Breaking News
Blog

Startup Unveils CPUs for Wearables

NO RATINGS
2 saves
View Comments: Threaded | Newest First | Oldest First
moloned
User Rank
Author
leakage
moloned   4/8/2014 11:29:36 AM
NO RATINGS
Taking the example of the Google Glass rated battery capacity of 570mAh, 30 days or 720h of standby time would mean a total device leakage including SoC, PMIC, display, wireless and other links of less than 800uA which sounds like a very challenging goal and in order to hit it I'd expect the wearable would be doing nothing i.e. in standby most of the time.

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Cost
rick merritt   4/8/2014 2:20:07 PM
NO RATINGS
If you really want low cost, aren't there hundreds of catalog integrated MCUs out there?

barunkd
User Rank
Author
Re: Cost
barunkd   4/11/2014 4:50:24 AM
NO RATINGS
The issue is not cost, power. Processors in wearable devices need to be extremely low power and there MCUs fail

Regards,

Barun

baybal
User Rank
Author
Re: Cost
baybal   4/14/2014 8:00:35 PM
NO RATINGS
1 saves
Quite a few of Sunnyvale's "Semiconductor Indians" are on their board.

Interesting company.

prabhakar_deosthali
User Rank
Author
Specs for CPU?
prabhakar_deosthali   4/10/2014 1:38:26 AM
NO RATINGS
Now that the wearable devices are going to be the next in-thing for the developers, could there be an IEEE specification on the requirements of a wearable CPU?

This could lead to be many sources and easier for the designers to select one for their application.

Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed