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

The Tech Week that was February 3-7 2020

The Tech Week that was February 3-7 2020
by Mark Dyson on 02-09-2020 at 10:00 am

Semiconductor Weekly Summary 1

In a week where the new coronavirus and it’s impact has dominated the news, here is my weekly summary of the key semiconductor and technology news from around the world that you should know but may have missed.

The new coronavirus in China and worldwide is already causing an impact for the electronics supply chain, potentially affecting everything from wafers and assembled parts as well as supplies of raw materials and consumables to non Chinese plants.  Everybody is scrambling to get clarity on the current and future impact on the supply chain as many factories in China have either been running on reduced staff or have not restarted after the Chinese New Year yet due to the travel restrictions on their staff.   Hopefully next week after the 10th once a lot of people are allowed to return to work there will be more clarity.  However the impact is expected to last anything from 3 to 6 months with most experts saying best case it will take until the end of April for things to return to normal.  In addition to the impact on the supply chain, many companies have put in place travel bans and many semiconductor events are being cancelled in SE Asia.   SEMI has cancelled Semicon Korea in February and Semicon China in March due to the virus.

The EEtimes has an article with some advice on how to optimise your supply chain to have a resilient supply chain,  to mitigate the risk from such outbreaks and natural disasters.

If you are not sure what companies are in Wuhan then here is a guide to some of the major high tech companies located in the region.

Taiwan foundry TSMC said this week at a investor conference that despite the outbreak of the new coronavirus in China, their Q1 sales forecast remains unchanged and said that production at it’s plants in Nanjing and Shanghai remain normal.

Similarly Taiwan foundry UMC also said it expects no impact on Q1 revenue from the virus but if the issue prolongs there could be some impact.   UMC reported its best quarterly profit in one-and-a-half years, with revenue jumping to US$127million in Q4 2019, due to strong demand for computer and communications chips.  Other Taiwanese companies have also come out to say they see the impact of the coronavirus was limited.

Qualcomm said in it’s investor conference  that the new coronavirus in China poses a potential threat to the mobile phone industry with a possible impact on manufacturing and sales.

In other news.

In 2019 leading original equipment manufacturers reduced their semiconductor spend by 11.9% on average according to Gartner.  Apple took the top rank from Samsung, driven by its success in wearable products, namely Apple Watch and AirPods. Huawei retained the third position, having performed well through 2019 despite the US-China trade war.  Apart from the slowing  economy part of the reason for the reduced spend was lower memory prices which allowed companies to reduce the memory expenditure form 45% of their total spend to 36%.

SEMI reported that worldwide silicon wafer area shipments decreased 7% in 2019 but revenue remained above US $11billion.

Whilst NAND and DRAM volume is expected to be one of the growth areas in 2020, the outlook for the memory pricing is expected to be flat or maybe even down for DRAM. Also due to the price pressure, there seems little incentive to transition to new memory options in 2020.

Reuters is reporting that the US will meet this month to discussing further curbing technology exports to China and Huawei.  Talks between high level officials are currently scheduled for February 28th.

Lam Research has selected the Batu Kawan Industrial Park in Penang, Malaysia as the location for a new advanced technology production facility. The new facility will be 700,000-square-feet at the initial phase with the opportunity to expand in the future. Construction is expected to begin in early 2020, with the first shipments by 2021.

ON Semiconductor Corporation has announced it is exploring the sale of it’s manufacturing facility in Oudenaarde, Belgium.

Irish fabless semi-conductor company Decawave, has announced it will be acquired by Qorvo.  The acquisition will advance market penetration of IR-UWB and enable broad global adoption of this transformational technology.  Decawave specializes in precise location and connectivity applications, whilst Qorvo is a leading provider of innovative RF solutions that connect the world.

Skyworks reported Q4 revenue grew more than 8% sequentially to US$896 million driven by smartphone sales.  This was down 7.8% on Q4 a year ago as skyworks has been impacted by the US ban on sales to Huawei.

Osram reported a return to profitability in fiscal Q1 which ended in December, with revenue growing 5.5% to US$971million due to significant recovery in its semiconductor business. Looking ahead to fiscal 2020, Osram’s Managing Board confirmed its existing forecast for revenue to be between minus and plus 3 percent compared to the previous year.


Rest in Peace Randy Smith (1959-2020)

Rest in Peace Randy Smith (1959-2020)
by Daniel Nenni on 02-08-2020 at 8:00 pm

Randy Smith Memorial

The semiconductor industry lost another good one last week, my friend, co-worker, and longtime SemiWiki contributor, Randy Smith. Randy published sixty blogs on SemiWiki over the last eight years that have been viewed more than a half million times. That is quite a digital legacy, absolutely.

Like myself, and many other semiconductor professionals out there, Randy was a start-up enthusiast. We both loved the challenge, thrill, and rewards they promised. It’s a roller coaster ride for sure but definitely better than riding a carousel for 35 years.

Randy began his career in Silicon Valley in 1984. He started with Tangent Systems (TANCELL) which was then acquired by Cadence. Ten years later he joined Silicon Architects, followed by Silicon Valley Research, Gambit Automated Design, Artisan Components, TriMedia Technologies, Celestry Design Automation, Aprio Technologies, Sonics Inc, and consulted for many others.

