Breaking News
News & Analysis

ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"

2/5/2013 04:30 PM EST
29 comments
NO RATINGS
More Related Links
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
krisi
User Rank
CEO
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
krisi   2/5/2013 5:41:34 PM
NO RATINGS
"The physical IP we need to create is essentially the same [as for bulk CMOS]." - this can't be true. Layout and DRC rules are bound to be different. Is there any way to automatically transfer the layout data from bulk CMOS to FD SOI? I doubt it

Kresearch
User Rank
Rookie
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
Kresearch   2/5/2013 11:32:46 PM
NO RATINGS
It is kind of same dilemma like DUV immersion. When down to 14nm, both of them will be out of gas. How come foundry would pump in resources for this temporary solution which extend for 2 generations? Besides, SOI wafer capacity(Soitec)and Technology(ST)would be roadblockers for proliferation.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
resistion   2/6/2013 12:29:55 AM
NO RATINGS
FDSOI out of gas at 14 nm?

Cesana
User Rank
Rookie
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
Cesana   2/6/2013 3:32:40 AM
NO RATINGS
Thank you Kris for your question about design portability. 28nm FD-SOI technology adopts the same design rules as ISDA 28LP HKMG gate-first process, with minor changes and some incremental addition for the FD-SOI specific constructs (like the rules for the hybridation zone, allowing the integration of bulk "hybrid" devices in the FD-SOI technology). The PDK include scripts for automatic porting of schematics and layouts, easing the porting job. Of course, digital libraries will need to be re-extracted and recharacterized, while analog blocks will require to be readjusted/ retuned because of the different electrical performances of FD-SOI technology. Giorgio Cesana, STMicroelectronics

the_floating_ gate
User Rank
Rookie
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
the_floating_ gate   2/6/2013 5:28:32 AM
NO RATINGS
Ciao Giorgio SOI wafers/substrates are significantly more expensive compared to bulk. On the other hand SOI requires less capex because the wafers are preimplanted requiring less equipment at fab level. It's a trade off between fix cost versus variable cost. If you can improve yields very quickly SOI is promising - if not you're wasting very expensive silicon. It's a trade off and Bohr said they were looking closely at both ... SOI and bulk...and he also did not exclude that some chipmakers might come out with SOI approach... BTW I spent lots of time in Agrate (when it was still SGS) as well in Grenoble (Thompson) and of course I love Catania - hey a fab in Sicily - who can ask for more. Good luck

Adele.Hars
User Rank
Rookie
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
Adele.Hars   2/6/2013 7:15:44 AM
NO RATINGS
@resistion & Kresearch - FD-SOI scales to 10nm -- see http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4403224/FDSOI-roadmap-renames-20-nm-node-as-14-nm. @Kresearch - wafer capacity is in place -- see http://www.advancedsubstratenews.com/2012/12/the-transition-to-fully-depleted/. @the_floating_gate re: cost/yield -- see Handel Jones showing *major* savings w/FD-SOI (who btw presented at the Common Platform Technology Forum yesterday) http://www.advancedsubstratenews.com/2012/11/ibs-study-concludes-fd-soi-most-cost-effective-technology-choice-at-28nm-and-20nm/

krisi
User Rank
CEO
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
krisi   2/6/2013 3:18:42 PM
NO RATINGS
thank you Giorgio...interesting comments about hybridization zone...would you (or STM in general) be interested to describe FD-SOI technology for the upcoming Semiconductor Devices book I am editing? kris.iniewski@gmail.com

Mrchipguy
User Rank
Rookie
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
Mrchipguy   2/6/2013 3:57:45 PM
NO RATINGS
SOI industry talk has been going on for 20 years without commercial success. AMD dropping SOI due to high cost, design IP, and no chip level advantage FD-SOI has the same issues - high cost issue: (single supplier), - Physical design IP not compatible (ESD ckts, poor high voltage devices, limited and DRC restrictions on multi threashold devices)

Adele.Hars
User Rank
Rookie
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
Adele.Hars   2/6/2013 4:48:25 PM
NO RATINGS
@Mrchipguy -- I'd posit that FD does not in fact have the same issues as PD. re: cost - there are 3 wafer suppliers (Soitec, SEH, MEMC). Also suggest Handel Jones' piece cited in my previous comment (he's got FD-SOI die cost = 50 to 60% savings compared to bulk or FinFET). re: physical design -- for ESD etc, because the top Si and insulating layers are so thin, for those devices they just etch back to the bulk (this is the "hybridization zones") -- you can read a full explanation in a white paper by Giorgio Cesana et al from a year ago at http://www.soiconsortium.org/pdf/fullydepletedsoi/planar_fd_silicon_technology_competitive_soc_28nm.pdf. And what they're doing with biasing is awesome.

the_floating_ gate
User Rank
Rookie
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
the_floating_ gate   2/6/2013 7:18:22 PM
NO RATINGS
error 404 page not found I am really curious about this cost comparision model I don't believe there is no defined cost saving because you compare variable cost (SoC wafers) versus fixed cost due to additional capex required due to using bulk I am curious about the assumptions in this model

Page 1 / 3   >   >>
Flash Poll
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
Join our online Radio Show on Friday 11th July starting at 2:00pm Eastern, when EETimes editor of all things fun and interesting, Max Maxfield, and embedded systems expert, Jack Ganssle, will debate as to just what is, and is not, and embedded system.
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week