablet market by the New Year? They will have a choice to make in which the first one who blinks will have the opportunity to be years ahead of the other.

It is simple mathematics. Assume, conservatively that Intel is two years ahead of TSMC. Now presume Intel, conservatively launches 450mm two years ahead of TSMC, then it is like a 4 year lead in process technology. Now input your die sizes and run the cost models. It is daunting having to stare up at the Matterhorn before the climb begins.

We have learned in the past 6 months that Smartphones and Tablets are demanding leading edge process technology (Qualcomm sold out this year on 28nm 4G LTE chips). This was the one doubt that I had as to whether Qualcomm, nvidia and the rest of the ARM camp were safe in the foundries at an n-1 node while Intel played catch up with a true low power processor and baseband functionality. Intel can now force the game forward and even Apple will now have to consider how wise it is to hang back in older processes. Some amount of their processors will need to step up to the leading edge for cost and performance reasons.

The news articles from yesterday stated that ASML was open to additional investments from other foundries (i.e. TSMC and Samsung). I can see Samsung stepping up. TSMC is an extension of Qualcomm, Broadcom, nVidia and others. They will likely have to devise new long-term agreements from their partners that requires them to pony up dollars for the ASML investment. Or alternatively does Qualcomm write a check to ASML?Does Apple?

The maneuvers lately point to every survivor going vertical, however now we are looking at two separate vertical models. There is the device vertical model with LCD screens, NAND Flash, enclosures etc.. that Apple and Samsung are very adept at. In last weeks blog I mentioned how Intel was funding Taiwanese panel makers to guarantee supply for ultrabook manufacturers (likely at the expense of AMD and nVidia). Now we have Intel letting the world know that being a MAN in the semiconductor industry requires owning more than just fabs. Real Men must now invest in the semiconductor R&D tool chain. The Question that Wall St. should ask is the following: What is the total value that will derive 4-5 years down the line from an investment in ASML’s R&D?

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am Long AAPL, INTC, QCOM, ALTR


Intel’s finfets too complex and difficult?

Intel’s finfets too complex and difficult?
by Tom Dillinger on 07-07-2012 at 7:00 pm

Thanks to SemiWiki readers for the feedback and comments on the previous “Introduction to FinFET Technology” posts – very much appreciated! The next installment on FinFET modeling will be uploaded soon.

In the interim, Dan forwarded the following link to me “ Intel’s FinFETs too complicated and difficult, says Asenov, which provides some (preliminary) analysis on FinFET behavior, from recently published TEM pictures of Intel’s Ivy Bridge designs:
Continue reading “Intel’s finfets too complex and difficult?”


Dragon Boats and TSMC 20nm Update!

Dragon Boats and TSMC 20nm Update!
by Daniel Nenni on 07-01-2012 at 6:30 pm


My luck continues as I missed last week’s typhoon. Fortunately it did not disrupt the annual Dragon Boat Festival. More than just a Chinese tradition, dragon boat racing is an international sports event with teams from around the world coming to Taiwan every year. It is very exciting with the colorful dragon boats and the wild beating of the drums to spur the rowers on. It is an early version of crew (rowing), which is one of the oldest Olympic sports I’m told.

Even more exciting, TSMC has 20nm up on the TSMC website now! Exciting for me at least! This is really cool stuff and it is right around the corner. I also like the new TSMC website and banner ads. It really does show a much more progressive communication style for a foundry.

TSMC provides the broadest range of technologies and services in the Dedicated IC Foundry segment. In addition to general-purpose logic process technology, TSMC’s More-Than-Moore technologies support customers’ wide-ranging needs for devices that integrate specialty features with CMOS logic ICs. TSMC’s More-Than-Moore technologes offer the segment’s richest technology mix, and unmatched manufacturing excellence. Through TSMC Open Innovation Platform™, we provide a robust portfolio of time-to-volume foundry and design services, including front-end design, mask and prototyping services, backend packaging and test services, and front to back-logistics, to speed up More-Than-Moore innovations.


Applications driving 20nm anytime, anywhere, any device

20nm technology is under development to provide best speed/power value for both performance driven products like CPU (Central Processing Unit), GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), APU (Accelerated Processing Unit), FPGA (Field-Programmable Gate Array) and mobile computing applications including smartphones, tablets and high-end SoC (System-on-a-Chip).

