webinar IPXACT banner

IBM thinks neural nets in chip with 4K cores

IBM thinks neural nets in chip with 4K cores
by Don Dingee on 08-08-2014 at 2:00 pm

Neural networks have been the darlings of researchers since the 1940s, but have eluded practical hardware implementations on all but a small scale, or an enormous one given how many processing elements and interconnects are needed. To make significant brain-like decisions, one needs at least several thousand fairly capable cores and a massively configurable interconnect.

An example of how much fun this problem is surfaced a couple years ago, when Google created a software neural network with 16,000 nodes and turned it loose on 10 million YouTube videos looking for cats. (No, they weren’t looking for the text “I can haz cheezburger?” That would be cheating. They were training on pictures of randomly selected cat faces.)

One of the closest attempts at neural net hardware I’ve seen so far is based on Parallella, from Adepteva. The primary processor is a Xilinx Zynq with its FPGA fabric and a dual core ARM Cortex-A9, but there is also a 16 or 64 core Epiphany accelerator on board. Those cores are small, homegrown RISC designs running at 800 MHz with a mesh interconnect.

It’s not hard to envision a cluster of maybe 64 Parallellas working together on a neural net problem – but there still needs to be a software paradigm to program that many cores effectively. OpenCL provides a solid, scalable environment for that task, able to deal with distributed processors in a heterogenous network.

Reading through Nick Oppen’s blog gives a flavor of both the potential and the level of difficulty in such an exercise. Given enough time, programming acumen, and a few thousand bucks (Parallella boards start at $149) and space to set up 64 boards, it’s possible to get that working.

If you’re IBM, and have a bunch of really smart researchers, and cost and development schedule is not an issue, you try to put that on one chip (minus the ARM cores and a fully programmable FPGA – think simple cores and configurable fabric). The project, working under the auspices of the DARPA SyNAPSE initiative, involves both hardware and software.

The specs of the IBM TrueNorth chip just introduced are impressive: 1 million programmable neurons, 256 million programmable synapses, and 4096 neurosynaptic cores. The fascinating feature: there is no clock. The cores aren’t processors in the usual sense – they are event handlers, waiting dormant until a “spike” fires. Fabbed in Samsung 28nm, TrueNorth is IBM’s largest chip to date with 5.4B transistors, yet consumes less than 100mW.

As researcher Dharmendra Modha shares, this isn’t an engine to run compiled C/C++. IBM matched the hardware to the Compass software simulator, a cognitive computing approach introducing the concept of corelets. This is sort of the network-on-chip on steroids; it abstracts and encapsulates intra-network connectivity and intra-core physiology, exposing external inputs and outputs which users connect to.

IBM already has a 16-chip board running, and is targeting an unbelievable scale of 4096 chips in a rack – 4 billion neurons and 1 trillion synapses, in less than 4kW. They are also playing with a retinal camera from iniLabs which produces spikes instead of the traditional 2D imagery requiring DSP handling.

We in EDA are somewhat slaves to the C/C++ or Java programming paradigm, because there is so much software and hardware IP and experience out there. As the Internet of Things unfolds, there will be new programming methods – much as FORTRAN and Pascal waned for general purpose use, I think C/C++ will eventually be supplanted as the underlying architecture morphs.

Before that happens, developments like TrueNorth have to become a lot more cost effective, for sure; this is still research on a pretty intensive scale. However, did we imagine something as inexpensive as Parallella just a few years ago?


Layout-aware Diagnosis

Layout-aware Diagnosis
by Paul McLellan on 08-08-2014 at 8:01 am

Traditional test methodologies have been based on the functional model, that is to say the netlist. The most well-known is probably the stuck-at model which grades a sequence of test vectors by whether they would have managed to notice the difference between a fully functional design and one where one of the signals was permanently stuck at 0 (or 1). In some ways it is a crude measure, since many faults (such as two signals shorting together) don’t manifest themselves in precisely that way. But it turns out to be a lot better than might be expected. In the same way as code-coverage of Verilog (or C++) doesn’t guarantee correctness, for sure if a line of code is not executed you can’t tell if it is correct. In the same way, if a test sequence can’t detect a stuck-at fault then there are some malfunctions that wil make the chip fail but which the test sequence cannot detect.

To take fault detection to the next level requires a better fault model but also requires taking into account more of the design than is available in just the functional netlist. For example, to model whether two signals are shorted together and whether the test sequence notices (produces different results if the short is modeled or not modeled) requires looking at which signals can potentially short. With the functional netlist there is no information and an explosively exponentially large number of signal pairs. But by taking the layout into account this can be pruned back to signals that are actually physically adjacent. Signal pairs that are never next to each other on the chip cannot short and so don’t need to be considered.

Another problem that isn’t modeled by stuck-at is a signal that is open. If the fanout is more than 1 then there is the possibility of an open that leaves some of the fanout signals connected correctly, and others that are not driven at all (and will probably have a partial route from vdd to vss that is sometimes called crowbar current).

Rating a test program for its effectiveness at finding faults is only one part of what test is about. That gives you the tools to improve the test program itself so that it works better.

When there is a pattern of test failures then yield can potentially be improved by locating what is actually wrong and then fixing it. For example, if a layout hot-spot in optical proximity correction (OPC) is causing many failures then a minor change to how the reticle enhancement technology decoration is done (RET) may increase yield.

Tessent has a tight connection between the layout engine and the logic engine, meaning that Tessent Diagnosis can remove more than 85% of all bridge suspects leaving just a few that are both logically and physically feasible. It can also reduce the bounding box of many signals that might have an open by noticing which signals are responding correctly and which are not, allowing the designer to home in on possible problem areas even though the net might be one that goes all over the chip.


More articles by Paul McLellan…


Who will Manufacture Apple’s Next SoC?

Who will Manufacture Apple’s Next SoC?
by Daniel Nenni on 08-07-2014 at 8:00 pm

Just to review: The brain inside the current Apple iPhone 5s is the A7 SoC manufactured by Samsung using a 28nm process. The A6 (iPhone 5) and A5 (iPhone 4s) are based on Samsung 32nm. The rest of the Apple SoCs also used Samsung processes. I think we can all now agree that the coming Apple A8 SoC (iPhone 6) will use the TSMC 20nm process. In order to properly postulate which process the Apple A9 will use let me share with you my observations, opinions, and experience on the topic.

Also Read: Will Intel Have a Bigger FinFET Market Share Than TSMC in 2015?

In the beginning Apple started with Samsung as an ASIC customer where Apple did the preliminary design specifications and Samsung did the rest and delivered a completed chip. Over the course of the last ten years Apple evolved into one of the largest and most capable fabless semiconductor companies and now does everything required to get an SoC design into a foundry and the resulting chip into their products. In fact, Apple is now an “early access foundry customer” which means they are actively involved in early stage process development.

The important question is: Why did Apple leave Samsung for TSMC?

Apple is unique in that they release new mobile products in the fall of each year while competitors like Samsung release multiple products throughout the year. This ties the release of new foundry silicon to Apple’s new product releases since the volumes of wafers required are in the hundreds of thousands. Samsung’s delay from 32nm to 28nm was a big wake-up call for Apple. The iPhone 5 was supposed to contain 28nm silicon but clearly that did not happen which put Apple at a competitive disadvantage.

Since TSMC is the only foundry to release a new process node in 2014 (20nm) with the wafer capacity to satisfy Apple (Apple has asked its suppliers to build between 70 to 80 million iPhone 6 handsets by the end of the year), Apple moved to TSMC for the A8. Moving to TSMC also clearly demonstrates that Apple is truly an independent fabless semiconductor company and can choose any foundry moving forward. This will enable Apple to play Intel, Samsung, and TSMC against each other for better wafer pricing, absolutely.

Also read: What is the Latest in Mobile?

Apple’s first FinFET SoC is a very difficult situation. I know for a fact that Apple carefully considered Intel 14nm, Samsung 14nnm, and TSMC 16nm. The key criteria here is the iPhone 6s Fall of 2015 ship date. Which means the design must be taped-out by the end of Q3 2014 for production start in Q2 2015. Based on what I know today here are scenarios I would like to offer up for discussion:

Apple will NOT use Intel 14nm in 2015.
Intel is still learning how to be a foundry and Apple is very demanding so there is a high element of relationship risk here. Apple is also VERY closely tied to ARM and Intel does not work with ARM on process development like TSMC and Samsung do. Intel 14nm also experienced big delays which increased the risk of missing the Apple Q2 2105 production start date.

Apple will NOT use TSMC 16nm in 2015.
TSMC 16FF was on track to be in production 1H 2015 but the process was further optimized to be more competitive with Intel and Samsung. The new TSMC 16FF+ process will not be in production until 2H 2015 which will miss the Apple iPhone 6s launch.

Apple will NOT use Samsung 14nm in 2015. From what I understand today Samsung 14nm is still having silicon correlation problems. And as we have seen with Intel, yielding at 14nm is no small feat. The risk of missing critical wafer delivery dates here is very high.

Apple WILL use TSMC 20nm in 2015.
It is my understanding that the Apple A8 will have a dual core CPU running at a maximum of 2GHZ and will not have an integrated modem. Thus the room for an improved A9 20nm SoC is pretty big, especially if Apple is concerned about 14nm FinFET production delays.

Bottom line:
14nm FinFET technology is still evolving, 20nm technology has room for improved power consumption and performance, and 10nm is years away. For Apple the low risk scenario is: 20nm SoCs in 2014 – 2015, 16nm SoCs in 2016 – 2017, and 10nm SoCs in 2018-2019. Sound reasonable?

More Articles by Daniel Nenni…..


Hybrid Memory Cube and the Intel Knights Landing

Hybrid Memory Cube and the Intel Knights Landing
by Arie Lashansky on 08-07-2014 at 8:00 am

While looking for information on a Xilinx Spartan 6 Project with DDR memory I came across a new type of DRAM called the Hybrid Memory Cube (HMC). The technology made me want to take a closer look:

The Hybrid Memory Cube is like a stack of DDR chips stacked die on die using through silicon vias to interconnect the dies the bottom die in not a Dram but a logic Die.The major difference is that the block is not addressed in a way of Address and Data lines like the traditional Jedec memory but in a High speed serial IO like PCI Express.

Think of the cube as Four High Speed Serial Links or 16 lanes. The Hybrid Memory Cube has far better bandwidith as it can be addressed by 4 different High speed links. Each serial lane can run at 10GBps, 4 lanes make a link of 40GBps, in a chip with 4 links it is 160GBps.

From what I can see the (HMC) is is a game changer for memory:

[LIST=1]

  • The footprint vs memory density is far smaller as 8 dies Stacked
  • The Logic Die at the bottom of the stack takes the memory loading away from the CPU
  • The PCB may be easier to Route as no need for all data address and clocks to have the same timing as the data is serial (PCI compaired to PCI Express).
  • The link between the memory and the CPU becomes more abstract as the CPU does not have direct control over the memory via a logic device at the bottom of the stack. I’m not sure this is an advantage and does not have a way to make one memory call a high priority on a different one. (Not a real world problem at such High speeds). The logic controller (Bottom die) can also change the order in which the memory responds to calls.
  • Concurrency as each lane can pass requests to the cube so at the same time the cube may be reading two different memory locations

    An example of where HMC will be used is The Knights Landing chip from Intel. Looking at Knights Landing lets say each Atom core is connected a lane that means 16 cores work on one shared address space.That I think may be the 4 memory chips in front .The two at the back I see may have each core connected to a link (4 lanes)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon_Phi 72 atom chips on one die at 14nm.
    Note 32 GDDRS both on front and Back of the Knights Corner below Knights Landing will not look like this with 6 HMC mounted on the interconnectsubstrate modules one chip does the work of the whole Board.

    Intel’s current chip is the Family Knights Corner, the same Basic Idea as Knights Landing but far less Features with DDR5 and not HMC.

    http://ark.intel.com/products/codename/57721/Knights-Corner


    https://www-ssl.intel.com/content/www/us/en/processors/xeon/xeon-phi-coprocessor-datasheet.html

    The only way I can see to use the HMC memory seems to be by using a FPGA solution. Both Xilinx and Altera have IP partners (see the Video’s Below):

    Micron Talk at Hot Chips: http://www.hotchips.org/wp-content/uploads/hc_archives/hc23/HC23.18.3-memory-FPGA/HC23.18.320-HybridCube-Pawlowski-Micron.pdf

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOYE56OCE3o
    (After minute 26:50 to 1:05 J. Thomas Pawlowski explains HMC)

    Xilinx Demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYpJqDYpuG4

    Altera Demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMsWRr0eBg4


  • What is the Latest in Mobile?

    What is the Latest in Mobile?
    by Paul McLellan on 08-06-2014 at 8:01 am

    Most of the results are in for mobile for last quarter, plus the earnings calls are all over. The picture is not pretty. The big picture is that low-cost Android-based suppliers, primarily in Asia, are starting to eat a lot of market share from Samsung (#1) and Apple (#2). There were about 295M smartphones shipped in Q2, a measly 2% up from Q1.

    Samsung just reported their worst quarterly profit for a couple of years and gave a guarded outlook for the rest of the year. Samsung probably has the most to lose from cheaper suppliers since they are supplying Android phones and have to be cost competitive with other almost identical phones being made by cheaper suppliers. In the quarter they shipped 74.1M units for about 25% market share. This is down from last quarter in unit terms since they shipped nearly 90M in Q1 (a huge drop) and, given their poor financial results, probably down a lot more in dollar terms due to margin pressure. They also stated that the outlook for the second half of 2014 is “challenging”.

    Apple shipped 35.2M units for a market share of 11% down from over 13% last quarter although up slightly in units. It is hard to know if this is problematic or not since Apple’s once a year product release schedule means that it is always weak at this time of year when they have to get rid of all the old inventory and buyers are all holding out for the shiny new model. But Apple has been losing market share (despite slight increases in units shipped) for some time now. But they remain differentiated from Android and the Apps/iTunes is a powerful disincentive to jump ship. Apple remains highly profitable, of course, taking a large part of the entire industry’s profits. With Samsung presumably losing money Apple could be making more profit that the entire industry, just as Samsung and Apple together used to.

    Talking of which, Apple has announced an iPhone related press event on September 9th. However there are plenty of rumors all over the web that the release of iPhone6 will not actually happen until October, but I have no idea if any of these are truly reliable. Also, Apple are supposedly pushing for a $100 price increase for iPhone6 that the carriers don’t like, at least in the US where phones are typically subsidized. I guess all will be revealed in a month.

    Next are the Asian premier league: Huawei, LG and Lenovo (without Motorola, see below). Different analyst houses have these in different orders, they are pretty close each with around 5% market share, 14-15M units.

    Then the Asian first division with Xiaomi, Coolpad and ZTE, also too close to call with around 4% each, around 11M units each.

    Xiaomi is 11M units for 4% market share (they claim over 5% and 5th place but that doesn’t seem to match anyone else, although they know their numbers better than the analysts). Not bad for a company that didn’t exist 3 years ago. Their sales are entirely in China, I believe, but they now plan to broaden out into Europe and other parts of Asia. Their trajectory is up and to the right and clearly they have a strong chance to end up several places higher.

    Sony is 9th, the lone Japanese entrant with about 8M units and 3% market share.

    Motorola had a great Q2 and crept into the top 10 at 10th place, which means that Microsoft/Nokia slips out to 11th. And just to remind you, Google sold Motorola to Lenovo but this result is just for Motorola since the deal has not finally closed yet due to regulatory review. When the deal closes Lenovo/Motorola should be #3 behind Samsung and Apple.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if the numbers in a few quarters time are:
    [LIST=1]

  • Samsung
  • Apple
  • Lenovo/Moto
  • Xiaomi
  • Huawei


    More articles by Paul McLellan…


  • Will Intel Have a Bigger FinFET Market Share Than TSMC in 2015?

    Will Intel Have a Bigger FinFET Market Share Than TSMC in 2015?
    by Daniel Nenni on 08-05-2014 at 10:00 pm

    Speculation is running rampant after last month’s conference call where Dr. Morris Chang, who is often referred to as “The Chairman”, commented that at 16nm TSMC will have a smaller market share than a major competitor in 2015. TSMC will however regain the FinFET lead in 2016 and 2017. Of course the blogosphere went crazy on this which resulted in a hefty TSM stock price drop and some lengthy calls for me with Wall Street. Everybody, including myself, speculated that the major competitor referenced is Samsung. Is the Chairman using strategy to motivate the troops or does he really think TSMC will lose the first wave of FinFET designs? Now that the dust has settled let’s take another look at this hotly debated topic but first a little background:

    SoC design increases in complexity as the architecture changes: 32 to 64 bit for example. Apple made this change with the iPhone 5s last year using the Samsung 28nm HKMG process node. Apple’s prior SoCs for the iPhone5 and iPhone 4s were also HKMG (Samsung 32nm) so this was more of an architectural design challenge versus a process design challenge. The other SoC vendors will not have 64 bit architectures in production until 2015 so this was not a trivial engineering feat.

    SoC design also increases in complexity as more functions are integrated. The next big integration challenge will be putting a high speed radio (modem) on a 64 bit SoC using FinFETs. QCOM has both the leading mobile SoC and leading mobile modem and has already integrated them at 28nm. But I would not count Apple out since they have an experienced modem team working on it and they already have a 64-bit architecture in production.

    SoC design at leading edge nodes is extremely challenging as we can see by the delays in 20nm and 14nm. TSMC 20nm was delayed six months and Intel 14nm is more than a year late. TSMC 16nm and Samsung 14nm are not in production yet but will no doubt be later than we all expected. Delays happen when you challenge the laws of physics as we do most every day, absolutely.

    Now let’s go back to the conference call and look at a key piece of information in the Q&A that most people glossed over:

    Elizabeth Sun: “Randy’s question is with respect to Chairman’s comment on 2015’s market share is lower than a major competitor in 2015. So Randy’s asking why will it be lower and what is the impact to TSMC if we have a lower market share. And what gives us the confidence that we will regain the market share in following year?”

    Morris Chang – TSMC – Chairman: “Oh, okay. Well, we need to go back to history a little bit. 32 — 28-nanometer followed 32 and that particular major competitor that I referred to, chose 32 and skipped 28. And then of course we came to 20 and 16, 16 for us, 14 for him. And we chose to do both. Actually we chose to do 20 first and 16 about a year or so later, but it was a pretty quick succession. And this major competitor skipped 20 and went on to 16.”

    As I mentioned, Samsung did both 32nm and 28nm. Intel did 32nm and skipped 28nm so it seems the Chairman was referring to Intel as the competitor that will have a larger 14/16nm foundry market share in 2015, not Samsung. Comments?


    CEVA actively preparing the future

    CEVA actively preparing the future
    by Eric Esteve on 08-05-2014 at 11:00 am

    I have recently blogged about CEVA acquisition of Riviera Waves, a very positive move to consolidate CEVA leading position of connectivity IP vendor (Bluetooth and WiFi). We know CEVA for years as being the leading supplier of DSP IP cores for the wireless phone market and it look like that we will have to rethink this definition, as the company is currently redefining their addressable market. CEVA still supplies DSP IP cores to support 3G, 4G and now LTE BaseBand, to customer like Intel or Samsung to name a few, enjoying a solid royalty flow. But, if you take a look at the product port-folio and related target applications today and compare it to what it was for example in 2011, you can assess the strong repositioning effort made by the company.

    Before looking into the new applications targeted by CEVA, I thought it could be wise to compare the financial results for the second quarter in 2011 and 2014. The license and royalty revenues are very similar for these two quarters and we can’t expect any seasonally effect. Thus you may be critical and remark that the company revenue is flat. If you think further, you then realize that CEVA revenue in 2011 was coming in majority from the wireless phone market. Remember, in 2011 we could see Apple just starting to grow the smartphone business, media tablet was still in the infant stage, the top 5 Application Processor makers list was: Freescale, Marvell, NVIDIA, Qualcomm, and TI.Moreover, the smartphone shipment was 302 million units (in 2010) and the analyst projections in 2011, as you can see below, have appeared to be completely wrong! On top of this, or because of this erratic market, CEVA customer base has completely changed, seeing well established chip makers exiting the market (TI, Broadcom, Marvell, Nvidia and more) and new comers from China coming up to speed and shipping full featured application processors. Staying alive on such a market is certainly a challenge!

    2Q-2011
    Of the eight new license agreements concluded during the second quarter of 2011, seven agreements were for CEVA DSP cores, platforms and software, and one agreement was for CEVA SATA/SAS product lines. Target applications for customer deployment are 4G and 3G baseband processors for handsets, infrastructure, smart grid, portable game consoles and SSD drives. Geographically, four of the agreements signed were in the U.S. and four were in Asia.

    2Q-2014
    During the second quarter of 2014, the Company concluded 11 new license agreements. Six of the agreements were for CEVA DSP cores and platforms, three for Bluetooth and two for SATA. Target applications include LTE-Advanced baseband, audio, connectivity and SSD drives. Geographically, nine of the agreements signed were in the APAC, including Japan, and two were in the U.S.

    If we analyze the market data from CEVA with these two extracts, we can first notice that CEVA customer base has definitely move to East (50% in 2011 compared with more than 80% in 2014), which is a good sign that CEVA is moving with the market. Then, analyzing the product mix, CEVA has signed 8 new licenses in 2Q-2011, compared with 11 in 2Q-2014. But, in 2011, 7 were for DSP and 1 for SATA, when in 2014 the difference comes from the 3 licenses signed for Bluetooth. Here comes the positive point, illustrating that CEVA is on track for future growth. The company did not give up with DSP IP products addressing the wireless market, and we can guess that most of the royalty flow is still coming from this market, but CEVA has successively added or rework existing DSP products, to address, Audio (ASSP and always-on audio for Android) application, imaging (MM3000 family) and wireless connectivity.

    Wireless connectivity is certainly the most promising product line developed by CEVA, and through the Riviera Waves acquisition. Why? Simply think about all the future stand-alone devices populating the IoT and Digital Home applications. What is the common feature, whatever the application? This stand-alone device will have to be connected! If you don’t want your (digital) home to look like to the backstage of a rock concert, preferably wirelessly connected. If you agree that 3G or LTE is overwhelming for a thermostat or the like, then WiFi or Bluetooth are better candidates.

    From the analyst call hold by CEVA on July 31[SUP]st[/SUP], we learn that CEVA foresee 400 million devices to be shipped by 2018, and generating royalties thanks to the Riviera Waves acquisition. Such a number looks reasonable, when compared with analyst forecast showing 30 Billion connected devices. The important point is that CEVA is completely reworking the product port-folio, and the company will not anymore be forced to rely on a single market segment –namely the rather erratic and difficult to forecast wireless phone- to sustain growth and build the future.

    Eric Esteve from IPNEST

    More Articles by Eric Esteve…..


    The Carrington Event

    The Carrington Event
    by Paul McLellan on 08-05-2014 at 7:01 am

    Back in the pre-SemiWiki days when I had the EdaGrafitti blog I wrote about the Carrington event. This was a solar storm in 1859 that lasted for several days. On September 1st there was a coronal mass ejection (CME) traveling directly towards earth. Normally such an event would take several days to reach earth but an earlier ejection had cleaned out all the ions in space and it took less than a day to get here. It was the biggest electrical storm in recorded history. People got up thinking it was daylight. Aurora Borealis (Northern Lights) were seen as far south as the Caribbean and Hawaii. Telegraph systems failed, in some cases shocking their operators and in other cases having enough power to continue functioning even though they were turned off.

    Of course we didn’t have electronics in those days. So what would happen today? In fact the reason I’m writing this now is that we had a near miss a few weeks ago. An event like this has the potential to knock out satellites, kill the power grid, and maybe kill anything connected to it. There was a huge CME but luckily not pointed towards earth. If it had happened a week later we would have been in the cross-wires pointed straight towards us. Carrington II.

    Solar flares go in an 11-year cycle, aka the sunspot cycle. The peak of the current cycle is pretty much now. This cycle is unusual for its low number of sunspots and there are predictions that we could be in for an extended period of low activity like the Maunder minimum from 1645-1715 (the little ice age when the Thames froze every winter) or the Dalton minimum from 1790-1830 (where the world was also a couple of degrees colder than normal). This might (or might not) be connected to why there has been no global warming for 17 years despite the huge increase in carbon dioxide. But for electronics, the important thing is the effect of CME which seems to cause solar flares (although the connection isn’t completely understood). Obviously the most vulnerable objects are satellites since they lack protection from the earth’s magnetic field but power grids are also especially vulnerable because their long wires are perfect for concentrating the electrical pulse. There seems to be an event like this about every 150 years which means we are overdue.

    In 1859 telegraph systems were down for a couple of days and people got to watch some interesting stuff in the sky. But from a NASA conference a couple of years ago in Washington looking at what would happen if another Carrington Event occured:The situation would be more serious. An avalanche of blackouts carried across continents by long-distance power lines could last for weeks to months as engineers struggle to repair damaged transformers. Planes and ships couldn’t trust GPS units for navigation. Banking and financial networks might go offline, disrupting commerce in a way unique to the Information Age. According to a 2008 report from the National Academy of Sciences, a century-class solar storm could have the economic impact of 20 hurricane Katrinas.

    Actually it sounds worse to me. This is the result of a much smaller event:In March of 1989, a severe solar storm induced powerful electric currents in grid wiring that fried a main power transformer in the HydroQuebec system, causing a cascading grid failure that knocked out power to 6 million customers for nine hours while also damaging similar transformers in New Jersey and the United Kingdom.

