RVN! 26 Banner revised (800 x 100 px) (600 x 100 px)

Podcast EP12: A Close Look at Intel with Stacy Rasgon

Podcast EP12: A Close Look at Intel with Stacy Rasgon
by Daniel Nenni on 03-19-2021 at 10:00 am

Dan takes an in-depth look at Intel with Stacy Rasgon, Managing Director and Senior Analyst, U.S. Semiconductors at Bernstein Research. Stacy is an unusual  semiconductor analyst as he holds a Ph.D. in chemical engineering from MIT. His substantial technical knowledge allows for a deep dive on Intel that you will find refreshing and quite interesting.

We cover several CEO regimes at Intel with a frank assessment of the latest talent infusion. What will Intel do next? Stacy offers some interesting perspectives during our discussion.

The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in these podcasts belong solely to the speaker, and not to the speaker’s employer, organization, committee or any other group or individual.

Intel on SemiWiki

 


Electronics Back Strongly in 2021

Electronics Back Strongly in 2021
by Bill Jewell on 03-19-2021 at 8:00 am

Electronics Production 2021

Electronics production has recovered strongly from slowdowns due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Most major Asian electronic producers reported double-digit increases in early 2021. The chart below shows three-month-average change versus a year ago for electronics production. The data is from each country’s official statistics and is in local currency.

China, by far the largest producer of electronics, was growing at about a 10% average rate in 2019. As many factories were shut in early 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, electronics production change versus a year ago turned negative. Production growth was back to the 10% range in May 2020. Production came back robustly in early 2021 compared to the weakness of a year ago. In February 2021, China’s electronics production was up 36%.

Vietnam was one of the most successful countries in fighting the COVID-19 outbreak. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), Vietnam had only 2,567 cases and 35 deaths out of a population of over 94 million. The country did shut down for three weeks in April 2020, which resulted in a slowdown in electronics production. Production bounced back to double-digit growth in October 2020. Vietnam’s electronics production growth in February 2021 was 23% versus a year ago.

South Korea was relatively successful in fighting COVID-19, with WHO reporting 97,294 cases and 1,688 deaths out of a population of over 50 million. South Korea never shut down businesses, which enabled growth in electronics production throughout 2020. Growth was over 20% in January through March of 2020, with South Korean manufacturing benefiting from slowdowns in other countries. South Korea’s electronic production growth was 12% in January 2021.

Taiwan experienced electronics production growth averaging over 20% in the months of 2019, benefiting from production shifts from China during the U.S.-China trade disputes. Growth slowed to single digits in 2020, but never went negative. Taiwan was also very effective in fighting COVID-19, with only 990 cases and 10 deaths out of a population of over 24 million according to Johns Hopkins University of Medicine.

China’s production growth is reflected in the unit production of two key electronics products – PCs and mobile phones. China produces over 80% of the world’s supply of each of these products. Unit production change versus a year ago of both PCs and mobile phones turned negative in early 2020. PCs returned to growth in April 2020, but mobile phones remained negative throughout 2020. In February 2021, PCs were up 73% and mobile phones were up 19%. These growth rates are impressive but are being measured against a very weak early 2020.

The United States and the United Kingdom (UK) were two of the countries hardest hit by COVID-19, with death rates of over 160 per 100,000 people according to WHO. Several major European Union (EU) countries were also severely impacted, especially Italy, Spain, and France. Lockdowns in the U.S. varied by state, but in general did not have much effect on manufacturing. U.S. electronics production slowed from over 5% year-to-year growth in the first five months of 2019 to less than 1% in December 2019, prior to any COVID-19 related slowdowns. U.S. growth remained below 1% until July 2020 and picked up to over 8% in November 2020. January 2021 growth was 8.7%.

EU electronics production change versus a year ago in 2020 was similar to 2019 – single digit declines in most months. COVID-19 related lockdowns did not seem to significantly affect electronics production. Growth picked up to 11% in December 2020 and 23% in January 2021. The UK officially left the EU on January 31, 2020, a process known as Brexit. A transition period lasted until December 31, 2020 with a final trade agreement at the last minute. The UK electronics production change was like the EU, except for a double-digit decline beginning in April 2020. UK shutdowns impacted manufacturing for several months in mid-2020. UK growth in January 2021 was 0.7%. The UK has not seen the powerful recent growth the EU has experienced. The Financial Times reported over one-third of UK manufacturers have lost revenue since the UK left the EU, primarily due to delays in importing from and exporting to the EU. The long-term effect of Brexit on UK electronics production remains to be seen. Brexit critics foresee companies shifting production from the UK to EU countries to reach EU markets more easily. Brexit supporters predict with UK free of the EU it will be able to increase production for export to the world outside of the EU.

The substantial early 2021 growth in electronics production is reflected in semiconductor shipments, according to World Semiconductor Trade Statistics (WSTS) data. The semiconductor market in 2020 was on a recovery path from a 12% decline in 2019, with three-month-average change rebounding from a 16% decline in June 2019 to a 6.9% increase in March 2020. Growth plateaued in the 5% to 7% range until reaching 9.2% in November 2020. Revenues versus a year ago were up 13.2% in January 2021, the largest increase since October 2018. January 2021 monthly semiconductor shipments were $3,997 million, up 0.1% from $3,992 million in December 2020. The normal seasonal trend is a significant decline in January from December, ranging from -5% to -15% over the last ten years. January 2021 marks the first semiconductor revenue increase from December to January in the history of WSTS data going back to 1984.

Although the global economy has yet to fully recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, the electronics and semiconductor industries seem past the recovery phase and back to healthy growth.

Semiconductor Intelligence is a consulting firm providing market analysis, market insights and company analysis for anyone involved in the semiconductor industry – manufacturers, designers, foundries, suppliers, users or investors. Please contact me if you would like further information.

Also Read:

Semiconductors up 6.5% in 2020, >10% in 2021?

Semiconductor Boom in 2021

China Mobile and Computer Update 2020


Executive Interview: Casper van Oosten of Intermolecular, Inc.

Executive Interview: Casper van Oosten of Intermolecular, Inc.
by Daniel Nenni on 03-19-2021 at 6:00 am

Casper Van Oosten cut out 1

Casper van Oosten is the Business Field Head and Managing Director for Intermolecular, Inc., acquired by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany in 2019. Prior to this role, Casper worked in various roles on Eyrise™ Dynamic Liquid Crystal Window in Veldhoven, the Netherlands, at an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. Casper is one of the founders of the company Peer+ BV and the Eyrise™ technology, where he filled the role of CTO and, after acquisition by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany in 2014, Managing Director and Head of CellTech Operations. In this function, he was responsible for designing, building and operating a first-of-its kind factory for switchable windows.

