BannerforSemiWiki 800x100 (2)

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Fab 1

GLOBALFOUNDRIES Dresden Fab 1
by Daniel Nenni on 03-18-2012 at 6:00 pm

Even though my Dresden trip was fraught with fail points it went off without a hitch. Flying over was easy, I connected through London Heathrow, flying back I connected through Frankfurt. The last time I connected through Frankfurt was right after the 9/11 attacks so I had a bit of deja vu. I was in Munich, Heathrow was closed, I was routed through Frankfurt and experienced the most frightening security procedures ever. TSA procedures today are nothing compared to Frankfurt during 9/11.

Day 1 was a visit to Fab 1. I get the VIP treatment which is very flattering because really, I’m just a regular guy trying to put four kids through college. To be completely honest, I’m not a fan of the GFI marketing pitch where they expound on the GLOBAL part of GLOBALFOUNDRIES, having fabs in different countries equals less risk for the customer. Even suggesting that a natural disaster can take out the Taiwan fabs is a horrible mental image, especially if they mention the Tsunami in Japan. I’ve experienced several Taiwan earthquakes, including the big one on September 1999, then again in July 2009. Thousands of people were killed and injured yet the fabs are still there. Last year my earthquake karma was better. My March trip ended early so I was in the air for the Thursday 6.9 earthquake. My next trip started late with a Monday evening arrival so again I was in the air for the Monday 6.5 quake, as I blogged before, my Taiwan friends joke that I bring California earthquakes to Taiwan. One of my better blogs on the subject “TSMC Earthquake Damage Redo” might be worth a read.

Rather than stay in a western hotel, I stayed in a renovated mansion near city center. This way I was able to walk downtown and get a feeling for the Dresden culture and taste the local cuisine. Too cold and rainy for the beer gardens but I did get out for beer and pretzels. Even though it was cloudy and dreary, it was still a very nice visit with very friendly people and a very tourist safe environment. The only dissappointment is that I did not see one Porsche in Dresden. The taxis were all Mercedes and there were lots of VWs but not a Porsche in sight.

After the marketing presentation and a nice Dresden lunch I got a tour of the fab. I opted out of the clean room tour this time and spent an hour or so with a materials science guy. These guys are physicists and honest to a fault so I trust them implicitly. I also look at the equipment and when I see state of the art electron and ion-beam microscopes costing many millions of dollars I know these people are in it to win it. One thing I did not know is how much semiconductor history Dresden had. My tour guide was one of the people who opened the fab in the late 1990’s starting at .18 micron. That is a very deep pool of experience. It was also good to see University interns at the microscopes, young and old eyes looking together.

After the fab tour I went to the Dresden Military History Museum. It wasn’t as depressing as the Dachu Concentration Camp tour I did in Munich but it was very blunt about the atrocities of World War II. They gave me an iPad Touch and I roamed the halls for a couple hours. The thorough bombing of Dresden by the Allies remains one of the more controversial actions and it was described in detail from both points of view. Very interesting. There were also cars and military vehicles of the period which I’m really into. Definitely time well spent.

Bottom line: GLOBALFOUNDRIES has done an incredible thing in combining the Chartered Semiconductor Fabs with the AMD fabs, integrating the IBM process technology and building a world class pure-play foundry. I think as long as they can control the public relations and marketing people and keep expectations realistic, GFI will be a major player in the semiconductor ecosystem for the long term. As an internationally recognized industry blogger that is my heartfelt opinion, believe it.


EDPS Monterey

EDPS Monterey
by Paul McLellan on 03-17-2012 at 8:00 am

Every year in Monterey is a relatively small conference that looks at the design process, EDPS, the electronic design process symposium. I gave a keynote there a couple of years ago, but you don’t have to listen to me this time. The keynotes are from:

  • 1st day: Misha Buric, CTO of Altera, talking about SoC FPGAs and other things
  • Dinner: Jim Hogan, himself, talking about SoC Realization
  • 2nd day: Riko Radojcic, director of engineering at Qualcomm, talking about 3D IC roadmap

I highly recommend this conference. It covers a lot of different issues. The second day, in particular, covers a lot of information on 3D ICs which is clearly a hot topic. Silicon interposer ICs and memory on processor are clearly arrived, and true 3D ICs will be coming, especially if EUV isn’t ready for full production by 14nm.