Randy was also well traveled. It was really funny walking through a Tokyo subway and hearing Randy’s laugh before seeing him. Running into friends halfway around the world is a memorable experience. We also traveled together, the one I remember most was a trip to Russia. It was our first time traveling there and I remember him devouring Russian history books on the plane while I was struggling with Harry Potter. Once there, Randy was the best tour guide I have ever had. Seriously, he could consume an incredible amount of information in the shortest amount of time and replay it back so mere mortals like me could understand it.

Randy was also a talented musician and dedicated family man. Many times I was told he was not available due to family commitments and I greatly respected that. Unfortunately, he passed away while experiencing some serious financial challenges that his wife Anne must now sort out. For those of you who knew Randy or even if you didn’t and would like to help there is a gofundme page to help his family in this time of need.


Good December but March variable due to Coronavirus

Good December but March variable due to Coronavirus
by Robert Maire on 02-07-2020 at 10:00 am

Coronavirus
  • Trend remains positive for 2020 overall
  • New tools & EUV suggest better growth in 2020
  • Calendar 2019 ends on strong foundry note

KLAC reported revenues of $1.509B and EPS of $2.66 NonGAAP versus street of $1.48B and $2.58.  Foundry (TSMC) was obviously the big driver of the quarter and into 2020 as well.  Memory remains subdued though strengthening.

Wide Guide range due to Corona uncertainty
Managment was talking about a 3% to 5% haircut due to the Corona Virus in China but how that settles out seems very variable which resulted in a very wide guidance range depending upon the unknowable impact in the quarter. Guidance is for revenues from $1.325B to $1.525B and EPS from $2.04 to $2.82 versus street of $1.42B and EPS of $2.45, which is now in the exact middle of the wide guidance range.

The company is obviously usually much more of a very predictable performer so the wide range is a bit unsettling.

New tools and EUV add to 2020 outlook
Aside from the Orbotech acquisition KLA has new 5G and E Beam tools that will add to the upside potential in 2020.  Obviously the move to EUV means more and better metrology which will certainly help KLAC.

In addition the company still expects an up year for China which has been its biggest growth market for a while now, this is despite the air pocket in the first half of 2020 from Corona.

Corona Light or Corona Heavy?
Its still too early to tell if the Corona fallout is primarily limited to Q1 or if the problems extend into Q2 or beyond.

Recently SEMI the semiconductor equipment trade organization canceled the Semicon China show scheduled for March and canceled the Semicon Korea show scheduled to start today.

While not a lot of orders are placed on the show floor any more it does underscore how business has ground to a virtual halt.

In our view, we think the impact will likely be on the heavy side and will likely extend into the second quarter given the rapidity of the spread of both the virus and more importantly the hysteria about it.

We would not be surprised if China’s semiconductor equipment purchases finally wind up being flat versus 2019.

While the current outbreak can be compared to other previous natural disasters the strength and momentum seems to be higher along with the heightened response.

Memory remains uncertain with DRAM still further out
While KLA is more of a poster child for foundry/logic, they still none the less sell a lot to the memory industry.  We would be happier if we saw a stronger uptick in memory or a more broad based up tick that included DRAM.

We remain concerned that the strong buying season from TSMC will fade as they move into 5NM production for Apple’s fall release and that memory spend may not be enough to pick up the slack of slowing foundry/logic.  Even though foundry/logic may be up for the year it is likely first half weighted.

The stocks are not helped by uncertainty
Uncertainty means risk and more risk means lower valuations.  We saw this this as KLAC was up 5% during the trading day then gave it all back in the after market likely due to the wide guide range and Corona uncertainty hitting the stock.

We will likely see a bit of retrenchment here as the uncertainty takes its toll on a stock that has been on fire of late, which likely makes it even more vulnerable to a pull back.

Like many other things “this too shall pass”, but not before creating some problems.

Lam last week was not as conservative as KLAC about Corona’s impact but then again they have historically had much less exposure and history with China as compared to KLAC.

Given that Applied will report a month deeper into the Corona crisis, they will likely have a more up to date idea and they also have perhaps the longest history of doing business in China.

As a group, we think the overall semiconductor industry is vulnerable especially given the stock run ups in front of this uncertainty

We are not highly motivated to buy the stocks in the middle of all the news flows especially given that there aren’t any attractive values left. We prefer to watch the hysteria from the safety of the sidelines.


AI Interposer Power Modeling and HBM Power Noise Prediction Studies

AI Interposer Power Modeling and HBM Power Noise Prediction Studies
by Mike Gianfagna on 02-07-2020 at 6:00 am

Picture1

I attended a session on 2.5D silicon interposer analysis at DesignCon 2020. Like many presentations at this show, ecosystem collaboration was a focus. In this session, Jinsong Hu (principal application engineer at Cadence) and Yongsong He (senior staff engineer at Enflame Tech) presented approaches for interposer power modeling and HBM power noise prediction. The application was AI-focused, but the modeling approaches presented have broad applicability.

First, a bit about Enflame Tech. They are a startup with R&D centers in Shanghai and Beijing, China. They are developing AI-training platform solutions, including deep learning accelerator SoCs, PCIe boards and a software stack, targeting cloud service providers and data centers.

Since this design is focused on AI training, there is a 8-hi HBM2 memory stack on board to store the training data. An ASIC is integrated with the HBM2 through a silicon interposer. The ASIC contains a single integrated hard macro PHY that has eight independent channels with a total DQ width of 1,024, and the total number of signals is 3,300+. The figure below illustrates the overall package.