Casper’s former experience also includes a consultant role at Willems & van den Wildenberg New Business Consulting. Casper holds a PhD in Polymer Technology at Eindhoven University of Technology and MSc Mechanical Engineering at Delft University of Technology.

What brought you to semiconductors?
I achieved my Masters in Mechanical Engineering at Delft University in the Netherlands and spent the last year optimizing the motion control system of a waferstepper. ASML had loaned this tool to the university and basically the whole setup was mine to play with. The precision we could achieve with that tool – accuracy well below 100nm with a tool from the 1990s – was intriguing and I was grasped by the phenomenal physics going on at these small dimensions. However, the increasing power needed in these tools didn’t seem sustainable to me so I ventured into self-assembling molecules – liquid crystals – for almost 2 decades before returning to the semiconductor world. Now, the semiconductor world is even more exciting as we are seeing the first applications where bottom-up self -assembly and top down structuring, for example in the lithography space, are starting to see high-volume applications. For me personally, it feels like I have closed the loop and am excited to work on these projects where the difference of one or two atoms really makes an impact on the overall device performance.

What is the backstory of Intermolecular?
Intermolecular was founded on the concept of high throughput experimentation for materials discovery, or combinatorial chemistry, that is found in life science labs. In this high throughput experimentation, a large number of experiments are executed in parallel, thereby mapping out an experimental space to quickly find optimal materials combinations and process conditions. The Intermolecular team adopted these tools for semiconductor applications, first for wet processes, later for PVD and ALD processes. Using these tools combined with our customers or our proprietary test vehicles, we can very quickly build and analyze test material stacks for their electrical performance. The Intermolecular business went through various business models but since 2015 we have been using these tools to support our customers in accelerating their device development by scouting out material combinations that unlock their next node of devices in a fully exclusive and dedicated fashion. This means that our customers get full ownership of the results of our work and this has allowed us to work with all major semiconductor companies and many of the tool makers. We operate as an extension of our customers’ teams to drive impactful outcomes and product prototypes while creating first to market opportunities.

Since 2019, we are a subsidiary of Merck KGaA Darmstadt, Germany, part of the Semiconductor Solutions business. In this setup, we continue to work for external customers, working with any commercially available materials, but we also closely collaborate with our colleagues in the materials business so that our customers benefit from a seamless materials innovation process.

What customer challenges are you addressing?
We see that complexity is increasing across all application areas of semiconductors to meet the demands of advanced computing and producing smaller, more powerful and power-efficient connected devices. With this, the number of materials used in a single device is increasing. The number of options to consider and combinations to test for development of these devices is also exploding. We take that burden from our customers, working to resolve these materials challenges based on data and real experiments, so that our customers can focus on the other integration challenges at hand. While we do this for the large semiconductor companies, we have lately also seen an increasing number of startups that have found their way to us. These teams typically come to us after their initial funding rounds when they have to start building their first functional devices. While they will look to use known technology as much as possible to reduce risks, their key invention often requires processes and materials that are not known and not fully developed. Therefore, traditional foundries will shy away from these challenges, but this is where Intermolecular’s team and toolset excels. Our cleanroom is setup in a flexible way so we can host these processes and produce these first working prototypes, up to small series, to generate yield and reliability data. Some of our customers will then reinsert wafers back into other processes or in some cases we even host their tools in our cleanroom.

What are the products Intermolecular has to offer?
Any program with Intermolecular aims to resolve the customers materials challenge rapidly using a data driven exploration of the potential solutions in materials and process settings. The exact contents of the program vary as they are always fully customized. We typically start by establishing tool correlations – meaning that we make sure that the solutions we find in our labs can translate to the customers lab. Once that is done, we will take the development through several optimization iterations, working through the list of key parameters to hit, until we have optimized the solution to within the projects targets. These collaborations are very intensive – a typical experimental cycle covering experiment definition, device fabrication, testing, evaluation and analysis is completed in two weeks, and will run from a couple of months to over a year. Once the optimization is done, we support the transfer to the customers tools using wafers processed in our labs and our analytical toolsets.

Application areas where we have been active include many memory technologies such as DRAM, phase change memory and 3D NAND. Furthermore, our materials exploration approach has been very productive in emerging technologies such as neuromorphic computing and quantum computing. We also have worked on the interface of optics and electronics, for example in displays, optical sensors and functional coatings.

What is your competitive positioning?
Intermolecular is one of the few labs that will allow customers to work on material stack development in a fully dedicated way with full IP ownership. Creating such a protected environment is key for us, as it allows our customers to share their full challenges with us which is essential to help them find the best solution. On top of that, our proprietary toolset not only allows us to quickly scan through a variety of material options and test them electrically, but it also allows us to be very flexible to adjust to the process needs of the customer. As we are now part of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, this provides the option for our customers to tap into the materials base of our parent company when desired, providing a clear visibility on the supply chain through scale-up through to HVM. We believe that this puts is in a unique position in the value chain.  We see that many of our customers recognize this combination brings a lot of benefit to them.

We have recently announced (March 4) closer collaboration with the Merck KGaA, Darmstadt Germany Silicon Valley Innovation Hub, which will now be located in our 150,000 square foot facility in San Jose, providing companies a unique space for  innovation and collaboration at the intersection of life science, healthcare and electronic materials. This will allow us to branch out into new areas such as bioelectronics.

What kind of year was 2020 for Intermolecular?
2020 was in many aspects a transformational year for Intermolecular. Our programs involve very intensive interactions with our clients and we normally have our customers in our building on a daily basis. COVID of course changed this aspect completely; interestingly the acceptance of videoconferencing in the industry means that it is easier to join a meeting and we see that we are talking with larger teams at our customers. In my view, this has elevated the impact we make with the customers, though I still believe creative discussions with face-to-face interactions work best. Next to that, 2020 was the first full year as part of Merck KGaA Darmstadt, Germany, and in that sense it have been a discovery of new possibilities – both for our customers as well as for the Intermolecular team. With the combined forces, we are now taking on challenges we could have never mastered alone.