In regards to the constant 20nm scaling questions, TSMC 20nm is said to offer a 30%+ performance gain and 25%+ power savings versus 28nm. Has anybody heard what other foundries are claiming lately? It will be interesting to see what the fabless companies can do with 20nm silicon. The success of 28nm will certainly be hard to beat but I can tell you one thing, the fabless guys are spending a lot of time in Hschinsu, EDA and IP vendors are camping out there as well. You will be hard pressed to tell the difference between the old guard IDMs and the leading edge fabless company’s process technology groups, except of course their CAPEX! Expect 20nm risk production to start in Q4 2013, two years to the quarter after 28nm.



TSMC is the world’s largest dedicated semiconductor foundry, providing the industry’s leading process technology and the foundry segment’s largest portfolio of process-proven libraries, IPs, design tools and reference flows. The Company’s managed capacity in 2011 totaled 13.22 million (8-inch equivalent) wafers and is the first foundry to provide 28nm production capabilities.


TSMC’s mission is to be the trusted technology and capacity provider for the global logic IC industry for years to come.

Notice it says “capacity” now. Company mission statements are also reminders for employees so you can bet capacity will be on everyone’s mind for process nodes to come, believe it.




TSMC Threater Presentation: Lorentz Solution!

TSMC Threater Presentation: Lorentz Solution!
by Daniel Nenni on 06-26-2012 at 8:30 pm

Lorentz Solution presented at TSMC’s DAC 2012 Open Innovation Platform Theater. The presenter was Lorentz Sales Director, Tom Simon. He presented what Lorentz calls its Electromagnetic Design and Analysis Platform. One of the main points of the talk was the cooperative work that Lorentz does with TSMC.

TSMC and Lorentz work together in several ways. TSMC uses Lorentz’s PeakView for designing their RF IP. In addition to working to support mutual customers, there is collaboration on RDK’s and ongoing correlation projects. These projects ensure accurate results on a wide range of structures and devices. Special focus on capacitor structures, and proper handling of metal fills, guard rings, and pattern ground shields yields excellent correlation up through millimeter wavelength frequencies.

Lorentz says that PeakView is suitable for both design use and sign-off, avoiding the “two-tool” solution that many customers live with.

For design PeakView fits in the flow for new device creation with its PCircuit synthesis. Complex devices can be ‘what-if’ed to arrive at optimal tcoil, transformer, balun, tline and cap configurations that best suit the designer’s needs. Multiple devices can be compared side by side in the Device Editor.

Lorentz emphasized that synthesis with PCircuits does not require costly and time consuming EDA vendor set up: no scalable models are needed. As soon as a new layer stack-up is created in PeakView, the full power of PCircuits is available. They say that new and complex devices with high port counts are easily synthesized. There is no dependency on pre-characterization of the process or the cell. Apparently this opens a much larger design space for customers.

PeakView has a new circuit level capacities to electromagnetically model critical interconnections for RC and especially L in the LPE/PEX flow. Complex critical nets are easily and properly analyzed during design iterations, without manual intervention. Simon said the resulting circuit simulation accuracy improves silicon predictability.

PeakView is now also tightly linked to Laker, as well as to Virtuoso. PeakView’s PCircuits, used to create passive device designs, work equally well in both layout editors. PCircuits are process independent and can easily be created to handle new devices. Unlike Pcells, they are compact, object oriented and PDK driven.

Complex hand drawn or PCircuit generated structures can be electromagnetically simulated by PeakView with its fast full wave 3D field solver. Simon added that PeakView allows for accurate and efficient analysis of metal fills, via arrays and other complex structures.

After electromagnetic simulation, compact convergent DC accurate Physics Based Models (PBM) are generated as RLC sub-circuits, in addition to s-parameter output. Process variation and temperature coefficients are supported.

PeakView has built in visualization for viewing voltage, current and meshing. It also features a built in chart window. Its GUI based operation is perfect for increased designer and modeling team productivity.

Bottom line: Lorentz has built a platform for designers and modeling teams that increases creativity and productivity by letting designers create their own geometry and models, and at the same time improving the efficiency of the EM experts with a faster highly accurate solution for sign off model creation. Lorentz’s new capabilities at the circuit level add significant accuracy to high speed analog design.


TSMC Threater Presentation: Solido Design Automation!

TSMC Threater Presentation: Solido Design Automation!
by Daniel Nenni on 06-17-2012 at 9:00 pm

For a small company, Solido has some very large customers and partners, TSMC being on of them. Why? Because of the high yield and memory performance demand on leading edge technologies, that’s why.

Much has been made of and will continue to be said on the march of Moore’s Law. While economics of scale and performance vs. power are the main justifications, there are increased design challenges that make designs of prior decades seem quaint by comparison. Smaller transistors allow for lower cost per function and more power efficiency, but they also come with increased variation effects, making performance vs. power vs. yield tradeoffs a necessary part of the design flow.