Two critical elements of this project are the design and simulation of the interposer. With regard to signal integrity, the wire length between the HBM and PHY is carefully chosen, as longer lengths need stronger drivers. High-speed signals are routed on M1/M3, with the shielding layer on M2. All signal routing is designed with a wire length difference of ±0.15%. The optimized physical configuration includes the signal width, trace spacing and shielding pattern, as shown below.

The AI chip has lots of HBM dies to do parallel calculations, and due to the significant scale of the micro-bump and C4 bump, it provides a level of modeling difficulties for both physical design and simulation engineers. With regard to power modeling of the complete interposer design, the Cadence Cadence Sigrity XcitePI Extraction tool was used to extract the SPICE netlist model. Model post-processing can be performed to validate the Z-impedance, IR drop and time-domain power ripples, as shown below.

Power noise was critical to ensure the stability of the HBM bus, and it was also challenging for the current tools to handle the tremendous HBM nets’ system signal and power simulation at the same time. The DesignCon presentation proposed two innovative methodologies to predict HBM power noise, using the Cadence Sigrity SystemSI and System Explorer tools for system time-domain simulation. The voltage multiplying method and the current-induced method were used for further power noise predictions, and the figure below illustrates a typical scenario. (Note that the acronym “CMF” means “current multiplying factor”.)

The benchmark measurements were performed by a test chip mounted on a reference board, and the measurement result showed that simulation predictions can correlate quite well with the predicted data.

Lab measurement setup with test board

Simulated results with current-induced method

Measured results from lab

Above all, these power modeling and noise prediction techniques may have broad applicability to many different types of 2.5D HBM-based silicon interposer designs.


Tesla: Two Heads are Better Than One

Tesla: Two Heads are Better Than One
by Roger C. Lanctot on 02-06-2020 at 10:00 am

Tesla Two Heads are Better Than One

Telsa Motors’ stock skyrockets and all observers are shocked and amazed. The shorts that took a multi-billion-dollar hit then double down with their concerns regarding the German gigafactory construction permits or coronavirus or the company’s ability to create demand or fulfill it.

All of these investors are ignoring something that Tesla owners or wannabe owners know, that Tesla’s vehicles are fundamentally built differently. From their Ethernet networks to Tesla’s dual redundant fully self-driving system, Tesla’s vehicles are unlike anything manufactured anywhere else in the world for sale to the general public.

Tesla is also building up a powerful network effect narrative around its stated plans to enable a car sharing/ride hailing service on its existing connectivity platform. But fleet operators aren’t waiting for Tesla’s own networked car solution. Fleet operators from Daimler (that’s right – buying 60 Tesla’s) to Kapten (Las Vegas taxi operator – bought 50) and many others are stuffing their fleets with Tesla’s due to their low cost of operation and reliability.

Underlying all of this is the most remarkable value multiplier of all: transparency. While other autonomous vehicle operators and car companies tout their long-term and short-term plans for electrification, connectivity, and autonomy – Tesla publicly discloses its plans, its architecture, its philosophy, and its results.

Is Tesla perfect? Far from it. Tesla vehicles continue to periodically collide with vehicles parked in travel lanes and even on shoulders of roads. We likely have not seen the end of Tesla-related injuries and fatalities.

But Tesla is doing more than any other car maker or operator to explain how its systems work, how and why they fail (usually attributable to the human in the loop), and what the company is doing to correct the shortcomings in the system. Tesla’s approach actually raises questions regarding the legacy auto industry’s approach to safety based on standards such as ISO 26262 and ASIL-D.

ISO 26262 and ASIL-D require organization-wide commitments and behavioral adjustments in order to anticipate and account for and test for all potential system failures. With Tesla’s dual redundant computing platform, Tesla is suggesting an entirely different path closer to the aerospace industry where triple-redundancy is not unusual.

Tesla Autonomy Investor Day: https://theteslashow.com/tesla-autonomy-investor-day/fzh9g5j2wcze3euvra49vdab0s69hw

Tesla discloses the architecture in detail along with the nature of the decision-making process that supports the existing semi-autonomous system operation. Tesla nestles its custom-made SoC/chip between the two computers on the board (pictured above) which receive identical data feeds independently.

It’s difficult to say whether this is Tesla’s answer to ISO 26262 and ASIL-D protocols. It’s also difficult to say it’s the wrong way forward. Tesla has made more progress than any other operator on a path toward a global, scalable autonomous driving solution.

If all of these realities are not enough to convince investors of the upside prospects for Tesla, they need only reconsider the fact that competing with Tesla is like trying to stop a bullet with a badminton shuttlecock. The bullet’s moving too fast and the shuttlecock is moving too slow.

Tesla continues to update its vehicle systems with software upgrades that universally dazzle and delight Tesla owners. The company has gone further, though, in updating hardware on the assembly line – very nearly unheard-of among legacy auto makers – as well as routinely updating hardware within vehicles already on the road.

Tesla is a model of value creation, extension, and maintenance. It’s an aggressive and successful business model that is helping the company gobble up luxury vehicle market share and for which there is no remedy in sight.

A decade in to the Tesla era, no car maker has yet risen to the competitive challenge posed by the company. Car makers are scrambling to deploy Tesla-like large screens, Tesla-like over-the-air software updates, Tesla-like 300-mile range, Tesla-like performance, Tesla-like semi-autonomous driving, and Tesla-like reliability. But, so far, only Tesla is delivering.

It remains to be seen whether 2020 will be the year that some car maker catches up to Tesla. Until that happens it will be difficult for any analyst to doubt the stock’s potential to soar even higher.