What does 2021 have in store?
The semiconductor industry is going through a strong demand phase right now. So while the large players in the industry are working hard to meet demands and maximize the output from their operations, we are seeing a lot of start-up activity working on solutions that takes us beyond today’s problems. It is a great challenge to work on both helping to meet today’s demands, as well as preparing for the next challenge for the industry. One challenge that is particularly close to my heart is the enormous energy consumption that all our data use is triggering. Continuing at this rate, in 2030 20% of the world’s energy will be used for handling data, something that I find unacceptable. There are some great ideas out there to come up with radically different ways of computing – such as neuromorphic computing – to resolve this. While the industry is hot this year and everyone will be challenged to deliver on today’s demand, I am optimistic that we can make progress on this very fundamental threat to our industry.

WEBINAR: Fundamentals of ferroelectric hafnium oxide for better devices

Also Read:

CEO Interview: R.K. Patil of Vayavya Labs

CEO Interview: Dr. Shafy Eltoukhy of OpenFive 

CEO interview: Graham Curren of Sondrel


IP and Software Speeds up TWS Earbud SoC Development

IP and Software Speeds up TWS Earbud SoC Development
by Tom Simon on 03-18-2021 at 10:00 am

CEVA Bluebud TWS Platform

The global market for earphones and headphones in 2020 is estimated to have been $34B and is expanding at a compound rate of over 20% per year. Of this almost 50% is said to be earphones which are shifting rapidly to True Wireless Stereo (TWS). We have seen the sales of TWS devices grow from 1M units is 2016 to 109M units in 2019, though it should be pointed out that TWS can also be used for stereo Bluetooth speakers as well. TWS aims to deliver on long battery life, left/right synchronization, improved user interface and high-quality audio. TWS devices can also be used for new and novel functionalities, such as health and sports tracking.

Each of the features mentioned above and the new innovations coming down the pike create major challenges for product developers. CEVA has announced a turnkey hardware and software platform for TWS and Bluetooth SoCs that will help designers quickly solve these challenges. In a nutshell CEVA’s Bluebud leverages several of CEVA’s proven IPs, such as RivieraWave Bluetooth IP, the CEVA-BX1 DSP and the noise reduction, voice and motion processing algorithms in ClearVox, WhisPro and MotionEngine. It offers best in class TWS Bluetooth link stability and audio quality.

CEVA Bluebud TWS Platform

Bluebud uses a single core architecture that combines Bluetooth software, and audio & sensor processing on a single BX1 DSP. Despite being labeled as a DSP is it highly efficient at executing control code. This approach yields lower power, less data movement, lower latency and better left-right jitter control.

CEVA offers all the IP necessary for implementing a TWS system. Their Bluetooth 5.2 dual mode controller is a low-power packet engine with optimized traffic scheduling for Bluetooth Classic and LE. The integrated CEVA-BX1 processor can efficiently execute the protocol stack and handle the DSP processing. It supports a complete memory subsystem, with SRAM, ROM and FLASH, that includes efficient program and data caches. Naturally this comes with a full set of standard interfaces, like GPIOs, timers, PMU, etc.

The CEVA-BX1 processor is a hybrid DSP and controller with 4-way VLIW SIMD. It also comes with a quad 16×16-bit MAC and a Dual 32×32-bit MAC. It offers best in class code density and has a CoreMark/MHz of 4.41. The CEVA-BX1 supports user defined ISA extensions, optional floating point unit and advanced dynamic branch prediction.

Developers using the Bluebud platform also get a comprehensive software platform to make their job easier, built around the SenslinQ framework. There is a Bluetooth library with an LE stack (LE Audio, Sport & Fitness, etc.) combined with a classic stack (A2DP, HFP, etc). The audio software has a wide range of codecs, including the new LC3 codec. The audio software handles TWS streaming and audio sync. CEVA also has special purpose SenslinQ plug-ins for noise cancellation, voice commands and motion detection, or customers can supply or create their own. One interesting plug-in is the TinyML plug-in for TensorFlow Lite Micro.

The Bluebud platform includes an application library that supports many features that are needed in TWS. CEVA supplies libraries for easy and fast pairing, audio & call control, TWS optimized relay (including role switch to balance battery life), multi-source connections, OTA firmware update and sound effects, to name a few.

One of the key capabilities of TWS is handling two separate synchronized receivers for left and right streams. Bluetooth Classic does not offer native support for two receivers. There are several solutions on the market for working with Bluetooth classic devices. Basic forwarding is used where one receiver receives both signals and retransmits to the other side. However, it uses a lot of power, does not have high fidelity and can be unstable. Dual stream approaches, where the two channels are independently transmitted to each side, are often proprietary and require both the transmitter and receiver to be from the same supplier.

Sniffing is where both receivers listen to the transmitter but designate one side as the controller. This approach is compatible with all transmitters. However, it is complicated by technical and patent issues. CEVA on its side offers a similar performance sniffing solution with low complexity.

CEVA Bluebud is a complete high performance and high feature solution for companies developing TWS SoCs. With the fast market growth, time to market is a huge consideration. It seems that CEVA with their Bluebud platform is offering a rapid path for developing high quality, efficient and differentiated silicon. The CEVA website has presentation material, a written product brief and a white board talk on Bluebud to help designers come up to speed on their solution.

Also Read:

Expanding Role of Sensors Drives Sensor Fusion

Sensor Fusion Brings Earbuds into the Modern Age

Sensor Fusion in Hearables. A powerful complement


Resistive RAM (ReRAM) Computing-in-Memory IP Macro for Machine Learning

Resistive RAM (ReRAM) Computing-in-Memory IP Macro for Machine Learning
by Tom Dillinger on 03-18-2021 at 6:00 am

testsite

The term von Neumann bottleneck is used to denote the issue with the efficiency of the architecture that separates computational resources from data memory.   The transfer of data from memory to the CPU contributes substantially to the latency, and dissipates a significant percentage of the overall energy associated with the computation.

This energy inefficiency is especially acute for the implementation of machine learning algorithms using neural networks.  There is a significant research emphasis on in-memory computing, where hardware is added to the memory array in support of repetitive, vector-based data computations, reducing the latency and dissipation of data transfer to/from the memory.

In-memory computing is well-suited for machine learning inference applications.  After the neural network is trained, the weights associated with the multiply-accumulate (MAC) operations at each network node are stored in the memory, and can be used directly as multiplication operands.

At the recent International Solid-State Circuits Conference (ISSCC), researchers from the National Tsing Hua University and TSMC presented several novel design implementation approaches toward in-memory computing, using resistive RAM (ReRAM). [1]  Their techniques will likely help pave the way toward more efficient AI implementations, especially at the edge where latency and power dissipation are key criteria.

Background

An example of a fully-connected neural network is shown in the figure below.

