SILVACO 073125 Webinar 800x100

Podcast EP225: The Impact Semiconductor Technology is Having on the Automotive Industry with Chet Babla

Podcast EP225: The Impact Semiconductor Technology is Having on the Automotive Industry with Chet Babla
by Daniel Nenni on 05-24-2024 at 10:00 am

Dan is joined by Chet Babla, indie Semiconductor’s Senior Vice President of Strategic Marketing, responsible for expanding the company’s tier 1 and automotive OEM customer base, as well as supporting product roadmap development. Chet has worked in the technology industry for over 25 years in a variety of technical and commercial roles, starting his career as an analog chip designer. He most recently served as Vice President of Arm’s Automotive Line of Business where he led a team focused on delivering the processing technology required for automotive applications including powertrain, digital cockpit, ADAS and autonomous driving. Prior to Arm, Chet has held multiple senior roles in the semiconductor industry and has also advised the UK government on its ICT trade and investment strategy.

Dan explores the impact semiconductors are having on the automotive industry with Chet. Three megatrends are discussed – driver safety and automation, in-cabin user experience, and electrification. Chet describes the significant advances that are being made in all these areas and details some of the innovation Indie Semiconductor is bringing to the market.

Dan also discusses the potential timeline for deployment of fully autonomous vehicles with Chet and the hurdles that must be addressed.

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.


Ncredible Nvidia

Ncredible Nvidia
by Claus Aasholm on 05-24-2024 at 8:00 am

https3A2F2Fsubstack post media.s3.amazonaws.com2Fpublic2Fimages2Fd3f2ef0b a749 4074 a463 c81a9ebf1cd3

This article previews Nvidia’s earnings release and will be updated during and after the earnings release. As usual, we will compare and contrast the Nvidia earnings with our supply chain glasses to identify changes and derive insights. Please return to this article, as it will be updated over the next week as we progress with our analysis.

After three insane quarters, Nvidia’s guidance suggests that this quarter will be calmer. I am not sure the stock market can handle growth rates like Nvidia is enjoying once more without going insane. The analysts’ consensus is slightly above Nvidia’s at $24.6B. Our survey shows that the industry expectations are somewhat more optimistic.

Thanks for reading Semiconductor Business Intelligence! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

From humble beginnings as a graphics company adored by hardcore gamers only, Nvidia is now the undisputed industry champion and has made the industry famous far beyond us wafer nerds.

When people hear you are in the semiconductor industry, they want to know what you think of Nvidia’s stock price (which is insane but could be even more insane). Obviously, this is driven by the irresistible hunger for AI in the data centre, but this is not our expertise (we recommend Michael Spensers: AI Supremacy for that). We will also refrain from commenting on stock prices and concentrate on the business and supply chain side of the story.

The supply chain has already created a frenzy amongst analysts as TSMC reported April Revenue up almost 60%. Our analysis of the TSMC revenue numbers aligned to an April quarter end shows that the TSMC trend is relatively flat and does not reveal much about Nvidia’s numbers. However, TSMC’s revenue numbers do not have to change much for Nvidia’s numbers to skyrocket. The value is not in the silicon right now as we will be diving into later.

The most important market for Nvidia is the data center and its sky-high demand for AI servers. Over the last couple of years, Nvidia and AMD have been chipping away at Intel’s market share until three quarters ago, when Nvidia’s Datacenter business skyrocketed and sucked all value out of the market for the other players. Last quarter Nvidia capture over 87% of all operating profit in the processing market.

This has faced in particular Intel with a nasty dilemma:

Nvidia has eaten Intel’s lunch.

Intel has recently unveiled a bold and promising strategy, a testament to its resilience and determination. However, this strategy comes with significant financial challenges. As illustrated in the comparison below, Intel has historically been able to fund its approximately $4B/qtr Capex as its Operating profits hovered around $11B. But as the market changed, Intel’s operating profit is now approaching zero while its CapEx spending is increasing as a result of the new strategy of also becoming a foundry ased to the area of $6B$/qtr. The increased spending is now approximately $6M and is not a temporary situation but a reality that will persist

 

Intel can no longer finance its strategy through retained earnings and must engage with the investor community to obtain financing. Intel is no longer the master of its destiny.

Intel is hit by two trends in the Datacenter market:

  1. The transition from CPU to GPU
  2. The transition from Components to Systems.

Not only did Intel miss the GPU transition business, but it also lost the CPU business because of the system transition. Nvidia GPU systems will use their CPUs, Intel is not invited.

The revolution of the semiconductor supply chain

There are two main reasons the AI revolution is changing the data center part of the supply chain.

One is related to the change from standard packaged DRAM to High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM), and the other is related to new packaging technologies (CoWoS by TSMC). Both are related and caused by the need for bandwidth. As the GPU’s computational power increases, it must have faster memory access to deliver the computational advantage needed. The memory needs to be closer to the GPU and more of it, a lot more.

A simplified view of the relevant packaging technologies can be seen below:

The more traditional packaging method (2D) involves mounting the die on a substrate and connecting the pads with bond wires. 2.3D technology can bring the chips closer by flipping them around and mounting them on an interposer (often Silicon).

The current NVIDIA GPUs are made with 2.5D technology. The GPUs are flanked by stacks of DRAM die controlled by a base Memory Logic Die.

3D technology will bring memory to the top of the GPU and introduce many new problems for intelligent semiconductor people to solve.

This new technology is dramatically changing the supply chain. In the traditional model standard of the rest of the industry, the server card manufacturer procured all components from the suppliers individually.

The competition between the Processing, Memory and the Server companies kept pricing in check for the cloud companies.

Much has become more complex in the new AI server supply chain, as seen below.

This change again makes the Semiconductor supply chain more complex, but complexity is our friend.

What did Nvidia report, and what does it mean?

Nvidia posted $26B$ revenue, significantly above guidance and below the $27.5B we believed was the current capacity limit. It looked like Nvidia could squeeze the suppliers to perform at the maximum.

The result was a new record in the Semiconductor industry. Back in ancient history (last year), only Intel and Samsung could break quarterly records, as can be seen below.

Nvidia also disclosed their networking revenue for the first time, through the earlier calls we had a good idea of the size but now it is confirmed.