The first day is everything that isn’t 3D. After Misha’s keynote are the top 5 problems of EDA:
[LIST=1]

  • Sri Granta of Broadcom on DFT at the RTL level
  • Frank Schirrmeister of Cadence on embedded software
  • Tom Spyrou of AMD on parallelized tools
  • Sangeeta Aggrwal of Synopsys on a mysterious unnanounced topic
  • err…isn’t that just 4 problems

    After lunch, there is a panel session on EDA in the cloud with:

    • Hans Spanjaart of Altera (moderator)
    • James Colgan of Xuropa on the CADless semiconductor company
    • Don MacMillen of Nimbic on electromagneic simulation in the cloud
    • Kiron Pai of Intel on improving producitivity in the cloud
    • Azadeh Davoudi of University of Wisconsin on highly distributed global routing
    • Naresh Seghal of Intel on optimizing a cloud

    Gary Smith reviews the new ITRS power model which took longer than expected to produce but was finally announced in January this year.

    Ian Ferguson of ARM on energy efficient servers in the data center (let me guess, ARM ones).

    Qi Wang of Cadence on whether the power problem is solved (I’d say not yet).

    Grant Martin of Tensilica on another mysterious unannounced topic but if I had to guess it would be something to do with offloading the control microprocessor (usually ARM) with specialized VLIW processors optimized for the task at hand.

    Then off to the wharf for dinner and Hogan.

    Next day kicks of with Riko’s keynote and then a series of 3D IC design topics:

    • Stephen Pateras of Mentor on BIST for 3D ICs
    • Arif Rahman of Altera on FPGA design challenges, presumably 3D ones
    • Samta Bansal of Cadence on the wide-IO standard for putting memory stacks on processors

    During lunch there is a 3D IC panel moderated by Steve Leibson:

    • Herb Reiter
    • Samta Bansal of Cadence
    • Dusan Petranovic of Mentor
    • Deepak Sekar of Monolithic 3D
    • Steve Smith of Synopsys

    And with that we wrap up and most of us drive back north.


  • Double Patterning and Then The End of Lithography

    Double Patterning and Then The End of Lithography
    by Paul McLellan on 03-15-2012 at 8:00 am

    I went to a couple more sessions at the Common Platform Technology Forum today, on 20nm double patterning and whatever will we do at 14nm. Basically, this is the end of planar transistors and the end of optical lithography. One session was by IBM scientists about process and one by Michael White of Mentor about double patterning. These two subjects turn out to be very related.

    Double patterning will be required at 20nm because we are so far below the threshold for using 193nm light to print at the level of detail that single patterning requires. And everyone considers that betting on EUV to be ready for 14nm is very risky and so in the early days of 14nm we will use double patterning and then, if EUV works out, then we can switch to it and go back to single patterning.

    The scary things about EUV is just how many things remain to be worked out. The source, which is plasma, is currently 1-2 orders of magnitude dimmer than is required. We don’t yet have good resist that responds to EUV. The masks, which are reflective, have defect issues since we can’t cover them with a pellicle like we can in a transmission mask. The masks are multi-layer films and even the blanks won’t be defect free. The scariest thing was a comment by Lars Liebmann of IBM: “I worked on X-ray lithography for years and EUV is not as far along as X-ray was when we finally discovered it wasn’t going to work.” We really don’t know if we can make EUV work and certainly not by the time it is needed for 14nm. A possible alternative, but equally sketchy in practice, is massively parallel e-beam.

    The FinFET transistors will be much lower power. As the voltage drops, delay doesn’t go up nearly so much as with a planar transistor since they turn off so much more effectively and quickly. This means power supply voltage (squared in the dynamic power equation) can be lower for given performance.

    Double patterning means that half the polygons on the chip are on one mask and half on the other. It is not possible to simply expose the wafer to first one mask and then the other, there need to be etch steps in between and then a new photoresist exposed to the second mask. Since we really can’t live with just horizontal or just vertical metal on M1, this will need to be triple patterned with 3 masks.

    Michael from Mentor started off in general terms pointing out that at every node the designer must address more and more manufacturability concerns. 20nm and 14nm are just more of the same. But double patterning does seem to be a major change, of course.

    One challenge is how to reflect errors back to the user so that they can fix them. The problem occurs when 3 patterns are too close to each other but they can’t be put on separate masks. There are two solutions: redraw at least part of the layout, or split one of the polygons into two (cut and stitch) so that part goes on one mask and part on the other.