A set of input data (from each sample) is presented to the network – the input layer.  A series of computations is performed at each subsequent layer.  In the fully-connected network illustrated above, the output computation from each node is presented to all nodes in the next layer.  The final layer of the trained network is often associated with determining a classification match to the input data, from a fixed set of labeled candidates (“supervised learning”).

The typical computation performed at each node is depicted below.  Each data value is multiplied by its related (trained) weight constant, then summed – a multiply-accumulate (MAC) calculation.  A final (trained) bias value may be added.  The output of a numeric activation function is used to provide the node output to the next layer.

The efficiency of the node computation depends strongly on the MAC operation.  In-memory computing architectures attempt to eliminate the delay and power dissipation of transferring weight values for the MAC computation.

The figures above illustrate how the multiplication of (data * weight) could be implemented using the value stored in a one-transistor, one-resistor (1T1R) ReRAM bitcell. [2]

ReRAM technology offers a unique method for non-volatile storage in a memory array.  A write cycle to the bitcell may change the property of the ReRAM material, between a high-resistance (HR) and low-resistance (LR) state.  Subsequent to the write cycle, a bitline current-sense read cycle differentiates between the resistance values to determine the stored bit.

Again referring to the figure above, with the assumption that HR = ‘0’ and LR = ‘1’, the ReRAM cell implements the (data * weight) product in the following manner:

  • if the data = ‘0’, the word line to the bitcell is inactive and little bitline current flows
  • if the data = ‘1’ (word line active), their bitcell current will either be iHR or iLR

If the bitline current sense circuitry distinguishes between iHR (small) and iLR (large), only the product (data = ‘1’) * (weight = ‘1’) = ‘1’ results in significant bitline current.

The summation of the (data * weight) product for multiple data values into the fully-connected network node is illustrated in the figure above.  Unlike a conventional memory array where only one decoded address word line is active, the in-memory computing MAC will have an active word line for each node input where (data = ‘1’).  The total bitline current will be the sum of the parallel ‘dotted’ bitcell currents where the individual word lines are active, either iLR or iHR for each.  The multiply-accumulate operation for all (data * weights) is readily represented as the total bitline current.

At the start of the MAC operation, assume a capacitor connected to the bitline is set to a reference voltage (say, either fully pre-charged or discharged).  The clocked duration of the MAC computation will convert the specific bitline current in that clock cycle into a voltage difference on that capacitor:

delta_V = (I_bitline) * (delta_T) / Creference

That voltage can be read by an analog-to-digital converter (ADC), to provide the digital equivalent of the MAC summation.

In-Computing ReRAM Innovations

The ISSCC presentation from researchers at National Tsing Hua University and TSMC introduced several unique innovations to the challenges of ReRAM-based in-memory computing.

Data and Weight Vector Widths

The simple examples in the figures above used a one-bit data input and a one-bit weight.  A real edge AI implementation will have data vector and weight vector widths as input to the MAC operation.  For example, consider the case of 8-bit data and 8-bit weights for each multiplication product in the MAC operation.  (Parenthetically, the vector width of the weights after network training need not be the same of the input data vector width.  Further, the numeric value of the width vector could be any of a number of representations – e.g., signed or unsigned integer, twos complement.)  For the example, at each network node, the in-memory computation architecture needs to compute multiple products of two 8-bit vectors and accumulate the sum.

While the ReRAM array macro computes the MAC for the network node, circuitry outside the array would be used to add the bias, and apply the activation function.  This function would also normalize the width of the node output result to the input data vector width for the next network layer.

The researchers implemented a novel approach toward the MAC calculation, expanding upon the 1-bit ReRAM example shown above.

The description above indicated that the duration of the bitline current defines the output voltage on the reference capacitor.

The researchers reviewed several previous proposals for generating the data vector input-to-word line duration conversion, as illustrated below.

The input data value could be decoded into a corresponding number of individual word line pulses, as illustrated below.

Alternatively, the data value could be decoded into a word line pulse of different durations.  The multiplication of the data input vector times each bit of the weight could be represented by different durations of the active word line to the ReRAM bit cell, resulting in different cumulative values of bitline current during the read cycle.  The figure below illustrates the concept, for four 3-bit data inputs applied as word lines to a weight vector bitline, shown over two clock cycles.

For a data value of ‘000’, the word line would remain off;  for a data value of ‘111’, the maximum word line decode pulse duration would be applied.  The data input arcs to the network node would be dotted together as multiple active cells on the column bitline, as before.

Each column in the ReRAM array corresponds to one bit of the weight vector – the resulting voltage on the reference capacitor is the sum of all node data inputs times one bit of the weight.

Outside of the ReRAM array itself, support circuitry is provided to complete the binary vector (data*weight) multiplication and accumulation operation:

  •  an ADC on each bitline column converts the voltage value to a binary vector
  • shifting the individual binary values for the MSB to LSB of the weight vector
  • generating the final MAC summation of the shifted weight bits

The researchers noted that these two approaches do not scale well to larger data vector widths:

  • the throughput is reduced, as longer durations are needed
  • for the long pulse approach, PVT variations will result in jitter in the active word line duration, impacting the accuracy

The researchers chose to implement a novel, segmented duration approach.  For example, an 8-bit data input vector is divided into 3 separate ReRAM operations, of 2-3-3 bits each.  The cumulative duration of these three phases is less than the full data decode approach, improving the computation throughput.

Scaling the Bitline Current

With the segmented approach, the researchers described two implementation options:

  • at the end of each phase, the reference capacitor voltage is sensed by the ADC, then reset for the next phase;  the ADC output provides the data times weight bit product for the segmented data vector slice
  • the reference capacitor voltage could be held between phases, without a sample-and-reset sequence

In this second case, when transitioning from one data vector segment to the next, it is necessary to scale the capacitor current correspondingly.  If the remaining data vector width for the next segment phase is n bits, the capacitor current needs to be scaled by 1/(2**n).  The figure below provides a simplified view to how the researchers translated the bitline current in each phase into a scaled reference capacitor current.

A pFET current mirror circuit is used to generate a current into the reference capacitor;  the unique nature of a current mirror is by adjusting device sizes in the mirror branch, scaled values of the bitline current are generated.  Between the data vector segment phases, the capacitor voltage is held, and a different scaled mirror current branch is enabled.

For the in-memory ReRAM computing testsite, the researchers chose to use the full reference capacitor reset phase for the most significant bits segment, to provide the optimum accuracy, as required for the MSBs of the data input.  For the remaining LSBs of the data, the subsequent phases used the switched current mirror approach.