As we believe almost all of the networking revenue is in the data center category, we expected it to grow as the processing business but networking revenue was down down just under 5% quarterly suggesting the bill of material is shifting in the AI server products.

Even though the networking revenue was down, the growth from same quarter last year was up, making Nvidia the fastest growing networking company in the industry. More about that later.

The most important market for Nvidia is the data center processing market and its rapid uncontrolled disassembly of the old market structure. From being a wholly owned subsidiary of Intel back in 2019, the painful story unfolds below.

In Q1-2024, Nvidia generated more additional processing revenue in the data center than Intel’s total revenue. From an operating profit perspective, Nvidia had an 87% market share and delivered a new record higher than the combined operating profit in Q1-24.

Although Nvidia reported flat networking revenue, the company’s dominance is spreading to Data center networking. Packaging networking into server systems ensures that the networking components are not up for individual negotiation and hurts Nvidia’s networking competitors. It also provides an extraordinary margin.

We have not yet found out what is behind the drop in networking, but it is likely a configuration change in the server systems or a change in categorization inside Nvidia.

Nvidia declared a 10-1 stock split.

Claus Aasholm @siliconomy Spending my time dissecting the state of the semiconductor industry and the semiconductor supply chain. “Your future might be somebody else’s past.”

Also Read:

Tools for Chips and Dips an Overview of the Semiconductor Tools Market

Oops, we did it again! Memory Companies Investment Strategy

Nvidia Sells while Intel Tells

Real men have fabs!


CEO Interview: Barry Paterson of Agile Analog

CEO Interview: Barry Paterson of Agile Analog
by Daniel Nenni on 05-24-2024 at 6:00 am

Agile Analog CEO Barry Patterson

Agile Analog is transforming the world of analog IP with Composa™, its innovative, highly configurable, multi-process analog IP technology.  Agile Analog has developed a unique way to automatically generate analog IP that meet the customer’s exact specifications, for any foundry and on any process, from legacy nodes right up to the leading edge. The company provides a wide-range of novel analog IP and subsystems for data conversion, power management, IC monitoring, security and always-on IP, with applications including; data centers/HPC, IoT, AI, quantum computing, automotive and aerospace. The digitally wrapped and verified solutions can be seamlessly integrated into any SoC, significantly reducing complexity, time and costs, helping to accelerate innovation in semiconductor design.

Tell us a bit about your background. Why did you decide to become the CEO at Agile Analog in May 2022?
During my 30 years of working in the semiconductor industry, I have held senior leadership, engineering and product management roles at Dialog Semiconductor, Wolfson Microelectronics and Intel. My experience includes the development of custom, mixed-signal silicon solutions for many of the leading consumer electronics companies across the world.

When I was asked to become CEO at Agile Analog I was truly excited by the prospect of helping to drive forward a start-up company with such ground-breaking technology and great potential to change how analog design is performed. Throughout my career I have observed analog design engineers solving complex engineering challenges on a specific process node and then having to start over again when the foundry or process node changes. Traditional analog design can be incredibly difficult and frustrating, so the chance to automate part of the design process to help make chip design less complex, time-consuming and costly is a game-changer for the industry.

How have Agile Analog’s technology and products developed during the last 2 years?
Over the last two years, we have been making significant progress with our internal EDA technology Composa and our product portfolio. The development of analog design automation is complex and we have had many challenges. I am really impressed by the innovative work of our technical team at Agile Analog and I believe we now have a level of design automation (schematic generation, verification and customization) that is unprecedented. I am also really pleased that our range of highly configurable, multi-node analog IP is continuously growing and we have delivered multiple IP products to customers around the globe that are now in silicon. Our products include data conversion, power management, security, IC monitoring, always-on and subsystems IP. Every quarter we are extending this portfolio and every product is process agnostic.

Apart from technology and product developments, what have been the key milestones for the company over the last 2 years?
I would say that there are two company milestones that really stand out. I am very proud that last year we were accepted into the TSMC Open Innovation Platform (OIP) IP Alliance Program and we joined the Intel Foundry IP Alliance Program. These are important achievements that are testament to the high-quality and high-performance of our unique analog IP products. As a result, we are now able to participate in foundry events, such as the TSMC Technology Symposium events and Intel Foundry Direct Connect. It’s an honor to be part of these industry-leading ecosystems. And by collaborating closely with the major foundries, we can help more customers to simplify and speed up their analog IP integration.

How has the company dealt with industry and global challenges during this time?
2023 was a challenging time for the whole of the semiconductor industry due to the impact of global economic uncertainty and geopolitical unrest. Despite this, we took the opportunity to increase focus on developing our Composa technology and we built out our underlying library of sub-blocks required for IP product development. We were very fortunate to have great support from our investors that enabled us to continue driving forward in an extremely difficult period for the industry and the economy in general. The good news is that since the end of 2023 we have seen some positive change across the major semiconductor market segments. And for us, in the analog IP market, there has been a surge in interest, especially for our data conversion and power management IP solutions that are critical for the demanding digital applications of today. There are still some ongoing challenges in the industry, including a shortage of analog engineers, but we are determined to accelerate the development and adoption of our novel analog IP products.

What does the competitive landscape look like and how does your company differentiate?
Looking at the competitive landscape there are certain competitors that excel in specific segments such as clocking, SerDes and standards-based IP. In these areas our competition has clear leadership, so it would be ambitious to try and compete head-on. Many of our competitors are well-established, with excellent IP portfolios. This has been achieved through many years of hard work and successful customer engagements, so they are great role models for us. At Agile Analog, we are differentiating ourselves by offering customization, high-quality, speed of delivery, with the ability to provide our IP products on any process node for any foundry. Currently, we are not focused on standards-based IP that is locked to a specific node. Our focus is on general analog IP that needs to be optimized for each customer. This means that our customers have flexibility to obtain the optimal IP for their specific product. Our main product areas of data conversion, power management and enabling IP are resonating with customers who either have no analog design capability or very limited analog design resource that they need to focus on developing distinct analog functions in their product. In order to be successful within this segment a high level of design automation capability is needed, which we have through our internal Composa technology. Having analog design automation allows us to customize our products and deliver them on any foundry and process – this is what really differentiates us in the market.