Don’t miss the Tesla hackathon: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1224087317364854785


Executive Interview: Howie Bernstein of HCL

Executive Interview: Howie Bernstein of HCL
by Daniel Nenni on 02-06-2020 at 6:00 am

Howie Bernstein SemiWiki

Howie began his career at Digital Equipment Corporation working on real-time device drivers, but within a few years started working at the other end of the stack with one of the pioneering electronic mail systems.  Since then, Howie has worked on developing systems involving electronic mail, workflow processing, configuration management, and activity management.  He joined Atria in 1994 shortly before they went public to work on ClearGuide, and subsequently worked on several projects with Atria, Pure Atria, Rational and IBM involving systems and user interface architecture, design and development involving both ClearCase and ClearQuest.  He is currently the product manager for HCL’s configuration and change management products, VersionVault and Compass, as well as ClearCase and ClearQuest.

Hi Howie.  Welcome to Semiwiki. Could you tell me a little about HCL?
Of course.  HCL may be known by many of your readers as an Indian company that traditionally has been involved with software and hardware services.  We’re a $10B USD company, with over 110,000 employees working around the world, with most revenue derived in the United States and Europe.  What’s different now is that we have created a software company, HCL Software.  In 2016 we entered into an agreement with IBM, where for many IBM software products,  HCL is responsible for the development and support of the products under agreement with IBM, and all of the IBM development and support engineers were rebadged to HCL, so none of the decades of experience were lost in the transition.

What does this agreement with IBM allow HCL to do?
This agreement is a 15-year intellectual property agreement that automatically renews after 15-years.  In fact, during the previous year IBM sold several products covered under this agreement and are now fully owned, developed, supported and sold by HCL.   For the remaining products, in addition to supporting IBM customers, HCL has ownership of the of the IP as well.  HCL may create, market and sell products that are derived from the IP of the products we are developing and supporting for IBM.  The products that I am responsible for, HCL VersionVault and HCL Compass, are products derived from IBM ClearCase and IBM ClearQuest, enterprise scale configuration and change management products.  IBM has never created an agreement like this before, and that speaks to the trust it has in HCL’s ability to manage the development and support of the products.

Tell me more about your products, and why they might be relevant to our readers?
I think the term used by your readers to describe these products Is “Design Management”. In particular, HCL VersionVault, traditionally a “software” configuration management product, has always been capable of managing huge designs and very complex systems.  About 10 years ago, at the request of some customers, we created an integration with Cadence Virtuoso.  Over the years we have continued to improve this integration and our customers have migrated from other Design Management tools to ours.  The integration is a deep integration, fully embedded in Cadence Virtuoso, written in SKIL.  This allows the designer to fully interact with the design management system without leaving Cadence Virtuoso.  There are several attractive features that provide significant benefit for our customers.

Could you tell me about some of those features?
Yes, the crown jewels.  Design management and configuration management systems rely on what we call a workspace where an engineer will access the assets they need to use or change. Pretty much every system out there relies on copying files to the workspace or creating links in the workspace to server-based files, which must later be converted to local files for performance reasons. HCL VersionVault uses a virtual filesystem to provide fast, transparent access to any file on the server. Any tool that works against files on the filesystem can work against files in what we call a “Dynamic View”. The workspace is created instantaneously, and the user can start browsing and opening files immediately, or running builds or simulations.  This is incredibly useful when workspaces can contain tens, or hundreds of gigabytes of data.  While this technology has traditionally required both clients and servers to be co-resident in the same LAN, a couple of years ago we introduced a workspace that uses this technology in a WAN environment.

Another important feature of HCL VersionVault is what we call configuration specifications, or “config specs” for short.  A config spec is a set of rules that identifies which files should be visible in the workspace.  Config spec rules include pathnames where files or directory trees are located, what identifier should be used to select the file, a branch, which might define what release the files are on, a label (previously applied to an important build or release), a time rule, which might specify that only versions created before a certain date/time should be included.  They are extremely powerful and allow very specific, repeatable configurations.  You can resurrect a config spec a decade after its last use and instantaneously recreate that configuration, along with all of the tools used for builds, simulations or verification, to diagnose or fix a defect or implement an enhancement to that release.

In addition, we have something is very useful for projects that have auditing and compliance requirements.  When using Dynamic Views, if builds are run under “clearmake”, or “clearaudit”, any tools used, any versions touched, and any assets created are included in an automatically generated bill of materials associated with the assets created.  The BOM show exactly which tool versions were used and which files versions were used, in the creation of that asset.  This BOM can not only be used to demonstrate the validity of the resulting asset but can also be extremely helpful in tracing a problem detected during testing.  We have pharmaceutical and medical device companies that have used this technology to streamline their approval process with the FDA.

That sounds like very interesting, powerful technology.  That’s a very compelling story for HCL VersionVault.  What can you tell me about HCL Compass?
HCL Compass is an interesting product.  There are many who don’t know much about it that think of it as a defect tracking system, but it is so much more than that.  I like to describe it as a fully customizable workflow and process management database application tool.  I know, that’s a mouthful.  We do support out-of-the-box applications, the simplest of which is the Defect Tracking application.  We also have a more robust ALM (application lifecycle management) application.  A major chip manufacturer uses a customized ALM schema to manage their global chip development.  We’re working to expand those out-of-the-box applications to fully support the Scaled Agile Framework (SAFe) as well as more traditional Requirements Management and Quality Management applications.  The amazing thing about HCL Compass is that it is fully customizable in every aspect, from the data stored, the user interface to enter and change data, and the process that can executed on almost any user interaction.  We have some customers who have created their own applications, including a North American government, which manages their social security claims with our product.