Process Variations

The researchers acknowledged that there are significant tolerances in the high and low resistance values of each ReRAM bitcell.  When using ReRAM as a simple memory array, there is sufficient margin between lowR and highR to adequately sense a stored ‘1’ and ‘0’.

However, as the in-memory computing requirements rely on accumulation of specific (dotted) bitcell currents, these variations are a greater issue.  The researchers chose to use an “averaging” approach – each stored weight bit value is copied across multiple ReRAM bitcells (e.g., # of copies = 4).  Although the figures above depict each data input vector as one ReRAM word line, multiple word lines connected each weight bit are used.

Testsite and FOM

TSMC fabricated an ReRAM testsite using this segmented data vector technique.  The specs are shown in the figure above.  The testsite provided programmability for different data vector widths and weight vector widths – e.g., 8b-8b-14b represents an eight bit data input, an eight bit weight, and a full MAC summation supporting a fourteen bit result at the network node.

The researchers defined a figure-of-merit for MAC calculations using in-memory computing:

        FOM = (energy_efficiency * data_vector_width * weight_vector_width * output_vector_width) / latency

(Energy efficiency is measured in TOPS/Watt;  the output vector width from the ReRAM array and support circuitry is prior to bias addition and activation/normalization.)

Summary

Edge AI implementations are hampered by the power and latency inefficiencies associated with the von Neumann bottleneck, which has sparked great interest in the field of in-memory computing approaches.  Read access to a ReRAM array storing weight values offers a unique opportunity to implement a binary product of data and weights.  Researchers at TSMC and National Tsing Hua University have implemented several novel approaches toward the use of ReRAM for the MAC computation at each neural network node, addressing how to efficiently work with wide data vectors, and manage ReRAM process variation.  I would encourage you to read their recent technical update provided at ISSCC.

-chipguy

References

[1]   Xue, Cheng-Xin, et al., “A 22nm 4Mb 8b-Precision ReRAM Computing-in-Memory Macro”, ISSCC 2021, paper 16.1.

[2]  Mao, M., et al., “Optimizing Latency, Energy, and Reliability of 1T1R ReRAM Through Cross-Layer Techniques”, IEEE Journal on Emerging and Selected Topics in Circuits and Systems, 2016, p. 352-363.

 


SPIE 2021 – ASML DUV and EUV Updates

SPIE 2021 – ASML DUV and EUV Updates
by Scotten Jones on 03-17-2021 at 10:00 am

SPIE DUV 2021 ASML NXT4 DryWet Presentation final noWPD2 Page 42

At the SPIE Advanced Lithography Conference held in February, ASML presented the latest information on their Deep Ultraviolet (DUV) and Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) exposure systems. I recently got to interview Mike Lercel of ASML to discuss the presentations.

DUV

Despite all the attention EUV is getting, most layers are still exposed with DUV systems and this will likely continue to be true for the foreseeable future.

ASML has had two DUV platforms in production, the XT platform for dry exposure tools and the NXT platform for immersion. The NXT is the faster and more sophisticated platform.

For leading edge immersion, ASML has introduced the NXT:2050i on the fourth generation NXT platform for ArF immersion (ArFi). The new system has a new wafer handler, wafer stage, reticle stage, projection lens, laser pulse stretcher and immersion hood. This results in faster wafer to wafer sequencing, faster measurements, pellicle deflection correction and improved speckle with improved overlay. Throughput on the new system is 295 wafers per hour (wph). Longer term there are plans for a 330 wph system (see figure 1).

ASML is now taking the NXT platform and porting dry lenses onto it with the first system the NXT:1470 for ArF dry offering 300wph (slightly faster than the NXT:20250i because it does not have the immersion overhead). The 300 wph for the NXT:1470 is up from approximately 200 wph for the XT:1460K. In the future the NXT:1470 will have further throughput improvements to 330 wph (see figure 1).

There are also plans to port a KrF dry lens to the NXT platform with 330 wph planned (see figure 1).

Figure 1. NXT Roadmap.

EUV (0.33NA)

With the standard 0.33 numerical aperture (NA) systems in use at Samsung and TSMC for 7nm and 5nm logic production and at Samsung for 1z DRAM, the number of wafers exposed with EUV is growing rapidly (see figure 2).

Figure 2. 3400x EUV Systems in the Field and Wafers Exposed.

The NXE:3400C system has been shipping since late 2019 and the new NXE:3600D should start shipping later this year. Each new system provides improved throughput and overlay.

Figure 3 presents a summary of both 0.33 NA and High-NA 0.55NA systems to be discussed in the next section.

Figure 3. EUV Systems Summary.

  1. The first column lists past, current, and future systems beginning with the NXE3400B systems that were the first production systems.
  2. The second column provides the introduction dates for each system. Notably the new NXE:3600D should ship later this year with improved performance and the first high-NA systems should ship late 2022.
  3. The third column presents the numerical aperture of the system with 0.33NA representing the current system and 0.55NA the high-NA system in development.
  4. The next two columns present the throughput for 20mJ/cm2 and 30mJ/cm2 doses as demonstrated by ASML. These throughputs are based on 96 fields per wafer more typical of a DRAM application.
  5. The systems shipped is IC Knowledge’s estimate of the number of NXE:3400B and NXE:3400C systems shipped by type through Q4-2020, ASML does not provide this breakout.
  6. The next column is the current availability of approximately 85% for the NXE:3400B and approximately 90% for the NXE:3400C. The 3400C has the new modular vessel that reduces downtime. Long term ASML has a goal to reach the 95% availability typical of DUV systems.
  7. The final column presents some comments on the systems and usage. We believe that 7nm logic production has primarily been on the 3400B and 5nm on the 3400C. We expect the 3nm processes due to enter production over the next one to two years to be primarily produced on the 3600D systems.

A key enabler for EUV of dense patterns is the availability of a pellicle, there is now a usable pellicle available. Pellicles use reduces throughput and whether a pellicle is used or not depends on the pattern density being printed. Figure 4 presents the state of EUV pellicle transmission.

Figure 4. EUV Pellicle Transmission.

There is currently some pellicle use in production.

High-NA EUV (0.55NA)

High-NA has now progressed from PowerPoint slides through engineering design to building modules and frames. The first High-NA tools (0.55NA) are expected to ship in late 2022. These EXE:5000 systems will likely be used for research and development with the EXE:5200 systems due in 2025/2026 being the first high-NA production systems (see figure 3).