What are the company’s main areas of focus for the rest of 2024?
The next 6 months are going to be full-on! We will be continuing to focus on the development of our Composa tool and our IP product roadmap, especially our data conversion, security and power management solutions. To accelerate the growth of Agile Analog we are recruiting new analog engineers, scaling up our customer support team and expanding our sales representation in the USA and APAC. We have some interesting new customer projects underway, with more in the pipeline. And of course, our sales team are out on the road, attending many of the major foundry events, talking with customers and partners about our unique analog IP technology. It’s such an exciting time!

Also Read:

International Women’s Day with Christelle Faucon VP Sales Agile Analog

2024 Outlook with Chris Morrison of Agile Analog

Agile Analog Partners with sureCore for Quantum Computing


Sarcina Teams with Keysight to Deliver Advanced Packages

Sarcina Teams with Keysight to Deliver Advanced Packages
by Mike Gianfagna on 05-23-2024 at 10:00 am

Sarcina Teams with Keysight to Deliver Advanced Packages

All aspects of semiconductor design and manufacturing require collaboration across a global ecosystem. As complexity increases, so does the importance of good collaboration. This is especially true for advanced package design. Thanks to the movement to multi-die design, package development has become an incredibly difficult task. Navigating the many different materials and topologies required to deliver an optimal package for devices such as CPUs/GPUs/NPUs has evolved into a highly specialized endeavor. This is a story of how one company addresses these needs and who it partners with to get the job done. You will learn a lot about design practices and design technologies as we explore how Sarcina teams with Keysight to deliver advanced packages.

Backdrop For the Story

Founded in 2011 in Palo Alto, CA, Sarcina Technology offers a broad range of package, test, and qualification services. The company created the Application Specific Advanced Packaging, or ASAP category. It provides advanced package design, test, assembly and production management services to a broad range of customers with a noteworthy 100 percent first-time package tape out success track record. You can learn more about Sarcina on SemiWiki here.

As a premier “wafer-in, package-out” service provider, Sarcina incorporates the latest standards for interconnect, such as GDDR6, PCIe Gen 6, and 112 Gbps SerDes. Many of the designs it works on are literal powerhouses, drawing hundreds of watts during peak operation. Packages designed by Sarcina have found their way into diverse applications, ranging from consumer electronics to space travel, like the Falcon 9 mission to the International Space Station in May 2020.

Larry Zu

To be so successful in such a difficult market is a true testament to the team at Sarcina. Larry Zu, the company’s CEO has been there since the beginning, guiding the company to become the sought-after supplier it is today. As I mentioned earlier, this kind of work can’t be done in a vacuum. Collaboration is always required. In the case of Sarcina, Larry recently discussed the particular demands his company faces for simulation and analysis and how Keysight provides the margin of victory for his team.

For those unfamiliar with Keysight Technologies, it is an S&P 500 company that delivers market-leading design, emulation, and test solutions. Its goal is to help engineers develop and deploy faster, with less risk, throughout the entire product life cycle. You can learn more about Keysight EDA on SemiWiki here.

The story is captured in a very informative Case Study. If you want to learn about the complexity of advanced package design and why companies like Sarcina and Keysight should be on your radar, I highly recommend you download your own copy. A link is coming, but first let’s look at the dimensions of the discussion.

Sarcina/Keysight Case Study – An Overview

Accurate signal path analysis becomes a major challenge for advanced package design. Sarcina package design methodology features full channel simulation. The challenge is to enable accurate, fast simulation using real-world models, without slowing down the engineering team.

Standard, SPICE-based tools can fall short. Lack of a good user interface among tools, and the need for a lot of text-based model configuration can slow things down. Sarcina’s engineers wanted a tool that would focus more on the task at hand and maintain model accuracy without getting bogged down in scripting. There is more detail provided in the Case Study, but you get the idea.

By adopting Keysight’s PathWave Advanced Design System (ADS) and Memory Designer,  and a multi-model signal path approach, Sarcina was able to create a highly productive end-to-end workflow. The Case Study provides a lot of detail about how this flow effectively addressed the many signal and power integrity challenges faced by the Sarcina team.

The details of how this flow is deployed tell you a lot about what’s required to deliver an advanced package design and why advanced tools and flow are so critical.  A couple of quotes from Larry Zu are useful here:

“You know, at 54 Gbps data rate and with bi-directional simulation, we can validate not only the silicon but also the package and the PCB.”

“Based on the scale of our simulations, getting convergence can be a big challenge. We’re not just simulating a few components. We’re dealing with hundreds of components, so the accuracy, and resolving SPICE convergence issues are very important.”

Many results are provided to illustrate the accuracy Sarcina engineers achieved with the Keysight flow. One example is a high-speed NPU. Sarcina created an advanced package design that utilized 6400 MT/s LPDDR5 memory. Configuring the package layer stack, power and ground references, and routing according to the electrical requirements enabled Sarcina to create a first-time success with a very demanding signaling scheme in a fraction of the time it would take using other tools.

The graphic at the top of this post is that package substrate design. You will see the details in the Case Study, but one more quote from Larry is useful:

“We did a measurement with Keysight test equipment. We captured an eye diagram from the measured computer screen and compared it against the simulation result. We positioned them one on top of each other and they were practically identical.”

To Learn More

If you want to learn about the right tools, techniques, and partners to address the demands of advanced package design, I highly recommend this Case Study. You can download your copy here.  The Case Study also provides many useful links to learn about Sarcina and Keysight. And that’s how Sarcina teams with Keysight to deliver advanced packages.


Fully Automating Chip Design

Fully Automating Chip Design
by Hans Bouwmeester on 05-23-2024 at 6:00 am

Figure 1
Design Productivity Gap

Twenty-five years ago, SEMATECH first alerted the world to a concern known as the design productivity gap: the observation that the ability to manufacture complex chips had started outpacing the capability of designers to create them by more than a factor of two. This concern was subsequently reiterated in the ITRS report of 1999 and discussed and reported on in many articles during the past two decades (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Design Productivity Gap

In recent years, generative AI in general and natural language processing more specifically have taken the world by storm, opening-up a wealth of possible applications, including chip design.