Can you talk about what HCL is doing now that they are responsible for the development and support of the IBM products as well as the HCL derivative products, VersionVault and Compass?

HCL is investing significantly in both products.  Since entering into the agreement with IBM, we have more than doubled the size of the development teams, and are beginning to market the HCL products.  Our investments have been focused in several areas, including primarily modernization of the products with current technologies.  We are implementing REST APIs, webhooks, new GUIs, cloud and container support, and functional enhancements our customers have been asking for.  IBM has traditionally not done product marketing. HCL on the other hand has started doing our own product marketing.  Some of your readers may have seen us at the Cadence CDN Live! conferences over the past year.  We plan to continue our attendance as exhibitors there and expand to other conferences as well.  We’re also in the process of expanding our EDA footprint with an integration with Synopsys Custom Compiler, and are considering other tools as well.

Also Read:

CEO Interview: Adnan Hamid of Breker Systems

CEO Interview: Cristian Amitroaie of AMIQ EDA

CEO Interview: Jason Oberg of Tortuga Logic


TSMC Unveils Details of 5nm CMOS Production Technology Platform Featuring EUV and High Mobility Channel FinFETs at IEDM2019

TSMC Unveils Details of 5nm CMOS Production Technology Platform Featuring EUV and High Mobility Channel FinFETs at IEDM2019
by Don Draper on 02-05-2020 at 10:00 am

Diagram of BEOL metallization comparing EUV vs. immersion photolithography

Back in April, 2019, TSMC announced that they were introducing their 5 nm technology in risk production and now at IEDM 2019 they brought forth a detailed description of the process which has passed 1000 hour HTOL and will be in high volume production in 1H 2020.  This 5nm technology is a full node scaling from 7nm using smart scaling of major design rules (gate, fin and Mx/Vx pitches) for improved yield featuring an SRAM cell of 0.021um2 and a declining defect density D0 that is ahead of plan.

A primary reason for the success of the 5nm technology platform is the implementation of Extreme Ultra-Violet (EUV) photolithography.  Fully-fledged EUV replaces at least four times more immersion layers at cut, contact, via and metal line masking steps for faster cycle time, better reliability and yield. Total mask count in 5nm is several masks less than in the previous 7nm node.  Fig. 1 shows how one EUV mask replaced five immersion masks yet produces better patterning fidelity, shorter cycle time and fewer defects.

Fig. 1. Diagram of BEOL metallization comparing EUV vs. immersion photolithography showing how one EUV mask replaced five immersion patterning layers with better patterning fidelity, shorter cycle time and fewer defects.

FinFETs have been used in four generations from the 16nm node to 7nm, but performance as a function of channel mobility has been stagnant.  To address this, the High Mobility Channel (HMC) was implemented to increase performance.  The TEM in Fig. 2 shows the fully-strained HMC lattice constant interfaced with the Si lattice constant. The diffraction pattern confirmed HMC strain.

Fig. 2. Diagram showing finFET cross-section TEM showing fully-strained HMC lattice constant interfaced with the Si lattice constant.  The second plot shows higher leakage vs drive current of the silicon vs HMC transistors. The third plot shows the channel stress in GPa vs channel depth from the fin top to the fin bottom. The diffraction pattern shown confirms the HMC strain.

The HMC finFET has excellent Id-Vg characteristics as shown in Fig. 3 and produces ~18% more drive current than the Si finFET.  Figure-of-Merit (FOM) ring oscillator standby power also correlates well to transistor leakages.

Fig. 3. Chart showing drain current vs gate voltage (Id vs Vg) characteristics of the High Mobility Channel (HMC) transistors for different drain voltages.  The second plot shows the off-current ranges, Ioff-N and Ioff-P and the relative impact on standby current of the seven different Vt’s available in the technology. The currents in both diagrams are in logarithmic scale with one decade per division.  The Drain-Induced Barrier Lowering (DIBL) is 45mV and 35 mV and the swing is 69mV and 68mV for p-channel and n-channel transistors respectively.

This 5nm CMOS platform technology is a full node scaling from the 7nm process described in IEDM 2016. The availability of up to seven Vt’s for each transistor type, shown in Fig. 4, enables product design to meet the needs of power efficiency in mobile SoC as well as peak speed requirements of HPC.

Fig. 4. Chart of up to seven Vt’s available in N5 showing standby power in uW vs speed in GHz for N5 and N5 HPC compared to N7 to meet maximum power efficiency for mobile and peak speed in HPC.   eLVT offers 25% faster peak speed over 7nm.  Silicon data close to matching FOM ring speed vs stand-by power.

New HPC features are the extremely Low VT (eLVT) transistor with 25% faster peak speed over 7nm   and three-fin standard cells for an additional 10% performance increase. The technology is available for 3D chip stacking using hybrid bonding.   In addition to impressive density and performance gains relative to 7nm, the technology has achieved 1000 hour HTOL qualification with improved stress aging characteristics relative to the 7nm technology. The high-yielding SRAM and logic defect density D0 is ahead of plan. Technological achievements enabling this progress feature full-fledged implementation of EUV and high-mobility channel (HMC) finFETs.