The current 0.33NA systems can print down to an approximately 30nm pitch with a single exposure. There is work being done now to demonstrate 28nm and eventually 26nm lines and spaces with a single exposure. TSMC’s 5nm process currently in production has a 28nm M0 pitch and we believe this one layer may be double patterned EUV in current production while the rest of the layers that use EUV are single patterned. For TSMC’s 3nm process due to begin risk starts later this year we expect several EUV double patterned metal layers. With the current timing for 0.55NA systems to enter production estimated to be in the 2025/2026 time-frame, we may see foundry 2nm and Intel 5nm processes in production before then with extensive EUV double pattering. 055NA EUV would likely first appear in production for foundry 1.5nm processes and Intel 3nm eliminating EUV double patterning and reducing costs.

Figure 5 presents the technical value of High-NA EUV.

Figure 5. High-NA Technical Values.

One other value to 0.55NA EUV is that the higher contrast can print dense features with a much lower dose than 0.33NA EUV improving throughput (figure 3 is throughput for specific doses and does not consider dose reduction). Figure 6 illustrates the 0.55NA advantage.

Figure 6. High-NA Throughput Advantage for Dense Patterns.

There is also work being done on improved EUV mask absorber layers to improve contrast and resolution, see figure 7. and improve photoresists, see figure 8.

Figure 7. Improved Mask Absorber Layers.

 

Figure 8. Improved Photoresist.

Currently modules and frames for high-NA tools are being fabricated.

Conclusion

ASML continues to drive throughput and resolution across their entire portfolio of DUV and EUV systems. With High-NA system manufacturing underway, a path to 1.5nm logic and beyond is underway.

Related Lithography Posts

 


Quantum Tunneling for OTPs, PUFs: Higher security

Quantum Tunneling for OTPs, PUFs: Higher security
by Bernard Murphy on 03-17-2021 at 6:00 am

ememory neofuse min

I’ve had a number of enjoyable discussions with John East who ran Actel until it was acquired. (John and Actel devices also play an important role in my book, The Tell-Tale Entrepreneur.) This is relevant because Actel were well-known for their anti-fuse FPGAs. eMemory Technology, the subject of this blog, also produce an anti-fuse device, but with a difference. The Actel devices, worked as the name suggests, by growing a resistive silicon link between two points rather than blowing an efuse-link. John’s FPGAs are pretty impressive – they’ve driven multiple Rovers around Mars and power many satellites. But John admits the technology can be tricky to manage. Better might be Quantum tunneling for secure OTPs.

Tunneling technology

eMemory use this quantum tunneling idea in their NeoFuse process. Rather than growing a resistive silicon link between two points, they start with an ultra-thin gate-oxide. When they apply a programming voltage across this oxide, this can break some silicon/oxygen bonds, creating dangling bonds around each interface (gate and substrate). These dangling bonds grow in density as programming continues and act as traps distributed through the oxide. Electrons can then tunnel through these traps. This tunneling is obviously easier in thin-oxide devices, increasingly common in advanced processes.

According to the company, this dangling bond creation can only be destroyed by heating the device to around 600-700oC, so for all practical purposes it is a one-time programmable (OTP) technology. Pretty neat. Around this technology they have spun two solutions, one for OTP device applications and the other for physically unclonable functions (PUFs).

Secure OTP devices

The OTP is being offered as an embedded block and is already proven in a variety of processes at TSMC and other foundries. One feature especially interesting to me is the high security nature of this approach over traditional fuse devices. Blowing links in standard devices will be visible in SEM analyses. Maybe not to kiddie hackers but certainly to large scale criminal enterprises and nation-state hackers. But dangling bonds are inside the gate-oxide and even then would be very difficult to spot or map. Maybe not impossible (never say never), but a lot harder than SEM imaging. They also note that reliability against electromigration failures is better than in eFuse devices. Whatever reliability problems dangling bonds might have, electromigration does not seem like a likely candidate.

PUF application

The second application, for PUFs, is also appealing. A PUF provides an unpredictable but repeatable and unique ID for a device which can then be used in challenge/response authentication, say to approve an over-the-air software update. A PUF IP often depends on subtle manufacturing variations between chips to generate that unique ID. The NeoPUF technology builds on the same quantum tunneling mechanism described above. Here they apply a high electrical field to two identical and neighborhood transistors. In each this stimulates the growth of dangling bonds. Manufacturing differences will ensure one transistor will support a stronger tunneling current than the other, a measurable binary distinction between the two. Repeat that over many pairs of transistor gates and you have a number that meets all the requirements of a PUF ID.

They have run extensive tests on the key performance indicators for a PUF. For randomness, the IP passes the NIST 800-22 randomness tests. Stability is consistent across a wide range of voltages and temperatures and reliability is equally impressive through burn-in testing.

You can learn more HERE.

WEBINAR: eMemory’s Embedded ReRAM Solution on Nanometer Technologies


Delivering True Wireless Stereo (TWS) Experience

Delivering True Wireless Stereo (TWS) Experience
by Kalar Rajendiran on 03-16-2021 at 10:00 am

Cropped Picture Purchase Criteria when choosing wireless headphones or earbuds

A recent blog about the Hearables market covered how expansive and far reaching the product opportunities promise to be. Of course, consumer purchase criteria will drive the product realizations, adoptions and consequently the market success of each of these envisioned products.­ Whether it is the earbud product or one of those futuristic life augmenting hearables products, there are a few core requirements that need to be satisfied to achieve massive market adoption. For the earbud application, refer to Figure 1 below.

Figure 1: Purchase criteria when choosing wireless headphones or earbuds

Source: The State of Play Report 2020, Qualcomm

Six among the top criteria are sound quality, price, comfort in the ear, battery life, ease of use and active noise cancellation. Comfort in the ear and ease of use are basic requirements without which the earbud will not gain widespread use. For purposes of this blog, we will focus on how to deliver on the other top four criteria and how semiconductor companies can play a key differentiating role through the solutions they offer to hearables product manufacturers.

It’s in this context that I recently reviewed a whitepaper by Hai Yu and Clement Moulin of Dolphin Design. That whitepaper does a thorough job of not only describing the challenges in delivering on the purchase criteria but also offers compelling solutions to overcome the hurdles. In this blog, I’ll highlight just some of what I gathered from my review of the whitepaper.

For starters, the whitepaper addresses lot more aspects than what a quick glance of the title may lead one to assume. It goes into details, not only about selecting optimal ADC architecture for the audio codecs application but also on how to choose the active noise cancellation (ANC) algorithms to execute, how to manage power consumption and how to design quickly and effectively to deliver a cost-effective chip.