But will it be enough to finally start closing the productivity gap, where continuous improvements in EDA and the application of IP-reuse have done nothing more than decelerate its growth somewhat? This article presents a comprehensive overview, showing that generative AI will indeed finally close the design productivity gap and even enable us to fully automate hardware design.

Generative AI Applications in Chip Design

A first reason why generative AI helps close the productivity gap is thanks to the breadth of applications where it can be applied. This is illustrated here by distinguishing between three main categories of value-add, each with a multitude of possible applications (Figure 2).

A first category of applications relates to applying a Large Language Model (LLM) for the purpose of creation and innovation. We can deploy the creative aspects of the LLM to automatically generate, for example, architectural specifications, Verilog or VHDL code, a design with integrated IP, a verification test plan with testbench and test-cases or a configuration file for synthesis.

A second category of applications leverages the LLMs ability to help extract knowledge from information. When presented with, for example, a specification, HDL code or any kind of associated documentation, the LLM can be queried for insights giving designers the knowledge needed to determine next steps. This ability can be further enhanced thanks to a technique called RAG (Retrieval Augmented Generation) whereby the LLM is paired with a knowledge base with information it can leverage to generate its response.

A third category of applications relates to applying the LLM in boring, mundane and repetitive tasks which have proven to be very hard to automate before. Examples in this category are generating product documentation, adding comments to code, periodically reporting status and the analysis of large tool-generated log-files.

Figure 2: Example Application Areas in Chip Design

Design Intent Abstraction

Another arrow in the quiver of generative AI is that it enables us to move up to the next abstraction level as we design our chips. Where we progressed from mostly using transistor models in the 70s to logic gates in the 80s, synthesizable RTL in the 90s, design-IP in the 2000s and system design languages and TLM (Transaction Level Modeling) techniques in the 2010s, we have now started using natural language as the main language to specify our design and verification intent (Figure 3).

Note that this will not replace underlying languages like Verilog and SystemVerilog. Rather, it will become a shell around them as we can now translate a design intent expressed in natural language directly to HDL-code thus saving significant coding time and effort.

Figure 3: Design Intent Abstraction over Time

AI Agents

Although the ability to express the design intent in natural language has provided a big step forward, we are still at the humble beginnings of what the new generative AI technology has to offer. This is illustrated in Figure 4 which shows layers of technology being added to the basic conversational abilities as offered by an off-the-shelf LLM thereby transforming it into a chip design AI agent.

Using natural language as its main input and output, the agent assists with all aspects of the design creation process by combining its trained knowledge with an external knowledge base containing prior designs, IP, and associated documentation. In addition, it can call underlying EDA tools and analyze the results. It can continuously monitor the design repository for changes, enabling it to autonomously take actions, and ultimately will be able to adapt its behavior based on learnings from the past.

Figure 4: Evolving AI Agent Technology

Shown clockwise: (1) general conversational abilities of the AI agent are enabled by a baseline LLM; (2) the LLM is trained and fine-tuned to excel at specific applications like chip design; (3) the LLM is augmented with a (RAG: Retrieval Augmented Generation) knowledge-base containing for example prior designs, design-IP and relevant documentation; (4) the AI agent is equipped with the ability to call and interact with underlying EDA tools, as well as to call other agents in a multi-agent workflow; (5) the AI agent is deployed in an always-on, multi-tasking, operating-system like system enabling it to monitor it’s environment and to autonomously deploy initiatives; (6) the AI agent is equipped with memory enabling it to remember, learn and ultimately adapt its future behavior based on user instructions and learning from the past.

Human Involvement in Iterative Tasks

To explain why current “traditional” EDA tools have not been able to start closing the design productivity gap and how generative AI can help, we need to look at the nature of the steps needed to complete a given task. As most tasks are iterative by nature, we model the task using the well-documented Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle (Figure 5).

Looking at traditional EDA tools these generally do a good job at the Do-step but most often fall short at the Plan-step. An example is the design verification task where EDA tools help run simulations (Do) to detect bugs (Check). However, writing the test-plan and test-benches (Plan) and fixing any bugs found (Act) is left to the design verification engineer. This signals a need for a “human-in-the-loop” preventing us from being able to fully automate the task.

AI agents on the other hand, can help with the Plan-step. Thanks to their transformative nature, they are well suited to translate the task requirements into an executable process. For example, for the above design verification task the AI agent can transform the requirements into a test-plan with associated testbench and test-cases. It can also interpret any bug reports and automatically correct the issue (Check and Act). It can even look at code coverage reports and automatically add more test cases to automatically improve the quality of the verification regression test suite.

It is evident that traditional EDA and generative AI agents complement each other very well, in many cases enabling us to eliminate the need for human involvement when iterating over a task’s PDCA-cycle to get the best results.

Figure 5: Eliminating the Human-in-the-Loop Need in Intra-Task Iterations

PDCA: PLAN: Establish objectives and a process needed to meet them; DO: Execute plan;
CHECK: Compare results against objectives; ACT: If needed, adjust the plan and reiterate.

Inter-Task Dependencies

Although individual AI agents enable us to eliminate the human-in-the-loop for many individual tasks, the overall task of designing a chip is much more complex. To fully automate chip design, we need to deal with many inter dependent tasks where we often need to redo a task based on the outcome of a task later in the flow. For example, as the layout is already in progress, a back-annotated static timing analysis run may report that timing cannot be met requiring an adjustment of the synthesis configuration, or even the RTL code to address the issue (Figure 6).

Such inter-task reiterations can generally be addressed using generative AI as well. By having an AI agent interpret the outcome (log file) from a Do-step in the PDCA cycle (Figure 5), it can decide on what to do in the Act-step. This can involve iterating over the same task, redoing an earlier task in the flow, or proceeding with the next task in the flow.

 

Figure 6: Automating Inter-Task Re-Iterations

Multi-Agent Workflows

To manage complex tasks, our industry is used to taking a divide-and-conquer like approach by splitting up the task into subtasks. For chip design, subtasks include architectural specification, RTL-coding, design-verification, synthesis, physical layout & verification, power & signal integrity analysis, packaging, manufacturing & test and silicon validation. Splitting up the bigger task also enables a separation of concerns as each subtask has become its own discipline, with domain experts being assigned to each phase in the overall flow.