This 5nm platform technology was designed and developed to meet objectives of PPACT(Power, Performance, Area, Cost and Time to Market). Design-Technology Co-Optimization (DTCO) is emphasized for smart scaling, avoiding brute-force scaling which would lead to drastically-increased process cost and yield impact.  Design features such as gate-contact-over-diffusion and unique diffusion termination along with EUV-based gate patterning enable SRAM size reduction and increased logic density.  The 5nm technology offers 15% faster speed at the same power or 30% power reduction at the same speed with 1.84x logic density of the 7nm node , as shown in Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. Plot comparing the speed in GHz vs. the core area in um2 of the N5 technology vs the previous N7. The 5nm technology offers 15% faster speed at the same power or 30% power reduction at the same speed with 1.84x logic density of the 7nm node.

Interconnect delay has a critical impact on product performance and with each generation the interconnect propagation delay has been  getting significantly worse.  Backend metal RC and via resistance is shown in Fig. 6 for generations from N28 to N5. The tightest pitch Mx RC and the Vx Rc are kept similar to the 7nm node by EUV patterning, innovative scaled barrier/liner ESL/ELK dielectrics and Cu reflow.

Fig. 6.  Charts of  normalized BEOL metallization RC product and via resistance vs nodes from N28 to N5 are shown. For the tightest metal pitch, MX RC and via resistance Vx Rc are kept similar to that of the previous 7nm node by EUV patterning, innovative scaled barrier/liner ESL/ELK dielectrics and Cu reflow.

SRAM density and performance/leakage are critical for mobile SoC and for HPC AI. Scaling of SRAM cells with more advanced nodes is becoming more difficult in feature size terms of F 2.  The offered High Current (HC) and the High Density (HD) SRAM cells with cell areas of 0.025um2 and 0.021 um2 respectively are the densest in the industry as shown in Fig. 7. Consistent high yield of the 256 Mb SRAM and logic test chips of >90% peak yield and ~80% average yield (without repair) has been achieved.

Fig. 7.  Chart of published SRAM cell size in um2 vs year of publication. The 5nm HD SRAM cell at 0.021 um2 is the densest offered in the industry.

The Ultra-low leakage ULHD can be used to reduce retention leakage for better power efficiency while higher-speed HSHD SRAM may be used as an alternative to HC SRAM cells to allow ~22% reduction in memory area as shown in Fig. 8.

Fig. 8.  Chart of standby leakage in pA at 0.4V  vs cell current in uA for ULHD, HSHD and standard HD SRAM cells. The Vout vs Vin butterfly curve plots of the 5nm HD SRAM cell  are shown at voltages  from 0.75V down to 0.3V.

The shmoo plot of the 256Mb 0.021 um2 HD SRAM cell with full read/write function is shown down to 0.4V in Fig. 9.

Fig. 9.  Shmoo plot showing Vout vs Vin from 1.0V down to 0.4V of the 256Mb SRAM based on the 5nm 0.021 um2 HD SRAM cell.

The frequency response shmoo plots of the GPU and CPU blocks in the high-yielding logic test chip are shown in Fig. 10.

Fig. 10. Shmoo plots of frequency in GHz vs. voltage for the GPU and CPU blocks respectively in the high yielding logic test chip in the 5nm qualification vehicle.

The 256Mb HD/HC SRAM and logic test chip passed 1000 hour HTOL qualification. The SRAM Vmin showed a negligible shift at 168 hours and passed the 1000 hour HTOL with ~51mV margin as shown in Fig. 11.

Fit. 11.  Plots of log-normal distribution vs Vmin in mV at 168 hours HTOL showing negligible Vmin shift and at 1000 hours HTOL, passing 1000 hours with 51mV margin.

Stress aging data at 0.96 V and 125C on the 5nm FOM ring oscillator made with the High Mobility Channel finFETs shown in Fig. 12 with improved aging relative to the 7nm node.

Fig. 12. Plot showing T50% lifetime(years) vs. stress voltage Vstr of aging study at 125C of N5 HMC finFET ring oscillators and N7 silicon finFET ring oscillators showing improved aging at the 5nm node relative to that at 7nm.

Another important feature for HPC is the metal-insulator-metal (MiM) capacitor formed in the upper layers of the BEOL metallization.  The 5nm node MiM has 4x higher capacitance density than the typical HD-MiM and produces ~4.2% faster Fmax by minimizing transient drooping voltage and achieved ~20mV Vmin reduction in a CPU test chip.

HPC critically depends on high-speed IOs especially SERDES.  By successfully optimizing finFET driving strength and capacitance/resistance with special high-speed devices, PAM-4 SERDES transmitter speed of 112 Gb/s at 0.78 pJ/bit and 130 Gb/s at 0.96pJ/b power dissipation as shown in Fig. 13.

Fig. 13. Plots showing signal characteristics of voltage out in mV vs time in ps of 112 Gb/s and 130Gb/s data transmission in SERDES PAM-4 with 0.78pJ/b and 0.96pJ/b respectively.

In conclusion, TSMC has presented a very competitive technology platform, establishing itself as the leader in best-in-class highest density logic technologies.  Volume production in 1H 2020 will enable leading edge products in advanced SoC for mobile, especially 5G, as well as HPC applications for AI, datacenter and blockchain products which increasingly need high performance with best power efficiency.


Verification, RISC-V and Extensibility

Verification, RISC-V and Extensibility
by Bernard Murphy on 02-05-2020 at 6:00 am

RISC-V

RISC-V is obviously making progress. Independent of licensee signups and new technical offerings, the simple fact that Arm is responding – in fundamental changes to their licensing model and in allowing custom user extensions to the instruction set – is proof enough that they see a real competitive threat from RISC-V.

Which all sounds great, but there’s a problem – verification. Dave Kelf of Breker gave me some interesting perspectives on this. In verification of the CPU itself, Arm has decades of experience and rich ecosystem support in this area. This all works very well when the CPU IP can’t be changed. The development team build up giant regression suites which they can use to verify complete compliance with compilers, and backward compatibility and all those other requirements.

But when you have a core allowing for instruction extensions, the core vendor can confidently verify the core as they ship it, but how does the ultimate product user verify the core with their extensions? You can’t just assume that the extensions have zero interaction with the behavior of the unmodified core. You really need to re-verify everything, including all the stuff you didn’t mess with.

This is apparently a problem all the extensible core vendors run into. They can’t ship their massive regression suites to their customer. Instead they typically reverify customer cores with extensions, in-house, a service which apparently they are expected to perform at no cost.

As a part-solution to this problem, the RISC-V group has put a lot of effort into testing compliance between independent implementations of the CPU to encourage cross-compatibility and a healthy ecosystem. Test suites are available from Imperas, Codasip, Google and many others.

As an aside, I wonder how well behavior can be bounded around custom extensions to the instruction set? Timing certainly, with stalls to the pipeline if an instruction doesn’t complete within a cycle. That seems like a necessary but insufficient and compromise condition. How will a stall affect other operations? How will the instruction interoperate with caching and other complications? Proving that a custom extension cannot disturb the correct operation of the rest of the system, or vice-versa, sounds like a hard verification problem. Maybe that’s just me.

Back to Dave, he sounded pretty confident that between the compliance standard groups and companies building compliance solutions, they’d figure out ways to ensure strong compliance in CPU implementations. But what they aren’t working on (as far as he knows) is system compliance – the interoperation of a CPU (or CPUs) with all the surrounding infrastructure: bus fabrics, caches and coherent fabrics, interrupt management, memory management, etc, etc.

Arm have put a lot of work, through their ecosystem, into verifying this kind of infrastructure. If an SoC product team switches from Arm to RISC-and loses this support, they are really going to struggle in verifying their SoCs. Breker had already developed an app on their Trek platform support of verifying integrations around the ARMv8 platform, so it was natural to spin a comparable solution for RISC-V.

The Breker team started with the ARMv8 tests, including cache coherency and interrupt testing, and added tests they thought might be necessary for RISC-V. They found some early customers who were sufficiently interested to run evals. Then SiFive approached them, maybe referred by one of those eval clients. SiFive were also running into the problem I mentioned earlier, needing to re-regress customer modifications against the internal SiFive regression suite.

SiFive also wanted a method to test their own internal processes. They saw the Trek RISC-V app as a way to do that, an independent audit of their quality. They helped Breker add more standardized tests, including a bunch of load/store-type operations according to Dave. SiFive were sufficiently impressed with the ultimate app that they have become one of the biggest customers for this product. That’s an impressive endorsement given SiFive’s leading role in RISC-V cores.

Breker released the RISC-V app a couple of months ago and Dave tells me they’re getting a ton of interest from customers. He says for him it’s really clear a lot of design teams are having this integration problem. They build their SiFive core, integrate it into their SoC and the system falls over. Without the Arm debug ecosystem, they need an alternative. They are evidently seeing a lot of promise in the Breker Trek RISC-V app.

You can learn more about the Trek RISC-V app HERE.

Also Read

Build More and Better Tests Faster

Taking the Pain out of UVM

WEBINAR: Eliminating Hybrid Verification Barriers Through Test Suite Synthesis


Signal Channel Design and Simulation for Silicon Interposer Packaging on High-Speed SerDes

Signal Channel Design and Simulation for Silicon Interposer Packaging on High-Speed SerDes
by Mike Gianfagna on 02-04-2020 at 10:00 am

Picture2

This year is the 25th anniversary for DesignCon.  The show has changed a lot over the years. Today, it’s a vibrant showcase of all aspects of advanced product design – from ICs to boards to systems. The show floor reflects the diverse ecosystem. If you missed it this year, definitely plan to go next year.

The DesignCon technical program has many tracks. Some discuss theoretical research while others focus on real design issues being faced today. I attended a very interesting presentation that falls in this latter category. Danny Ho, SI/PI department manager at MediaTek discussed 2.5D design. There are many presentations at DesignCon on this topic. This one was different. Danny began with an overview of the motivation for 2.5D packaging vs. more traditional approaches such as flip-chip and discussed the need for a silicon interposer to support designs containing HBM memory stacks.

This was not the focus of his talk, however. Rather, Danny focused on the signal channel created by the silicon interposer. The associated microbumps, C4 bumps, TSVs and dense routing create structures that are significantly more complex that what’s seen in a flip-chip package. It turns out there are many technical challenges associated with these structures, and Danny’s presentation explored several of them. The work presented was a collaboration with Cadence Design Systems. Cadence sponsored the session.

From an electrical perspective, there will be signal integrity challenges such as dense coupling and reflection effects. The TSVs also present different characteristics than has been seen with more traditional packaging. The tight die-to-die tolerances will also present EMI challenges.

The large size of the silicon interposer and the associated high-power consumption of the on-board components will also present warpage and heat dissipation issues.

In the study presented, the signal integrity issues associated with coupling and reflection were investigated. The performance levels of interest extend to those delivered by 50G – 112G SerDes technology. This presents a complex modeling problem. Traditional tools cannot deliver the required accuracy in reasonable time. Cadence Clarity 3D Solver was chosen to perform the analysis. Danny explained that Cadence Clarity can accommodate the complex models associated with the silicon interposer channel and employ massive parallel compute power to perform the analysis. According the Danny, this capability was previously unavailable.

Danny then discussed some real case studies and what was learned. A key issue is alignment of the larger C4 bumps on the interposer and the microbumps on the chip. Due to the potential incompatibility of chip design constraints and foundry interposer design rules, one can have the same or different pitch relative to these two structures. Misalignment of these structures can cause reflection and coupling. Specifically, crosstalk issues are seen with mis-aligned C4/microbump structures.

Next, the effects of copper dummy metal were discussed. All foundries have rules regarding metal uniformity and dummy metal must be added to adhere to these rules. Using Cadence Clarity, it was found that insertion loss degradation was not a major issue below 5GHz due to dummy metal. Above 5GHz, insertion loss and return loss become much worse with dummy metal however since the dummy metal increases trace impedance and capacitance.

Another experiment consisted of re-arranging the microbumps to improve alignment. This improves crosstalk. Return loss and insertion loss still showed some degradation. A final experiment looked at the effects of ground plane shielding. It was found that insertion loss and return loss improved when ground plane shielding was removed.

This work provides a lot of guidance for effective interpose design. Re-arrangement of microbumps for better alignment provides improved performance. This requires careful design modifications, however. Now that data is available, Danny reported that there is now discussions with foundries regarding dummy fill and ground planes and their effect on design performance.

 


Intel vs AMD Q4 2019 Conference Calls

Intel vs AMD Q4 2019 Conference Calls
by Daniel Nenni on 02-04-2020 at 6:00 am

Intel 10nm Roadmap

Now that the dust has settled and I’m out of cronovirus quarantine let’s talk about the Intel and AMD conference calls. Unfortunately, the Intel and AMD marketing teams are still outpacing engineering so it is difficult to write something serious but I will do my best.

Spoiler Alert: Both CEOs disappoint.

First an Intel 10nm update:

In client computing, we are seeing excellent momentum for our first 10 nanometer mobile CPU, Ice Lake, with 44 system designs already shipping. In Q4, we ramped our 10 nanometer production and continue to see yields improve. We are planning nine new product releases on 10 nanometer this year, including our next-gen mobile CPU, a 5G base station SOC, an AI inference accelerator, our first discrete GPU and Xeon for server, storage and networking.

Not bad for a node that was “rumored” to be cancelled. Lesson learned, I hope. Remember, Intel attempted a 2.7x density increase for 10nm which led to serious manufacturing challenges.  Intel 7nm with EUV will be back to a 2.0x density target.

Across our 14 and 10 nanometer nodes, we are adding 25% wafer capacity this year to deliver a high single digit increase in PC unit volume. This will enable us to meet market demand, deliver our 2020 financial plan and increase inventory to more normalized levels.

In the second half of 2019 I had heard rumblings amongst the supply chain that AMD was getting design wins in client computing due to the Intel 14nm shortages. Whether these design wins get into production or not I don’t know but the window for AMD certainly is open in 2020. Intel is again upping capacity but that will not calm the supply chain until later this year.

“In 2019, we generated $3.8 billion in AI-based revenue. The AI market opportunity is expected to be $25 billion by 2024 and we are investing to lead with a strong portfolio of products.”

Intel has CPUs, GPUs, FPGAs, and AI specific silicon. How is AMD, or anybody else, going to compete with Intel in the cloud? Except maybe the cloud companies themselves once they ramp up the latest in-house silicon. Even so there will still be an Intel CPU inside for the software stack, house-keeping,  etc…

“We are also on track to deliver 10 nanometer-plus this year, our first performance upgrade on 10 nanometer. Our 7 nanometer process remains on track to deliver our lead 7 nanometer product, Ponte Vecchio, at the end of 2021 with CPU products following shortly after in 2022.”

Translation: Intel 7nm HVM in 2022. AMD will be shipping TSMC 5nm in 2022 so again we will have process parity amongst the giants, similar to Intel 10nm vs AMD 7nm. This gets Intel back to the two year tick-tock cadence. Tick is a new process, tock is a new architecture, if you count 10nm HVM for 2020 and 7nm HVM for 2022.

In the meantime, TSMC and Apple will deliver industry leading 5nm SoCs this year and 5nm AMD CPUs will probably start to appear in 2021. It will be interesting to see how Intel 10nm++ stacks up against TSMC 5nm. I will check on that during SPIE later this month.

In the Q&A Intel once again said they are not outsourcing CPUs so the TSMC and now GF outsourcing rumors are click-bait. Seriously, AMD 14nm is GF so why would Intel even go there?

I wish there was something good to say about the AMD call but there isn’t from my point of view. Just the same rose colored glasses and promises for a better tomorrow. If you disagree hit me up in the comments.

One thing I did hear in China is that their home grown x86 CPUs are doing better. In 2013 VIA Technologies created a joint venture (Zhaoxin) with the Shanghai Municipal Government. It started with a single core at TSMC 40nm, 4 cores at 28nm, and is now on 16nm with 8 cores. The 7nm version has already been taped out and I’m sure they will continue down the TSMC process node road map.

From what I am told this will hit AMD based laptops in China before Intel but the Made in China semiconductor initiative is coming, absolutely.