Excellent sound quality:

With Bluetooth 5.2 specification and the introduction of Low Complexity Communication Codec (LC3) LE Audio protocol, developers now have greater flexibility in balancing key attributes such as sound quality, multiple independent audio transmission channels, battery life, etc., when designing products. Along with this flexibility comes tradeoff choices that must be made when specifying the components that go into the audio signal chain. The whitepaper goes into lots of details about how to choose the right ADC architecture for implementing the audio codec, how to implement the Voice Activity Detector (VAD) and how to choose the best microphone for an application to get the fullest performance, among other things.

Active Noise Cancellation (ANC):

TWS earbuds use case introduces complexity to ambient-noise suppression. This combined with voice-activation feature necessitates processing a large amount of audio data which in turn will increase power consumption.

Dolphin Design’s WhisperTrigger is a patented Voice Activity Detector (VAD) which detects the presence of voice in a sound and triggers a system wake-up interrupt signal. This solution offers on-the-fly customization to adapt to any kind of environment and optimizes power consumption. This solution also does not need any DSP resource support, thereby reducing power demand on the battery. An Always-on-Voice (AOV) device implemented using WhisperTrigger IP would consume only a fraction of the power that a traditional software algorithm and/or conventional DSP implementation would require.

Additionally, Dolphin Design’s Ultra-low I/O latency codec dramatically eases the ANC software development effort and enhances power efficiency of the signal/noise processing workload.

Managing Power Efficiency:

Dolphin’s PowerStudio platform provides an easy way to implement power management design and integrate into an SoC. Their Power Controller IP is a CPU-less, event-based architecture that consumes ultra-low power and offers high-flexibility to scale with any SoC complexity.

Power efficiency management (refer to Figure 2 below) is accomplished through Always-ON Cluster (low leakage in sleep modes) and Active Cluster (for best energy efficiency in active modes) partitions.

Figure 2: Overview Block Diagram of Dolphin Design’s Power Controller

Source: Dolphin Design

All of the things that were highlighted above should translate to long play time on the earbuds (extended battery life between charges) and reduced silicon area of the chip.

Whether you are product developer at a Hearables product company or a chip developer for the Hearables market, you would gain a lot of very detailed knowledge by reading the entire whitepaper. You can download the whitepaper “Paving the way for the next generation audio codec for True Wireless Stereo (TWS) applications” from Dolphin Design’s website.


Electromagnetic and Circuit RLCK Extraction and Simulation for Advanced Silicon, Interposers and Package Designs

Electromagnetic and Circuit RLCK Extraction and Simulation for Advanced Silicon, Interposers and Package Designs
by Tom Dillinger on 03-16-2021 at 6:00 am

spiral complex

For years, there have been rather distinct domains for the extraction of interconnect models from physical design data.

Chip designers commonly focused on RC parasitics for circuit/path delay calculations and dynamic I*R voltage drop analysis.  The annotation of extracted parasitics to a netlist model required the layout topology to be LVS-clean.  For a select class of high-frequency designs with fast clock slew rates and high switching activity, the impact of inductive impedance was incorporated into the power grid and global clock model extraction. [1]

On-chip inductive spiral components utilized unique methods for electrical model generation.  The layout of these components often required specific metal fill layout topologies below the (thick) top-level metals all the way down to the substrate, to simplify the assumptions about the induced current flow, as depicted below.

The package and printed circuit board design domain requires accurate RCLK model extraction, to provide the power/ground distribution impedance model and signal interconnect insertion/reflection/crosstalk losses between transceivers.  The budget for allowable P/G distribution voltage level swings is inevitably very aggressive, and the cost/area tradeoffs for the addition of decoupling capacitance necessitate very detailed models.  The requirement for very high datarate signaling (especially over long-reach serial interfaces) demands accurate extracted models, valid over a wide frequency range – i.e., to multiple harmonics of the fundamental datarate.

There are several technology trends that are driving new developments in these two extraction domains:

  • increasing use of inductive elements on-die, placed over circuitry

The utilization of tuned RLC “tank” circuits is growing, as part of the on-die clock synthesis requirements.  Wireless opportunities are expanding.  The design of local oscillators as the clock source for high-speed wireline interface links between chips is using LC resonant tanks to a greater degree.

The die area allocated to these circuits is a growing concern.  As illustrated in the figure above, on-die inductors are increasingly being merged with underlying circuitry, necessitating enhanced approaches to model extraction.

  • advanced multi-die 2.5D and 3D packaging technologies introduce new topologies to model

Current packaging technologies incorporate:

  • TSVs for power delivery and signal connectivity from bumps to die, through stacked die
  • short-reach (parallel, clock-forwarded) interfaces between die
  • local redistribution interconnect layers in an interposer

The figures above illustrate a simple 2.5D interposer structure with two die – clock lines are highlighted in yellow, as an example.  It is necessary to analyze electromagnetic (EM) effects throughout the entire structure.

and, last, but most certainly not least:

  • the physical design data volume associated with advanced process node die and multi-die packages is immense

The algorithms for extracting parasitic models need to support distributed computation, with highly scalable performance across multiple processor cores.

I recently had the opportunity to chat with Yorgos Koutsoyannopoulos and Anand Raman at Ansys, to get their perspectives on the trends and tool features needed to support the evolution of these model extraction domains.  Their insights were most illuminating – specifically, how the recently-introduced Ansys RaptorH product addresses these evolving requirements comprehensively.

Yorgos began by saying, “The application space for RLCK extraction and simulation is expanding rapidly.  The designers of 2.5D and 3D ICs are familiar with silicon-centric flows.  They need a modeling solution that combines usability features with the accuracy demanded by the high signal datarates and power delivery challenges of these package solutions.”

“How did you approach that balance, between usability and accuracy?”, I asked.

Yorgos replied, “Ansys HFSS is the gold standard for electromagnetic analysis, spanning the gamut from wireless propagation to PCB-level signal and power integrity simulation.  The previous generation RaptorX product focused on parasitic calculations for on-chip structures – such as spirals, power grids, on-die MIM decoupling capacitors.  We have merged HFSS and RaptorX into RaptorH.  Both engines are integrated.  Designers leverage the best of both algorithms automatically – the tool applies the optimum approach to each element of the model.”