Looking at the evolution of an AI agent as described earlier (Figure 4) we can apply the same approach by creating specialized AI agents that are experts at executing given tasks. These expert AI agents can now be deployed in a multi-agent workflow where the agents are organized to together execute a higher-level task. As the higher-level task itself can be a sub-task of an even higher-level task, we can compose a hierarchy of workflows, each executed by one or more AI agents each with a different area of expertise.

The example in Figure 7 illustrates this concept. Here, Task Dispatcher is instructed to create Verilog RTL alongside a testbench with a code overage target. Task Dispatcher interprets the request and concludes through LLM autocompletion that it first needs to prompt RTL Designer to create and check-in a first version of the RTL-code. When RTL Designer reports back it has finished this task, Task Dispatcher subsequently passes the specification and design interface description to Testbench Coder to create the verification testbench. Once this is done, Task Dispatcher runs executable “regress.exe” and analyses the results. If a bug is found in the code, it prompts RTL Designer to fix it. If the code coverage is below the target, it prompts Testbench Coder to add more tests. If the code is bug-free and the code coverage meets the target Task Dispatcher reports back that the task is complete.

Conclusion – Fully Automated Chip Design

The advent of generative AI is revolutionizing chip design. Not only does it enable us to specify our design and verification intent using natural language, but it can also be applied in many different tasks including some that were very difficult to automate before like documentation, commenting code and helpdesk support.

Moreover, thanks to the fact that generative AI and traditional EDA complement each other very well, we can eliminate the human-in-the-loop need in many iterative tasks. By organizing specialized AI agents into multi-agent workflows we can automatically manage the overall complex system of task inter-dependencies, thereby enabling us to fully automate the entire chip design process.

About PrimisAI

PrimisAI is the premier destination for cutting-edge hardware design automation, offering engineers the ultimate generative AI companion with advanced Language-to-Code and Language-to-Verification capabilities. Our interactive AI assistant called RapidGPT swiftly addresses complex hardware challenges across the entire design stack, from concept to Bitstream/GDSII. With on-premise deployment and an easily extendable knowledge base tailored to client-specific IPs, PrimisAI ensures an unparalleled hardware design experience.

Also Read:

Anirudh Fireside Chats with Jensen and Cristiano

Enabling Imagination: Siemens’ Integrated Approach to System Design

Ceva Accelerates IoT and Smart Edge AI with a New Wireless Platform IP Family


2024 Starts Slow, But Primed for Growth

2024 Starts Slow, But Primed for Growth
by Bill Jewell on 05-22-2024 at 4:00 pm

Semiconductor Market Change 2024

The global semiconductor market in 1Q 2024 was $137.7 billion, according to WSTS. 1Q 2024 was down 5.7% from 4Q 2023 and up 15.2% from a year ago. The first quarter of the year is typically down seasonally from the fourth quarter of the prior year. However, the 1Q 2024 decline of 5.7% was worse than expected.

Major semiconductor companies had mixed results for 1Q 2024. The revenue change from 4Q 2023 to 1Q 2024 ranged from a 23% increase reported by Micron Technology to a 19% decline from STMicroelectronics. Five companies had quarter-to-quarter revenue growth while nine companies had decreases. Nvidia continued as the largest semiconductor company with $26 billion in revenue. The combined revenue growth of the top companies was 2%, with memory companies up 12% and non-memory companies down 2%.

Companies provided varied revenue guidance for 2Q 2024. Micron is projecting continued strong memory demand, with 2Q 2024 revenues expected to grow 13% from 1Q 2024. Seven other companies are anticipating revenue increases in 2Q 2024. Artificial Intelligence (AI) was cited as a major growth driver by Nvidia, Samsung, and SK Hynix. NXP Semiconductors expects 2Q 2024 to be flat with 1Q 2024. Three companies are expecting declines. Qualcomm and MediaTek see seasonal drops in smartphones. STMicroelectronics’ revenue guidance is the lowest with a 7.6% decline due to excess inventory in the industrial sector. The combined 2Q 2024 outlook for the twelve companies providing guidance is 3% growth.

Recent estimates for the growth rate of the year 2024 semiconductor market have a wide range from 4.9% to 28%. However, forecasts made since the WSTS first quarter data was released in early May differ significantly from earlier forecasts. Projections released in February and March range from 17% from DigiTimes to 28% from UBS. Based on the 1Q 2024 WSTS data, Future Horizons lowered their 2024 projection from 16% in January to 4.9% in May. Other May forecasts are 10% from the Cowan LRA Model and 12% from TECHCET. We at Semiconductor Intelligence (SC-IQ) have lowered our 2024 projected growth from 18% in February to 11% in May.

Our April 2024 newsletter Electronics Turns Positive stated 2024 should show solid but not exceptional growth in the key end markets of PCs and smartphones. Some markets which showed growth in the last couple of years – such as automotive and industrial – appear to be weakening. AI is an emerging growth driver. The global economy is expected to show steady growth of 3.2% for the next two years, according to the IMF. These factors should support healthy semiconductor market growth in 2024 and into 2025. However, earlier projections of growth of 20% or higher in 2024 are not likely to prove true.

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.

Bill Jewell
Semiconductor Intelligence, LLC
billjewell@sc-iq.com


The Git Dilemma: Is Version Control Enough for Semiconductor Success?

The Git Dilemma: Is Version Control Enough for Semiconductor Success?
by admin on 05-22-2024 at 10:00 am

Data in Software Vs Semiconductor Design Flow

Git is a version control system that saves every change made to files. It offers powerful tools for managing these changes. This makes Git ideal for software development, as it lets you keep all project files in one place.

Software has grown in complexity, necessitating more collaboration among engineers across various time zones. Software tools advanced to handle the increased number of iterations, files, and data. Initially, tools like RCS and SCCS could only manage file revisions, not entire software projects. CVS is a version control system that allows multiple developers to work on a project simultaneously while keeping the project consistent. As development spread across various geographies and functional teams, systems like ClearCase, Perforce, and SVN became essential for managing the process. Eventually, Git and Mercurial emerged to support the distributed development of extensive open-source projects effectively.