    At 20nm we will also need smart cell-based fill rather than the old polygonal dummy fill, since the fill needs to be double pattern aware.

    Mentor’s own place and route, Olympus, has a patterning aware placement that avoids putting cells too close and creating errors. I presume Cadence and Synopsys have, or will have, similar placement.

    Mentor white papers on double patterning and other challenges are here.


    No Semiconductor Design Cloud Strategy? Really?

    No Semiconductor Design Cloud Strategy? Really?
    by Andrea Casotto on 03-14-2012 at 6:00 pm


    I ask my customers about their cloud strategy and they all tell me “none”. The main reason is a red herring: “The legal department will never allow our IP outside our walls”.

    Security issues on the cloud are largely solved, as proven by the fact that banks have no problem using external clouds. Behind the curtain, the real reason for a lack of a push out towards external clouds is the mismatch between the needs of engineering computing and the cloud offering.

    Cloud providers tout the benefits of agility and elasticity of an external cloud, and how well it fits the needs of organizations with spiky workloads. This is not compelling to our most sophisticated customers: they constantly run a background load of random tests on their chips, before, during, and even after tapeout. Plus, they have multiple chips in the pipeline, so the load on the computing resources is always sustained.

    In the past decade, EDA has benefited greatly from the Linux revolution. Linux brought higher speed and lower cost. Cloud Computing brings neither, at least not in engineering computing.

    As technology progresses, it is possible that costs will go down, and data transfer latencies will be reduced. At such time, the EDA licensing model may also have evolved. Today, for what we know, the licensing model is another barrier to adoption of cloud bursting, for it does one no good to deploy 1,000 new cores in an external cloud if one also does not have 1,000 additional simulation licenses to go with it.

    This puts the big EDA vendors, SNPS, CDN, MENT in an advantageous position as providers of cloud computing services for our community, although such offerings will be slanted towards a single vendor solution as opposed to a best-in-class approach.

    From RTDA’s point of view, as provider of software to manage all computing resources, we remain neutral with respect to Cloud computing. If it happens, whether it is a cloud cluster that shares licenses with the main cluster, or a hybrid solution with shared data between the local cluster and the cloud machines, we have experimented with both.

    For now, we keep our focus on improving our NetworkComputer scheduler, in order to provide the highest possible performance for processing our customers’ workloads using all available licenses and all available computing resources.


    Common Platform: Onward to the Future

    Common Platform: Onward to the Future
    by Paul McLellan on 03-14-2012 at 3:03 pm

    There were keynotes from all three semiconductor partners in the Common Platform Alliance and, as if to show how common they are, they all talked about the problems that need to be addressed in the next decade and a half and they all said pretty much the same thing. Gary Patton of IBM went first and so he got to say everything first. Plus, it is clear, IBM does all the early research before technologies reach the point at which cooperative development can begin.

    Gary started off by pointing out technology shifts seem to last about a decade before a new disruptive change is required. They used to build servers out of bipolar in the 1980s until the heat limits meant that they switched to planar CMOS in the 1990s. Various changes such as high-K metal gate and embedded high performance memory extended this. In 2010 things go 3D, at both the big and small level. Small, in the switch to FinFETs, and large in the sense of stacking die using TSV technology. These should last until about 2020 or so when new technology will be needed based on silicon and carbon nanotubes and integrated photonics.

    For the time being, IBM is mostly focused on SOI with up to 15 levels of metal for servers. Samsung and GF are mainly focused on bulk for the SoC business, especially mobile.

    The challenge to get down to about 10nm fall into 4 areas:

    • lithography
    • devices
    • interconnect
    • packaging and subsystem integration

    In litho, we are having to switch to double patterning (which, of course, takes twice as long). But the lithography is now so complex it is no longer possible to stick with restrictive design rules (don’t do this and your chip will work) and instead there is a switch to prescriptive design rules (these are the only patterns that you are allowed).

    EUV is coming at some point but there are still major challenges. The biggest, of course, is that you can’t build lenses so there is the switch to reflective optics. One thing I hadn’t realized is that this means that your mask can’t have a pellicule to keep defects out of the optical plane, which is another challenge. That’s on top of the changes: new photoresist, new mask material, new wavelength of light and so on. EVU is currently at around 5-10 wafers per hour and needs to get up to over 100 to be economically viable.