Anand added, “Several considerations were an integral part of the RaptorH product development.  A silicon-centric design environment is the basis for these 2.5D and 3D packages.  GDS-II or OASIS data represents the design.  The techfile stackup definition utilizes the process description from the foundry.  All layer and dimensional information is encrypted.  Process corner definitions use the same definitions as the traditional silicon environment.”

“Yorgos highlighted the focus on usability – how did that influence the product development?”, I inquired.

Anand replied, “The RaptorH desktop will be familiar to both current RaptorX and HFSS users.  The 3D design geometry and the visualization of the electromagnetic field solution use the existing Ansys desktop interface.”

Anand continued, “Both S-parameter and circuit netlist models are provided.  Of specific note is that this analysis is available pre-LVS, while designs are still in flight.”

I asked, “For general electromagnetic analysis, HFSS typically requires significant expertise at the controls – for example, the definition and placement of model ports.  How is that managed in RaptorH?” 

Anand replied, “The silicon-centric nature of the RaptorH flow means we needed to provide a familiar environment to chip designers.  We don’t need to support free-space electromagnetics, waveguides, antennas, and the like.  All metals are created equal.  Designers set circuit ports just as if they were placing a probe tip in the lab.”

I asked, “These 2.5D and 3D package model databases can be huge – how is the RaptorH tool performance?”

Yorgos answered, “The intent of RaptorH is to present the entire layout for EM analysis.  No pruning of data lanes required, hoping the sampled topology is representative of the full interface.  The tool quickly analyzes the footprint of the design, the ports, and techfile stackup data to provide guidelines on the computational resources needed – that algorithmic analysis takes a small percentage of the total computation time.   EM  model generation is extremely parallelizable.  For very large problems, RaptorH utilizes multiprocessing cloud resources, with an excellent speedup factor when using multiple processors.”

If you are pursuing a 2.5D/3D packaging solution, accurate signal and power distribution model extraction is an absolute necessity.  I would encourage you to investigate the unique features of the Ansys RaptorH solution.  Specifically, there is a brief webinar available discussing electromagnetic coupling within these complex systems, that provides lots of additional information – I learned a lot.

Ansys RaptorH Pre-LVS Electromagnetic Modeling — link.

Ansys RaptorH webinar:  De-Risking High-Speed Serial Links from On-Chip Electromagnetic Crosstalk and Distribution Issues — link.

-chipguy

References

[1]  Restle, P., et al., “Measurement and Modeling of On-Chip Transmission Line Effects in a 400MHz Microprocessor”, IEEE Journal of Solid State Circuits, Vol. 33, No. 4, April 1998, p 662-665.

Also Read

Need Electromagnetic Simulations for ICs?

Webinar: Electrothermal Signoff for 2.5D and 3D IC Systems

Best Practices are Much Better with Ansys Cloud and HFSS


Enabling Edge AI Vision with RISC-V and a Silicon Platform

Enabling Edge AI Vision with RISC-V and a Silicon Platform
by Tom Simon on 03-15-2021 at 10:00 am

AI Chipset Market

AI vision processing moving to the edge is an undeniable industry trend. OpenFive, the custom silicon business unit of SiFive, discusses this trend with compelling facts in their recent paper titled “Enabling AI Vision at the Edge.” AI vision is being deployed in many applications, such as autonomous vehicles, smart cities, agriculture, industrial & warehouse robotics, delivery drones, augmented reality, and smart retail & home.

Initially, it was only feasible to run AI vision processing in the cloud due to its capacity and processing power requirements. However, as billions of devices are deployed, processing solely in the cloud becomes unscalable. The network bandwidth requirements from billions of devices capturing high-resolution video from multiple cameras would exceed 5 petabytes per second!

On top of the logistical issues, cloud-based AI vision processing exacerbates privacy and latency issues. I for one would not want my self-driving car to rely on a wireless internet connection for making real-time driving decisions.

Associated with the push to move AI vision processing to the edge, there is large growth in the chipsets used to perform this processing. As shown in the chart, custom ASIC will become a dominant solution to provide the performance, power and functional advantage in AI Vision applications.

Edge AI Vision – Deep Learning Market

SiFive, OpenFive’s parent company, was founded on applying the ideas that have made software development so productive by eliminating the inefficiencies typically encountered. Yunsup Lee, co-founder and CTO of SiFive, participated in development of the RISC-V open- source instruction set architecture (ISA) in 2010. His vision has been to reduce the barriers for hardware design. The work of OpenFive is bearing fruit with impressive reductions in the cost, manpower and time needed to develop custom ASICs.

OpenFive’s use of SiFive’s RISC-V processor IP gives developers access to a well-developed set of operating systems, compilers, development packages and debugging tools. OpenFive’s AI vision platform is intended to speed up development of custom AI vision SoCs by providing multiple customizable subsystems that enable designers to focus on their key differentiators.

The platform contains just about every subsystem needed and can be tailored to eliminate unnecessary ones or to add specialized new blocks for specific applications. At the heart of the platform are SiFive’s multicore super-scalar Linux-capable U74 CPU complex, with support up to 8 cores and 2 MB of L2 cache. 32/64-bit LPDDRx with 6400MT/s provides gigabytes of high-bandwidth DRAMs required by edge AI applications. Powered by SiFive’s S21 embedded CPU, the platform management unit is responsible for power, boot and system health. The platform is secured by SiFive Shield that performs many security functions such as crypto, secure boot and key management. There is a vision subsystem with a vision DSP as well as MIPI interfaces. OpenFive includes an AI accelerator subsystem, of course, or users can add their own. Other customer specific accelerators can be added as well. The audio subsystem offers a wide range of features such as echo suppression and noise cancellation with its audio DSP. For visualization and graphics output, there is an integrated GPU. Naturally there is a wide range of high speed I/Os. There is even a die-2-die interface to improve performance with additional chiplets.

OpenFive’s business model allows their customers to engage with them during all stages of the ASIC development process. Customers can easily and quickly leverage OpenFive to complement their own skills, instead of needing to have in-house expertise in every one of the several dozen fields needed to produce a custom ASIC.

With open-source hardware and platform-based ASIC development, it is certain that we will see new products coming to market quickly that offer much hardware innovation. The rapid progress and growth that SiFive (and OpenFive) is experiencing are proof that there is pent-up demand for this. “Enabling AI Vision at the Edge” offers more details about OpenFive’s AI Vision platform that is worth looking at. The paper is available for download on their website.

Also Read:

WEBINAR: Differentiated Edge AI with OpenFive and CEVA

Open-Silicon SiFive and Customizable Configurable IP Subsystems

Ethernet Enhancements Enable Efficiencies