With each successive process shrink, there is a corresponding increase in the number of SPICE simulations required to push design performance while ensuring manufacturability. Solido Design Automation provides solutions for reducing the number of simulations needed during design and verification, while still providing the same or more visibility into design choices, impacts on yield and risk. As a leading provider of efficient variation analysis tools, Solido continues to collaborate with TSMC to deliver effective analysis capabilities on the latest nanometer technologies, supporting designers of memory, standard cell, low power, and analog/RF circuits.

Memory designers have perhaps the greatest challenge in maximizing their design performance within the capabilities of a particular process technology, needing to validate yield and performance to 4-6 sigma on bit cells and sense amps and 2-4 sigma at the array level. While Monte Carlo is the preferred solution, it’s simply impractical to simulate the billions of points needed for 6-sigma analysis. Since the analysis still has to be done, a number of approaches have evolved that seek to bypass Monte Carlo, but they each suffer limitations in accuracy, scalability and, especially, verifiability.

Solido’s Memory+ Suite goes back to the core Monte Carlo analysis designers trust and handles the billions of samples with intelligent adaptive techniques to focus simulation resources towards the high-sigma tails of the distribution. Since Memory+ uses actual Monte Carlo samples, it is able to provide simulation results around the target sigma, high-sigma corners for use in design development and even the full PDF. These options give designers the detailed insights they need into non-linear effects, design sensitivities to make informed sizing decisions.

Unlike other approaches, Solido’s Memory+ is able to handle the more severe non-linear responses, rendering it applicable to a broad range of memory cells. In the following example, a 3- or 4-sigma analysis would appear linear with extrapolation completely missing the failure regions occurring at +/- 4.5-sigma.

Additionally, with the full PDF available for both the bit cell and sense amp, Memory+ can provide 3-sigma analysis at the system level, allowing designers to explore performance vs. yield tradeoffs directly. The following table shows the results of a 3-sigma analysis on a 256Mb SRAM array using the Memory+ System Memory tool, enabling visibility into the tradeoff between timing and system-level yield, in a matter of minutes. The tool is also applicable to system-level DRAM analysis.

Using memory design as just one example, Solido is able to provide designers with the necessary tools to analyze yield and performance, faster and with more consistent quality than before. As shown with Memory+, memory designers can quickly analyze designs at the cell level to 6-sigma and the system-level to 3-sigma, while keeping Monte Carlo and SPICE level accuracy.


TSMC Theater Presentation: Ciranova!

TSMC Theater Presentation: Ciranova!
by Daniel Nenni on 06-14-2012 at 9:00 pm

Ciranova presented a hierarchical custom layout flow used on several large advanced-node designs to reduce total layout time by about 50%. Ciranova itself does automated floorplanning and placement software with only limited routing; but since the first two constitute the majority of custom layout time, and strongly influence the remainder, the overall impact can be substantial. Designs sensitive to nanometer effects like Layout Dependent Effects (LDE) and poly density are particularly well suited to automation; one example was a 28nm, 40,000 device mixed-signal IP block which had been completely placed by one engineer in 8 days, including density optimization.

The Ciranova-enabled flow has two main phases. In the first phase, the software automatically generates a first-pass set of constraints for the entire design hierarchy, and a range of accurate floorplans. This phase is “push button” – it starts with a schematic and requires no intervention or user constraint entry. In the second phase, the user interactively refines the initial constraints, running and rerunning hierarchical placement until the entire layout matches the user’s floorplan targets and other criteria. The whole process is very fast; since the layouts are DRC-correct irrespective of rule complexity, tens of thousands of devices can be placed accurately in a few days. Ciranova’s output is an OpenAccess database which can be opened in any OA environment.

Two major advantages of this flow over normal schematic-driven-layout are (1) the DRC correct by construction aspect; and (2) the entire layout is optimized at once. This approach lends itself especially well to handling proximity-related effects like LDE, where the behavior of a given device changes depending on what happens to be nearby. Since Ciranova optimizes entire regions at once, multiple LDE spacing constraints are managed together.

In a TSMC design, TSMC provides tools at the schematic level to help a user identify LDE-sensitive devices in his or her schematic, and determine the relevant spacing constraints necessary for those devices to perform correctly. Ciranova then takes this information and produces a correct-by-construction layout which optimizes not only to the LDE directives but also to any other requirements: design rules, density, designer guidance such as symmetry, etc. Also, the approach is a general one and not limited to individual modules like current mirrors and differential pairs.