Git has become the go-to solution for tracking changes and managing software development flows. However, it is worth exploring whether Git is the best choice for projects beyond software development, such as semiconductor chip design. This blog post examines whether Git can effectively manage workflows in different fields.

How is semiconductor design different?

Like software development flows, IC design involves an extensive collection of files. A team of engineers goes through numerous revisions during the product’s development, debugging, and enhancement stages. Naturally, they must distribute their updates efficiently and precisely among the team. As the project progresses, managing the data becomes more complex as teams seek to find the optimal configurations of IC schematics, layouts, and semiconductor Intellectual Property (IP Cores). Also, managing associated simulation and analysis data and meta-data is an additional challenge in hardware design flows.

In addition to the fundamental similarities, there are also several notable differences.

  • Digital designs are commonly crafted using Verilog text files and edited with text editors. However, analog and mixed-signal (AMS) designs and packaging designs are created as binary files or groups of binary and text files to represent design objects such as schematics and layouts using specialized graphical editors.
  • A software workflow is characterized by a cyclical process of editing, compiling, and debugging. In contrast, the workflow for semiconductor design is significantly more nuanced, involving various editors in creating the components.
  • Various steps are required to complete the design, such as synthesis, place and route, different types of simulations, formal verification, timing analysis, etc. These tools and flows necessitate the collaboration of engineers with diverse specializations to generate binary files, which may require version management.
  • Specific components, often called Intellectual Property (IP) blocks, might be repurposed entirely or partially. These IPs are frequently acquired from external suppliers and might come with limitations regarding the editing permissions within the more extensive system.

Git serves as a robust platform for overseeing software development processes. Individual engineers focus on creating new features or resolving problems. The platform’s proficiency in integrating modifications into text files facilitates highly effective collaborative development, particularly within open-source initiatives.

Nonetheless, it must address the specific needs of semiconductor development, especially within a company. We’ll investigate these needs and the areas where Git might not measure up.

In IC design, several large files, ranging from a few MBs to several GBs, are expected. The operational framework of Git, which involves users cloning the repository, results in each user duplicating all the repository files and their numerous revisions. This practice can incur significant expenses in a corporate setting where the bulk of design data resides on costly, high-reliability network storage systems.

In the realm of IC design, particularly within analog and custom domains, the creation of binary files is a standard practice. Due to the non-automatable nature of combining schematics and layouts, utilizing a centralized repository equipped with editing restrictions is the optimal strategy to circumvent the intricacies and potential errors associated with manual merging.

Designing involves teamwork among various engineers, including design, verification, and layout engineers. They need to work together and share frequent updates. A central repository model allows frequent updates and better collaboration than a distributed repository model, as engineers can track each other’s work and stay updated on changes.

Design teams work from different locations. For example, design engineers might be in one country, while layout engineers might be in another. They need to coordinate their work regularly. Technology such as cache servers helps them do this effectively, considering the large volume of design data that needs to be shared.

Design objects are typically grouped sets of files treated as a single entity rather than just a set of files. Access restrictions are essential because engineers have specific roles, like preventing a layout engineer from changing a schematic by mistake. Also, it’s crucial to restrict contractors from sensitive materials. Centralized management of project data is necessary to maintain these access controls.

Although data might be organized in a simple flat directory system, IC design usually follows a structured hierarchy of blocks, where each tier incorporates a block from the below level. An IC designer requires a configuration management system to retrieve and manipulate the design hierarchy.

Consider how difficult it would be for software developers if they couldn’t compare different versions of files to see the changes. It would be a huge task to check for updates or track down the source of a new error. Similarly, circuit designers and layout engineers should have access to tools to spot differences in schematics or layouts between versions.

Indeed, the engineers’ design tools must incorporate revision control and configuration management functionalities. This is not only a matter of convenience; the design tools must also know the configuration management system to ensure that adds, deletes, and changes are correctly recorded and represented in the tools.

The temptation is to look for existing tools and shoehorn them to meet similar needs in a different domain. Git and other software configuration management (SCM) tools, as the name suggests, were developed by software engineers to meet the needs of software engineers. Each domain may have some unique requirements that differ from those of software development. It makes sense to explore your development tools and methodology requirements before adopting a configuration management system you will work with for many years.

Keysight Data Management System (SoS)

Also Read:

Self-heating and trapping enhancements in GaN HEMT models

QuantumPro unifies superconducting qubit design workflow

2024 Outlook with Niels Faché of Keysight EDA


Mastering Copper TSV Fill Part 1 of 3

Mastering Copper TSV Fill Part 1 of 3
by John Ghekiere on 05-22-2024 at 8:00 am

Mastering Copper TSV Fill Part 1 of 3

Establishing void-free fill of high aspect ratio TSVs, capped by a thin and uniform bulk layer optimized for removal by CMP, means fully optimizing each of a series of critical phases. As we will see in this 3-part series, the conditions governing outcomes for each phase vary greatly, and the complexity of interacting factors means that starting from scratch poses an empirical pursuit that is expensive and of long duration.

Robust and void-free filling of TSVs with copper progresses through six phases as laid out below:

  1. Feature wetting and wafer entry
  2. Feature polarization
  3. Nucleation
  4. Fill propagation
  5. Accelerator ejection
  6. Bulk layer plating
  7. (Rinsing and drying, which we won’t cover in this series)

Feature wetting

The primary purpose of the feature wetting step is, well, not very mysterious. It is to fully wet the wafer surface and most especially the features themselves. Inadequate feature wetting leads to trapping of air inside the TSV. That trapped air impedes plating, causing voids.

Wetting is by no means trivial, and the difficulty of fully wetting features increases dramatically with aspect ratio. There is a process window based on time of exposure of the features to the water. Too little time allowed for wetting will lead to incomplete wetting and bubbles (thus, voids). However, too much time for wetting will result in corrosion of the copper seed (thus other voids).

Side note: One of the biggest challenges in copper TSV formation actually comes before the copper fill step. I’m talking about the contiguous coverage of the feature in PVD copper seed. You probably guessed that the degree of difficulty in proper seed deposition increases dramatically with aspect ratio. Oh, how right you are. Getting good seed coverage in higher aspect ratio vias tends to require both sophisticated PVD systems and sophisticated PVD process engineers (neither of which comes cheap). The toughest spot to cover is the lower portion of the sidewall immediately adjacent to the via floor. If feature wetting is not optimized, seed corrosion can occur, exposing the underlying barrier and preventing plating altogether in that area, resulting in…voids. If you have non-optimized wetting that results in corrosion, the bottom of the via wall is where you are sure to see it.

Let’s talk methods of wetting. I’m sure there are exceptions but, generally speaking, wetting of TSV features is done in deionized water (DI). The wetting step can be accomplished using one of several different methods. I briefly summarize the most common methods below, along with the pros and cons of each:

Immersion wetting:

  • What is it: Simply immersing a dry wafer into a prewet bath.
  • Pros: Hardware requirements are minimal, amounting only to immersing the wafer into a pool of water.
  • Cons: This is the least aggressive method and is unlikely to work on vias of even modest aspect ratio. Even though the seed copper is highly hydrophilic, at this scale, wetting can proceed very slowly due to simple air entrapment or minor disadvantage in surface energy.

Spray wetting:

  • What is it: Spraying of water against the surface of the spinning wafer.
  • Pros: Spray is a quite effective way to completely wet features due to the more aggressive exchange of water at the surface which more effectively disrupts air entrapment.
  • Cons: Above an aspect ratio of around 5:1, spray wetting may be too slow to be effective, depending on the sensitivity of the TSV sidewall copper seed. Hardware complexity is higher than immersion and may not be available on the plating system you use. Wet transfer from a spray wetting system to a plating system is possible.

Vacuum Prewet:

  • Wetting of the wafer in a vacuum, then venting to atmosphere to drive water into the features.
  • Pros: Vacuum prewet is a highly effective and fast way to fully wet even TSVs of aspect ratio 10:1 and greater.
  • Cons: Most systems do not offer a vacuum prewet chamber. Even with access to vacuum prewet, recipe structure and settings must be optimized to avoid process issues; for example, excessive vacuum can lead to ambient pressure boiling of the water.

One last point on wetting, treatment of the water stream can help significantly to reduce (or nearly eliminate) corrosion rate, drastically opening process window. This improvement could be critical if seed copper is particularly thin, which is common at the base of the via sidewall in higher aspect ratio features.

Also, you have noticed I keep saying, “voids.” You want to master TSV? Master elimination of voids.

Once the wafer is wetted, it must be transferred to the plating reactor. The transfer of the wafer should be accomplished quickly to avoid evaporation of water on the wafer. Generally, the water inside the features will not evaporate quickly, however, water can evaporate quickly from the wafer surface, causing surface corrosion.

Wafer Entry

Immersion of the wafer into the plating fluid is the next consideration. Most state of the art plating systems introduce the wafer into fluid with the feature side facing down. Platers of this type are commonly called, “fountain platers,” because the chemistry flows continually upward and over a weir, replicating the behavior of a fountain. The other common plating chamber type uses a vertical orientation of the wafer. Systems of this type are often called “rack platers.”

Immersion of a wafer in a vertical orientation is typically straightforward, the primary risk being the trapping of air in and around the hardware features of the wafer holder. Immersion of a wafer into a fountain plater is comparatively more complex due to the need to evacuate air from under the wafer during immersion. This step is commonly called, “wafer entry,” and involves careful tilting of the wafer to a specific angle, at an optimal wafer rotational rate, and vertical downward velocity in order to prevent trapping of air against the wafer surface that leads to major…wait for it…voids.

Given the relatively higher complexity of wafer immersion in fountain plater systems, one may be tempted to think that vertical platers represent a preferable architecture, but they do not. For reasons I’ll share in a future post, the magic of rotating submerged disc physics makes fountain platers the industry’s best plating reactors.

Also Read:

Mastering Copper TSV Fill Part 2 of 3

 


From System Design to Drug Design. The Rationale

From System Design to Drug Design. The Rationale
by Bernard Murphy on 05-22-2024 at 6:00 am

Drug development cycle min

I’m guessing that more than a few people were mystified (maybe still are) when Cadence acquired OpenEye Scientific, a company known for computational molecular design aimed at medical drug/therapeutics discovery. What could EDA, even SDA (system design automation), and drug discovery possibly have in common? More than you might imagine, but to understand you first need to understand Anirudh’s longstanding claim that Cadence is at heart a computational software company, which I read as expert in big scientific/engineering applications. EDA is one such application, computational fluid dynamics (e.g for aerodynamics) is another and computational molecular design (for drug design) is yet another. I sat in on a presentation by Geoff Skillman (VP R&D of Cadence Molecular Sciences, previously OpenEye) at Cadence Live 2024, and what I heard was an eye opener (pun intended) for this hard-core EDA guy.

The dynamics and challenges in drug design

Developing a new drug has echoes with the path to developing a new semiconductor design – only much worse: a 12-year cycle from start to delivery; a very high fall out rate (90% of trials end in failure); an average $2.5B NRE per successful drug when averaged together with failed trials. I can’t imagine any semiconductor enterprise even contemplating this level of risk.

At least half of that time is consumed in clinical trials and FDA approval, stages we might not want to accelerate (I certainly don’t want to be a guinea pig for a poorly tested drug). The first half starts with discovery among a huge set of possibilities (10^60), screening for basic problems, optimizing, and running experiments in the lab. Unfortunately, biology is not nearly as cooperative as the physics underlying electronic systems. First, it is complex and dynamic, changing for its own reasons and in unforeseen responses to experiments. It has also evolved defenses over millions of years, seeing foreign substances as toxins to be captured and eliminated no matter how well intentioned. Not only must we aim to correct a problem, but we must also trick our way around those defenses to apply the fix.

A further challenge is that calculations in biology are approximate thanks to the sheer complexity and evolving understanding of bio systems. Worse yet, there is always a possibility that far from being helpful, a proposed drug may actually prove to be toxic. Adding experimental analyses helps refine calculations but these too have limited accuracy. Geoff admits that with all this complexity, approximation, and still artisanal development processes, it must seem like molecular science is stuck in the dark ages. But practitioners haven’t been sitting still.

