Design Con 2015
Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
Adele.Hars
User Rank
Rookie
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
Adele.Hars   2/11/2013 11:53:28 AM
NO RATINGS
I first saw ST present on fully-depleted planar SOI technology over 10 years ago -- it's been a long, meticulous journey to reach this point, with a steady stream of papers at the major conferences. The folks at Leti, as well as IBM, ARM, GF, Hitachi, UCBerkeley, Soitec, UCL, Cadence and more have been a major part of this effort, too. This is not a rabbit they've pulled out of a hat. They're getting awesome, silicon-proven results -- especially in terms of cost & power. It looks to me like they've got the right technology at the right time...and now time will tell if they are right.

thesoiguru
User Rank
Rookie
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
thesoiguru   2/10/2013 7:44:03 PM
NO RATINGS
resistion, Yes, from design side would want to reduce well area and switch small area wells. That would still leave parasitic C under drain junction (for thin BOX) and that would need to be improved from process side (perhaps make box thinner under drain). To be clear I do think all this is fundamentally solvable.... I just point this out since I think all these type of work needs to be done if FDSOI ever goes mainstream and FDSOI shows its full potential (low variation and low power). FDSOI is a solid concept (perhaps better than bulk 20SOC or bulk FinFET) but it will take an open debate and a few fixes to move concept forward vs. today. thanks for the discussion

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
resistion   2/10/2013 4:15:32 PM
NO RATINGS
Well for repeated ns pulses the heat will accumulate if there is no place to sink it. Bulk silicon substrate conducts heat very well, while the oxide, though thin, still doesn't conduct as well.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
resistion   2/10/2013 4:09:58 PM
NO RATINGS
The capacitance is a serious issue, but wouldn't that be managed by controlling block size? The trench isolation technique used for bulk Si can still be applied here.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
resistion   2/10/2013 3:59:08 PM
NO RATINGS
Intel has been considering options for a while, it seems they still like UTB, even to the point of gate all around (GAA), which would also be problematic thermally.

thesoiguru
User Rank
Rookie
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
thesoiguru   2/10/2013 3:18:35 PM
NO RATINGS
Mrchipguy, I can confirm your point is correct and identified by TSMC 5 years ago as a flaw in FDSOI. STI trench is needed (cost) and wafer non-planarity would make "hybridization" 0 yield. See slide 15 for both points http://www.soiconsortium.org/fully-depleted-soi/presentations/april-2011/Tomasz%20Brozek%20-%20FDSOI%20Readiness%20and%20Manufacturability%20-%20WS%20FDSOI%20Taiwan.pdf

thesoiguru
User Rank
Rookie
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
thesoiguru   2/10/2013 3:05:22 PM
NO RATINGS
Lastly, the other major issue is strain for high mobility is ineffective in FDSOI. This limits FDSOI to low performance. Also has implications on physical IP porting. N/P ratio goes from ~1.3 at 28nm back to ~2. Makes all my physical digital and analog IP non usable without major redesign. see slide 12 on strain in FDSOI http://www.soiconsortium.org/fully-depleted-soi/presentations/april-2011/Tomasz%20Brozek%20-%20FDSOI%20Readiness%20and%20Manufacturability%20-%20WS%20FDSOI%20Taiwan.pdf

thesoiguru
User Rank
Rookie
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
thesoiguru   2/8/2013 4:32:55 PM
NO RATINGS
Michigan, good points Adele does not seem to admit problem thin box approach. can you comment on parasitic capacitance from 3V on UTBB (Asele's recommended 25nm thin buried oxide). It adds too much extra C and wasted power to be viable.

michigan0
User Rank
CEO
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
michigan0   2/8/2013 3:26:58 AM
NO RATINGS
I would like to thank Mr. Cesana for pointing out: 6nm is 60A, not 0.6A. Since MR. Cesana’s comments are mostly on UTBB, I will respond to FDUTBB. Remember FD UTBB and FDSOI are not the same. ST video claims that its UTBB behaves like a vertical double gate. It doesn’t. The double gate is an ideal transistor structure having common gates and common source /drain, thus good control of electrostatics and doubling the transistor on-current, Ion. ST’s UTBB has common source and drain, but has two independent gates consisting of two transistors, the top transistor having the proven HK metal gate very reliable used today in semiconductor industry but the bottom transistor having the Si substrate for a gate and the 25-nm thick buried oxide for gate oxide, sharing 7nm channel is totally new and unproven in reliability, performance, and not adopted by semiconductor industry. During UTBB operation a positive 3V is applied to the bottom gate to control Vt of the top gate. How much the transistor I-on is improved by the positive 3V applied to the bottom gate is not shown. Furthermore, some of channel electrons could drift toward the buried oxide and become trapped inside under the 3V positive bias field during UTBB operation, especially near the source region where electron velocity is very slow. Also, a number of interface states could be generated at the thin Si channel-the buried oxide interfaces, and the channel electron mobility could be degraded due to enhanced scattering at the channel-buried oxide interface, resulting in reduced I-on. These could adversely impact UTBB reliability and performance. These phenomena are unique to FD-UTBB because planer bulk, FinlFET, and FDSOI are not substrate biased or grounded during device operation.

de_la_rosa
User Rank
Rookie
re: ARM rates FDSOI process as "good technology"
de_la_rosa   2/7/2013 9:37:15 PM
NO RATINGS
There is no such thing as 14 nm. It will never happen.

Page 1 / 3   >   >>


Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Life
Frankenstein's Fix, Teardowns, Sideshows, Design Contests, Reader Content & More
Max Maxfield

Book Review: Deadly Odds by Allen Wyler
Max Maxfield
11 comments
Generally speaking, when it comes to settling down with a good book, I tend to gravitate towards science fiction and science fantasy. Having said this, I do spend a lot of time reading ...

Martin Rowe

No 2014 Punkin Chunkin, What Will You Do?
Martin Rowe
1 Comment
American Thanksgiving is next week, and while some people watch (American) football all day, the real competition on TV has become Punkin Chunkin. But there will be no Punkin Chunkin on TV ...

Rich Quinnell

Making the Grade in Industrial Design
Rich Quinnell
13 comments
As every developer knows, there are the paper specifications for a product design, and then there are the real requirements. The paper specs are dry, bland, and rigidly numeric, making ...

Martin Rowe

Book Review: Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design
Martin Rowe
1 Comment
Controlling Radiated Emissions by Design, Third Edition, by Michel Mardiguian. Contributions by Donald L. Sweeney and Roger Swanberg. List price: $89.99 (e-book), $119 (hardcover).