    For devices, as probably everyone knows, we will switch to fully depleted FinFETs in the short term. Further out we will want to switch to carbon electronics which has very high carrier mobility. But manufacturing is a big challenge since carbon nanotubes don’t always form properly as semiconductors and sometimes simply form as metallic conductors.

    Interconnect is a major challenge since nothing good comes out of scaling: resistance goes up, capacitance goes up, reliability gets worse, insulator reliability gets worse. One promising area is integrated photonics, where multiple signals (wavelengths) can be propagated down the same waveguide and then multiplexed out. Otherwise it is basic incremental process improvement, slightly better materials and so forth.

    The challenge in packaging is firstly power and thermal, getting the heat out. But there are also issues as die get more fragile and packages get less rigid leading to reliability issues. And all the time it is necessary to boost the bandwidth between the chip and its environment using finer pitches and improved contacts. One thing I hadn’t realized is that the switch to lead-free means stiffer contact between the chip and the package, again a reliability issue.

    At the lunch, GF said that 32nm is in production with real product in the line (IBM confirmed this saying they are running 32nm SOI at GF). The yield issues seem to be solved with yields doubling in a quarter. 28nm is in early production with real products in the line. 20nm risk production for LPE will be this year and for LPM next year.


    Timing Closure for ECOs in your SOC Design

    Timing Closure for ECOs in your SOC Design
    by Daniel Payne on 03-14-2012 at 1:07 pm

    I decided to attend a webinar today hosted by Synopsys, “Streamline Your PrimeTime ECO Flow For Fastest Setup, Hold and Timing DRC Closure.” The format was to present slides first then hold for questions until the end. Enough time was spent on questions which made this webinar different than most other webinars I’ve attended. The on-demand webinar is here.

    David Guinther announced the webinar and noted the DATE conference in Germany had Synopsys users presenting. The next webinar in the series is called “Faster Timing Signoff” scheduled for April. Continue reading “Timing Closure for ECOs in your SOC Design”


    SICAS is dead (and WSTS isn’t feeling too good)

    SICAS is dead (and WSTS isn’t feeling too good)
    by Bill Jewell on 03-13-2012 at 8:16 pm

    The SICAS (Semiconductor Industry Capacity Statistics) program has been discontinued after the release of the 4Q 2011 data, available through the SIA at http://www.sia-online.org/industry-statistics/semiconductor-capacity-utilization-sicas-reports/

    The latest report stated: “Due to significant changes in the SICAS program participation base in 2011, the quarterly SICAS capacity and utilization report will be discontinued, effective Quarter 1 2012.” SICAS lost the Taiwanese companies Nanya Technology, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. (TSMC) and United Microelectronics Corporation (UMC) beginning in 2Q 2011. SICAS members likely questioned the value of continued participation without the two largest wafer foundry companies.

    The end of SICAS is a major disappointment. The semiconductor industry has lost the definitive source of capacity and utilization data, a key component in determining the current and near term industry conditions. It is especially disappointing to me since I served on the founding executive committee of SICAS in 1995.

    The death of SICAS follows the withdrawal of Intel and Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) from World Semiconductor Trade Statistics (WSTS) as originally reported in the Wall Street Journal: http://www.djnewsplus.com/rssarticle/SB133045771410082239.html
    Without Intel and AMD, it will be extremely difficult for WSTS to report accurate statistics for microprocessors. Intel and AMD account for over 90% of the microprocessor market and microprocessors account for about 15% of the semiconductor market. WSTS may need to drop microprocessors from its product coverage, which would result in WSTS no longer being a reliable source of data on the overall semiconductor market.

    As with the loss of SICAS, the loss of Intel and AMD in WSTS is a significant disappointment. I was Texas Instrument’s representative to WSTS for 14 years and served a term as WSTS chairperson. However I believe WSTS will adapt and survive. The organization provides detail on numerous product and application markets which provide vital information to member companies and industry analysts.

    Final SICAS data

    The chart below shows SICAS data for total IC capacity in thousands of eight-inch equivalent wafers per week. Capacity for TSMC and UMC was added to the SICAS capacity beginning with 2Q 2011 for comparison with prior quarters. 4Q 2011 IC capacity (including TSMC and UMC) was 2,205 thousand wafers, up 2.5% from 2,151 thousand in 3Q 2011 and the seventh consecutive quarterly increase. IC capacity in 4Q 2011 was just 1% below the record capacity of 2,223 thousand wafers in 3Q 2008 and was up 14% from the cyclical low of 1,927 thousand wafers in 3Q 2009.

    The trend for MOS IC capacity utilization is shown in the chart below. The SICAS data on capacity utilization for MOS ICs excluding foundry wafers was used through 1Q 2011. This data series is fairly comparable to the 2Q-4Q 2011 SICAS total MOS IC capacity utilization which does not included TSMC and UMC. For the current cycle, utilization peaked at 94.9% in 2Q 2010. 4Q 2011 utilization dropped to 88.9%, the lowest level since 88.8% in 4Q 2009. The 4Q 2011 drop in utilization was expected due to the weak semiconductor market – primarily caused by floods in Thailand disrupting HDD production and economic weakness in Europe.

    Capacity utilization will likely recover by 2Q 2012. Digitimes say industry sources expect TSMC’s 2Q 2012 utilization to be around 95% due to strong orders. Capacity growth in 1Q 2012 should be relatively flat. Combined data on semiconductor manufacturing equipment bookings and billings from SEMI and SEAJ shows billings have declined in each of the last three quarters, with 4Q 2011 down 24% from 1Q 2011. Bookings began to pick up in 4Q 2011, indicating capacity growth should resume by the second half of 2012. Year 2012 billings were $34 billion, up 8.8% from 2011. SEMI forecasts 18% growth in fab equipment spending in 2013.


    CDNLive: the Keynotes

    CDNLive: the Keynotes
    by Paul McLellan on 03-13-2012 at 2:24 pm

    There were three keynotes at CDNLive this morning, and one theme ran through them: collaboration. In fact there was one specific instance of collaboration that all three people mentioned. Taping out an ARM Cortex-A15 in TSMC 20nm technology using a Cadence tool flow.

    Lip-Bu, Cadence’s CEO, went first. He had some numbers showing that semiconductors and electronics should continue to grow at twice the rate of world GDP. And the GSA semiconductor index is all going up for the next couple of quarters. Underlying this growth is that increasing integration leads to many more devices. Mainframes shipped perhaps 1M units. PCs 100M units. But mobile internet (smartphone, iPad) are in the 10B unit range.

    Rick Cassidy of TSMC was next up. He had an interesting retrospective on cost. From 1970 to today, transistor cost has reduced by 10[SUP]-8[/SUP] and microprocessor cost per transistor per cycle by 10[SUP]-11[/SUP]. An example Rick uses with MBA students (who know nothing about semiconductor) is that if Manhattan was a chip in 1962, by today it has shrunk so much that it fits in an iPod screen. And if we continue on the same path for another 50 years, the entire world will fit in that screen. Of course driving this is the scale of fabs like those TSMC is building. 180,000 12″ wafers per month. Last year, TSMC shipped 13.2M 8″ equivalent wafers. That’s a lot of silicon.

    Tom Lantzsch of ARM started by asking everyone whether they were more likely to return home if they had forgotten their wallet than their phone and most of us figured we could do more easily without our wallet. His interesting statistic of the day is that there is a need for approximately one server in the cloud for every 600 mobile phones (and, for every 120 or so tablets). ARM is increasingly moving into the home (smartTV) and the car (infotainment). Underlying everything ARM does is energy efficiency (aka low power). This is why ARM is moving into servers in a move that has many commentators perplexed. ARM’s view is that servers will mimic what has happened in SoCs in smartphones, with a general purpose CPU (Intel) being replaced by multiple smaller CPUs and specialized functions such as video decode (of course, no prizes for guessing which CPUs Tom is expecting those to be). Developing countries simply don’t have the power to build a datacenter the way they are currently done. Instead, he expects servers with a power budget of 5W such as the Calxeda one, simplifying not just power, but cabling and physical size. Servers are likely to be specialized since, for example, netflix doesn’t need general purpose servers, just specialized video pumps.

    Tom’s equivalent of TSMC’s wafer statistics were that ARM now has 275+ silicon partners, 900+ ecosystem partners, 30B+ ARM-based chips shipped. 50+ mobile phone application processors. 100+ phone designs. 100+ tablet designs (where are they all?), 1B+ applications. That’s a lot of compute power.


    The Coming Gamer Tablet from…… Apple!

    The Coming Gamer Tablet from…… Apple!
    by Ed McKernan on 03-13-2012 at 11:25 am

    After the introduction of the NEWiPAD, Apple has placed itself just two short steps away from dominating the computer market – including PCs. One step, which is widely reported, is a smaller iPAD with an 8” screen that aims for a $299 price point. Amazon will take the rest of the market under $299. The second step is purely speculation on my part but is within easy reach of the current hardware and will result in re-alignments in the semiconductor industry to the benefit of Apple and detriment of everyone else. A leveling will occur that forces some to return to their area of expertise, including a software company based in Redmond. The strategy is multi-faceted and thus will require an additional blog to fully outline.

    To begin with we must recognize that the NewiPAD will not only reinforce but expand Apple’s lead in the tablet market. Tim Bajarin in his latest tech opinions column calls it revolutionary because of the impact the high-resolution screen will have on several industries. It is a great article that I highly recommend to anyone who follows the computer industry. After reading this, I sensed that Apple will not want to stop with what they have in the current iPAD but extend it further in order to make it even more competitive with respect to ultrabooks.

    As a long time processor marketing guy, I see an opportunity for Apple to go one step further and that is to leverage the Retina display with a high performance graphics solution connected to its future A6 processor. For an additional $20-$25 of BOM cost, Apple can add an AMD or nVidia mobile graphics chip that will push the iPAD into a similar performance window as the ultrabooks to be powered by Intel’s Ivy Bridge – ULV parts. That’s because in this tablet, ultrabook market the Processor is not required to be high performance as the work-load shifts to the graphics unit. Thus the decision by Intel to spend the new transistor budget on improving the Ivy Bridge graphics unit.

    The interesting dynamic that will play out in 2012 is that Intel’s Ivy Bridge ULV part will probably not drop below $225 for PC OEMs. Apple therefore will have the opportunity to introduce a $899-$999 Gamer iPAD with 4G LTE that has a $175 processor+graphics cost advantage. Furthermore, I can envision a Gamer iPAD with an 11” screen (same as MAC Air PC) that with an optional keyboard can find its way into the corporate market as an alternative to a Windows 8 machine running on an ARM based nVidia Tegra 3 or an Intel x86 based Atom processor. Apple then will leave it up to corporations to decide if they need an Intel Ivy Bridge based MAC Air or an A6 ARM based iPAD with PC level graphics selling at a discount but delivering higher margins to Apple.

    In my previous blog, I mentioned how Apple’s Phil Schiller, Senior VP or Worldwide Marketing, stated that the new A5X processor with quad core graphics was 4 times faster than nVidia’s Tegra 3 and that nVidia resisted responding aggressively to the claims because they had other business at risk with Apple. The de-positioning of the Tegra 3 was a deliberate attempt by Apple to say to nVidia that they should abandon their tablet and smartphone attempts and return to their core, which is developing high-performance PC and supercomputing graphics solutions (In addition, Apple has effectively tagged competitive tablets as less than devices). With a Gamer Tablet, Apple will in effect force nVidia to choose between competing with them or cooperating, because the alternative is to let AMD take the business.

    In the next blog we can look at Apple’s likely impact on Intel and Qualcomm in the coming year.

    Full Disclosure: I am Long AAPL, INTC, QCOM and ALTR


    More Growth in EDA

    More Growth in EDA
    by Daniel Payne on 03-12-2012 at 6:53 pm

    I love to read good news about growth in EDA especially when our industry has seen single-digit growth for several years now. What I read on March 8th from ClioSoft stated a 53% increase in bookings for 2011, now that’s what I call growth.

    ClioSoft provides Hardware Configuration Management (HCM) software to EDA users typically doing transistor-level IC design for both schematics and layout. I’ve been able to speak with several users of ClioSoft tools last year to find out first-hand what their experience was in adopting and using HCM in an IC design flow:

    I blogged recently about, “What Just Changed on my Transistor-Level Schematic” and it’s getting plenty of discussion both here at SemiWiki and on LinkedIn with some 1,261 page views at SemiWiki in under a month. Engineers are interested in how to manage their IC design projects better, especially as their team size grows and becomes geographically separated.

    Also Read

    What Changed On My Transistor-Level Schematic?

    Manage Your Cadence Virtuoso Libraries, PDKs & Design IPs (Webinar)

    EDA Tool Flow at MoSys Plus Design Data Management