The diagram above includes a post-placement simulation study with alternate layouts of the same design: one with LDE rules applied, and one without (net result: the LDE-optimized placement clocks slightly faster). Most users never get to see a comparison like this, because hand layout takes so long that few people ever do it more than one way. But an automated flow makes this kind of study and tradeoff analysis easy.

Using this approach, even very large custom IC designs under very complex design rules can be done quickly; and typically at equal or better quality to handcraft, since much broader optimizations can be achieved than a human mask designer normally has time to explore.


TSMC Theater Presentation: Atrenta SpyGlass!

TSMC Theater Presentation: Atrenta SpyGlass!
by Daniel Nenni on 06-13-2012 at 9:10 am

Atrenta presented an update on the TSMC Soft IP Alliance Program at TSMC’s theater each day at DAC. Mike Gianfagna, Atrenta VP of Marketing, presented an introduction to SpyGlass, an overview of the program and a progress report. Dan Kochpatcharin, TSMC Deputy Director of IP Portfolio, was also there. Between Mike, Dan, and I there are about 100 years of semiconductor ecosystem experience. If Paul McLellan was there it would be double that.

TSMC and Atrenta announced the Soft IP Alliance Program last year at DAC. The program uses a special set of SpyGlass rules specified by TSMC to validate that soft IP meets an established set of quality goals before it is included in TSMC online. The program leverages Atrenta’s SpyGlass platform that is used by about 200 companies worldwide to analyze and optimize their RTL designs before handoff to back-end implementation. SpyGlass checks things like linting rules, power, clock synchronization, testability, timing constraints and routing congestion. It highlights problems and provides guidance to improve the design.

SpyGlass can also be used as an IP validation tool, and this is the foundation of the Soft IP Alliance Program with TSMC and Atrenta. Atrenta developed a set of SpyGlass rules specifically tuned to verify the completeness and integration risks associated with soft, or synthesizable IP. Called the IP Kit, the integrated package also produces concise DashBoard and DataSheet reports that summarize the results of the IP Kit tests. Figure 1 shows an example of a DashBoard Report.

TSMC and Atrenta collaborated on the development of a version of the IP Kit that met TSMC’s requirements for delivered quality of soft IP. This technology formed the basis of the Soft IP Alliance Program, and testing of partner IP began last year. Deliverables for the Soft IP Alliance Program include: installation instructions, a reference design to test installation procedures, documentation, automated generation of all reports and a training module. For soft IP to be listed in TSMC Online, the DashBoard report must show a clean (or passing) grade for all tests. Figure 2 illustrates the kind of tests that are performed before IP is listed on TSMC Online.

At DAC this year, a progress report was presented on the results of the program. Ten IP vendors have joined the program, including Arteris, Inc., CEVA, Chips&Media, Inc., Digital Media Professionals Inc. (DMP), Imagination Technologies, Intrinsic-ID, MIPS Technologies, Inc., Sonics, Inc., Tensilica, Inc. and Vivante Corporation. Three additional soft IP vendors have recently joined the program as well.

TSMC and Atrenta are now working on the second generation of the soft IP validation test suite. This version will add physical routing congestion metrics. An update for the program will be presented at the TSMC Open Innovation Platform® Ecosystem Forum in San Jose on October 16, 2012. I hope to see you there!


BDA TSMC Theater Presentation

BDA TSMC Theater Presentation
by Daniel Nenni on 06-12-2012 at 5:00 pm

I caught the Berkeley Design Automation presentation in the TSMC Theater, where Simon Young (BDA’s director of product marketing) described the Analog FastSPICE (AFS) nanometer circuit verification platform, built on their foundation of very fast, very accurate, high capacity circuit simulation.

BDA claims the AFS platform offers the fastest and most accurate circuit simulation, with single-core performance 5x to 10x faster than other foundry-certified simulators, and up to a further 4x faster with multithreading. AFS is consistently endorsed by designers of data converters, PLLs and DLLs, SerDes and other high-speed I/O, RFCMOS, and CMOS image sensors.

AFS is certified on several TSMC process technologies from 65nm down to 20nm through the TSMC SPICE-Qualification Program. In addition, BDA and TSMC have for several years collaborated on the device noise sub-flow for the TSMC analog and mixed-signal reference flow. Together the two companies qualified AFS’s full-spectrum transient noise analysis for this flow. A great many transient simulations are needed for this qualification process, including MOS white and flicker noise sources. Very close correlation to silicon is necessary for certification to be granted. These steps are repeated for a variety of complex mixed-signal IPs, including ADCs and PLLs.