    Wow. Doesn’t sound good, does it? Imagine that scaled up an order of magnitude. Lloyds (the London insurers) reckon the cost for a similar event could be $2.6T.

    Here is a video from the University of Bristol (in England) about the cover story on Physics World, which covers solar super-storms.


    More articles by Paul McLellan…


    Xilinx, 100 Reasons to use them

    Xilinx, 100 Reasons to use them
    by Luke Miller on 08-04-2014 at 4:00 pm

    We all like compliments, correct? You know the kind that go like, “Glad you didn’t screw that up”. From time to time I get, “You write what you do because you’re affiliated with Xilinx”. Perhaps I will name my next child Xilinx. I have said this before, I do real work (debatable) and trade studies, and I Believe Xilinx FPGAs are the best choice for what I do. So, below is an unsolicited list of what other Xilinx customers think about the 28nm node, it really is impressive.

    Continue reading “Xilinx, 100 Reasons to use them”


    The Grand Folly of India’s Foundry Plans, Part 2

    The Grand Folly of India’s Foundry Plans, Part 2
    by Peter Gasperini on 08-04-2014 at 8:00 am


    Image Source: Wikipedia

    Authors: Pete Gasperini & Abhijit Athavale

    The first article on this topic, published here on Semiwiki on July 6[SUP]th[/SUP], addressed New Delhi’s proposal to subsidize the construction of two silicon fabs – one in 22nm, the other in 28nm – in order to stimulate India’s high tech sector and reduce its dependence on foreign technology imports. The argument against this detailed multiple technical and economic factors which negated the purported benefits of the initiative and proposed alternative courses of action.

    Defenders of the fab subsidy program have subsequently raised a new issue to bolster their side of the argument. In late 2012, an FPGA sold by Microsemi and extensively used in systems employed by the US military was discovered by Cambridge researchers to have a hardware Trojan. This backdoor, deliberately inserted by designers at Microsemi, was accessible thru the chip’s JTAG pins and permitted a 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] party to remotely reconfigure the device, access its code and even disable it.

    Fab proponents are concerned that chip designs from Indian companies could be sabotaged in foreign foundries and have circuitry covertly embedded which would allow spies and saboteurs to steal commercial information or attack private or military systems employing those chips. The question is: how realistic is such a possibility?

    A sculptor wields
    The chisel, and the stricken marble grows
    To beauty. –
    William Cullen Bryant

    As everyone here is well aware, when a chip design team develops a new product, they don’t just write some code, throw it at a software tool, press “Enter” and have a functional chip pop out from a 3D printer. The process involves ESL abstractions, Verilog descriptions, an expensive portfolio of EDA software whose complexity is such that team members need to specialize in its particular tools, a library of physical, electrical and functional models of increasing sophistication applied in multiple stages of the design flow, and multi-corner PVT characterization to ensure designs yield and perform per specification to any allowed combination of process node, operating temperature and application voltage variances. There are intricately detailed methodologies for timing closure, functional verification, DFT, DFM, power optimization, signal integrity, hierarchical design, clock tree integration, voltage islands, IP integration, timing domains, place & route, mixed signal and/or analog block integration and so on. All thru the development cycle, things are repeatedly tested, verified, analyzed, optimized and otherwise shaked & baked.

    It takes 15-18 months of labor by 20-40 seasoned engineers to do this work – time spent using their accumulated skills to craft, sculpt and ultimately realize a functional and timing equilibrium as close to perfection as they can make it. As a consequence, any disturbance to the design is guaranteed to be catastrophic, affecting timing, layout, functionality, yield, power and interconnect.

    When one takes into account that only the original development team has all the correct tools, models, code and verification suite, it becomes obvious that a third party at a foundry simply cannot meddle with a design database and successfully insert extra gates for a hardware backdoor. The design will be compromised and even the most ingenious engineering team will simply not be able to integrate the Trojan and restore the design to its original functional and timing envelope without years of reverse engineering work. By the time such an effort is completed, all the organizations that were targets of the chip saboteurs will already have bought systems with untouched, original chips in them.

    The truth of the matter is that India doesn’t need New Delhi to step into its technology industry to help, but would actually benefit more if the central government did less. The chip security issue, along with ideas for New Delhi to do other, more beneficial things that will advance India’s high tech sector and improve its trade balance, are discussed in greater depth at http://vigilfuturi.blogspot.com.

    Also Read: Semiconductor Manufacturing in India?