From artisanal design to principled and scalable design

As high-performance computing options opened up in cloud and some supercomputer projects, some teams were able to sample these huge configuration spaces more effectively, refining their virtual modeling processes to a more principled and accelerated flow.

Building on these advances, Cadence Molecular Sciences now maps their approach to the Cadence 3-layer cake structure: their Orion scalable elastic HPC SaaS platform providing the hardware acceleration (and scaling) layer; a wide range of chemistry, physics, and biology tools and toolkits offering principled simulation and optimization over large configuration spaces; and AI/GenAI reinforced with experimental data in support of drug discovery.

Molecular sciences 3 layer cake

At the hardware acceleration layer, they can scale to arbitrary number of CPUs or GPUs. In the principled simulation/optimization layer they offer options to virtually screen candidate molecules (looking for similarity with experimentally known good options), to study molecular dynamics, quantum mechanics modeled behaviors, and free energy predictions (think objective functions in optimization). At the AI layer they can connect to the NVIDIA BioNeMo GenAI platforms, to AI-driven docking (to find best favored ligand to receptor docking options) and to AI-driven optimization toolkits. You won’t be surprised to hear that all these tools/processes are massively compute intensive, hence the need for the hardware acceleration layer of the cake.

Molecular similarity screening is a real strength for Cadence Molecular Sciences according to Geoff. Screening is the first stage in discovery, based on a widely accepted principle in medicinal chemistry that similar molecules will interact with biology in similar ways. This approach quickly eliminates random guess molecules of course, also molecules with possible strange behaviors or toxicities. Here they are comparing 3D shape and electrostatics for similarity and have measured performance improvement between 32x 3rd generation Xeon cores and 8x H100 GPU cores at over 1100X faster and 15X more cost efficiency. When you’re comparing against billions of candidate molecules, that matters.

Geoff also added that through Cadence connections to cloud providers (not so common among biotech companies) they have been able to expand availability to more cloud options. They have also delivered a proof of concept on Cadence datacenter GPUs. For biotech startups this is a big positive since they don’t have the capital to invest in their own large GPU clusters. For bigger enterprises, he hinted interest in adding GPU capacity to their own in-house datacenters to get around GPU capacity limitations (and I assume cloud overhead concerns).

Looking forward

What Geoff described in this presentation centered mostly on the Design stage of the common biotech Design-Make-Test-Analyze loop. What can be done to help with the other stages? BioNeMo includes a ChemInformatics package which could be used to help develop a recipe for the Make stage. The actual making (candidate synthesis), followed by test and analyze would still be in a lab. Yet following this approach, I can understand higher confidence among biotechs/pharmas that a candidate drug is more likely to survive into trials and maybe beyond.

Very cool. There’s lots more interesting information, about the kinds of experiments researchers are running for osteoporosis therapeutics, for oncology drugs and for other targets previously thought to be “undruggable”. But I didn’t want to overload this blog. If you are interested in learning more, click HERE.


New Tool that Synthesizes Python to RTL for AI Neural Network Code

New Tool that Synthesizes Python to RTL for AI Neural Network Code
by Daniel Payne on 05-21-2024 at 10:00 am

Catapult AI NN tool flow – Python to RTL

AI and ML techniques are popular topics, yet there are considerable challenges to those that want to design and build an AI accelerator for inferencing, as you need a team that understands how to model a neural network in a language like Python, turn that model into RTL, then verify that your RTL matches Python. Researchers from CERN, Fermilab and UC San Diego have made progress in this area by developing the open source hls4ml, which is a Python package for machine learning inference in FPGAs. The promise of this approach is to translate machine learning package models into HLS to speed development time.

I spoke with David Burnette, Director of Engineering, Catapult HLS with Siemens last week to learn how they have been working with Fermilab and contributors over the past two years on extending hls4ml to support both ASIC and FPGA implementations. The new Siemens tool is called Catapult AI NN, and it takes in the neural network description as Python code, converts that to C++ and then synthesizes the results as RTL code using Verilog or VHDL.

Data scientists working in AI and ML are apt to use Python for their neural network models, yet they are not experts at C++, RTL or hardware concepts. Manually translating from Python into RTL simply takes too much time, is error prone and is not easily updated or changed. Catapult AI NN allows an architect to stay with Python for modeling neural networks, then use automation to create C++ and RTL code quickly. This approach allows a team to do tradeoffs of power, area and performance rapidly in hours or days, not months or years.

One tradeoff that Catapult AI NN provides is for how much parallelism to use in hardware, so you could start with asking for the fastest network, which likely results in a larger chip area, or asking for the smallest design, which would impact the speed. Having quick iterations enables a project to reach a more optimal AI accelerator.

A common database for handwritten digits is called MNIST, with 60,000 training images and 10,000 testing images. A Python neural network model can be written to process and classify these images, then run in Catapult AI NN to produce RTL code in just minutes. Design teams that need hardware that performs objection classification and object detection will benefit from using this new Python to RTL automation.

Catapult AI NN tool flow – Python to RTL

Machine learning professionals that are used to tools like TensorFlow, PyTorch or Keras can continue to stay in their favored language domain, while automating the hardware implementation using a new tool. When using Catapult AI NN users can see how their Python neural network parameters correlate to RTL code, read reports on implementation area, measure the performance throughput per layer, and know where their neural network is spending time. To improve the speed of High-Level Synthesis a user can choose to distribute jobs for hundreds of layers at one time, instead of sequentially.

Summary

There is a new, quicker path to design AI accelerators, instead of using manual methods to translate from Python code for neural networks to RTL, and reaching an FPGA or ASIC implementation. With Catapult AI NN there’s the promise of quickly moving from neural network models written in Python to C++ and RTL, for both FPGA and ASIC domains. Rapid tradeoffs can be made with this new methodology, resulting in an optimization of power, performance and area for AI accelerators.

Inferencing at the Edge is a popular goal for many product design groups, and this announcement should attract their attention as a way to help meet their stringent goals with less effort, and less time for design and verification.  Fermilab has used this approach for particle detector applications, so that their AI experts can create efficient hardware without becoming ASIC designers.

Read the Siemens press release.

Related Blogs