Two recent customer example circuits illustrate the value of this qualification. Firstly, a closed-loop 14GHz PLL circuit from Analog Bits, designed for 100GbE applications, passed through performance signoff with AFS transient noise. Correlation between transient noise simulation and silicon was within 2dB. A second circuit, a delta-sigma ADC from Qualcomm, exhibited a 25dB increase in SNDR when AFS simulations including transient noise were run. Correlation between transient noise simulation and silicon was within 1.5dB. Many other examples were share last fall, at BDA’s nanometer Circuit Verification Forum.

AFS’s numerical noise floor is well below 160dB. Nanometer circuit designers demanding high dynamic range and high noise bandwidth value this accuracy. SPICE simulators achieve 60dB dynamic range with default settings, so tightening tolerances is required for trustworthy performance signoff of innovative architectures on nanometer process technologies.

Contrary to digital fastSPICE simulators that use table lookup models and an event-driven algorithm to deliver speed and capacity at the cost of accuracy, Simon compared the AFS Circuit Simulator to foundry-endorsed “sign-off” SPICE simulators. AFS solves the device analytical equations and the full matrix every simulation time-step. The difference is that tightening simulation tolerances doesn’t cause AFS to slow-down in the same way that other simulators do. And AFS always converges on a DC solution and runs transient simulation quickly, even for circuits above 10M elements.

For all this accuracy and speed, some designers want to run fast functional verification and don’t need nanometer SPICE accurate results. AFS offers a combination of user-selectable options to relax tolerances, simplify models, and simplify netlists (with RC reduction, for example). With these options set, AFS performance increases by another 4x to 5x.

Clearly, for nanometer accurate circuit simulation, 5x to 10x — or more — faster than alternatives, for large and complex circuits of 10M elements, foundry-certified AFS offers a great solution.


Industry Standard FinFET versus Intel Tri-Gate!

Industry Standard FinFET versus Intel Tri-Gate!
by Daniel Nenni on 06-03-2012 at 6:00 pm

Ever since the “Intel Reinvents Transistors Using New 3-D Structure” PR campaign I have been at odds with them. As technologists, I have nothing but respect for Intel. The Intel PR department, however, quite frankly, is evil. Correct me if I’m wrong here but Intel did not “reinvent” the transistor. Nor did they come up with the name Tri-Gate. If not for prior art, Intel would certainly have trademarked it, my opinion.

As I previously wrote, other than the unique profile chosen by Intel for their Tri-Gate implementation, there really is no key technical distinction between Tri-Gate and the industry standard term FinFET. According to Dan Hutcheson, CEO of VLSI Research, who follows Intel rather closely:

The reason why Intel calls its FinFET a Tri-Gate is that it is a subspecies of the technology. The original FinFET was a bigate. When Intel first developed theirs (way back in the last decade) out of respect for Chenming they named it a Tri-Gate, so as not to draw from UCB’s work. Out of respect? What does that say about the rest of the industry drawing from Chenming’s work that is using the FinFET moniker? Plus, Dan says, the real importance of the Tri-Gate is not so much the third gate, but the fact that it is so much easier to manufacture than a bi-gate. That was the real contribution of Intel.

According to my sources this is not entirely true. The original paper(s) from Chenming’s group at UC-B did propose a “dual gate” (possibly even independent) structure. In the original proposal, the top surface of the FinFET would receive a thicker dielectric than the sidewalls, and not contribute to the device current. If the fin was covered by a single, continuous gate material, that would be a “dual gate”. If the gate material was etched and the sidewalls were covered by separate gates, that would be an “independent dual gate”. (Offering two independent input signals to a FinFET device provides some unique power/performance tradeoff optimizations not available with a single input signal to the transistor.)

However, lots of researchers pursuing FinFET fabrication realized that the “dual” gate (especially the dual-independent option) would be very difficult to fabricate with high yield in production. As a result, technical papers began to emerge with the triple-gate option, where the (thin) gate dielectric was also present on top of the fin, in addition to the sidewalls. The third gate surface on top of the fin is not as effective as the gate on the two sidewalls, as your note indicates.

Here’s an example of some of the triple-gate research:

Burenkov and Lorenz, “Corner effect in double and triple gate FinFET’s”, 33rd Conference on European Solid-State Device Research, 2003, p.135-138.

So, Intel was among many to pursue triple gate FinFET fabrication. And, they were certainly not the only research team to use the term “tri-gate” 10+ years ago:

Breed and Roenker, “Dual-gate and Tri-gate FinFET’s: Simulation and Design”, International Semiconductor Device Research Symposium, 2003, p. 150-151.

So, the use of the term is not really in deference to Chenming or UC-B — it’s a “de facto” standard term that the industry has used for the FinFET fabrication option that Intel has chosen.