The semiconductor industry is converging on 3.5D as the next best option in advanced packaging, a hybrid approach that includes stacking logic chiplets and bonding them separately to a substrate shared by other components.

This assembly model satisfies the need for big increases in performance while sidestepping some of the thorniest issues in heterogeneous integration. It establishes a middle ground between 2.5D, which already is in widespread use inside of data centers, and full 3D-ICs, which the chip industry has been struggling to commercialize for the better part of a decade.

A 3.5D architecture offers several key advantages:

• It creates enough physical separation to effectively address thermal dissipation and noise.
• It provides a way to add more SRAM into high-speed designs. SRAM has been the go-to choice for processor cache since the mid-1960s, and remains an essential element for faster processing. But SRAM no longer scales at the same rate as digital transistors, so it is consuming more real estate (in percentage terms) at each new node. And because the size of a reticle is fixed, the best available option is to add area by stacking chiplets vertically.
• By thinning the interface between processing elements and memory, a 3.5D approach also can shorten the distances that signals need to travel and greatly improve processing speeds well beyond a planar implementation. This is essential with large language models and AI/ML, where the amount of data that needs to be processed quickly is exploding.

Chipmakers still point to fully integrated 3D-ICs as the best performing alternative to a planar SoC, but packing everything into a 3D configuration makes it harder to deal with physical effects. Thermal dissipation is probably the most difficult to contend with. Workloads can vary significantly, creating dynamic thermal gradients and trapping heat in unexpected places, which in turn reduce the lifespan and reliability of chips. On top of that, power and substrate noise become more problematic at each new node, as do concerns about electromagnetic interference.

“What the market has adopted first is high-performance chips, and those produce a lot of heat,” said Marc Swinnen, director of product marketing at Ansys. “They have gone for expensive cooling systems with a huge number of fans and heat sinks, and they have opted for silicon interposers, which arguably are some of the most expensive technologies for connecting chips together. But it also gives the highest performance and is very good for thermal because it matches the coefficient of thermal expansion. Thermal is one of the big reasons that’s been successful. In addition to that, you may want bigger systems with more stuff that you can’t fit on one chip. That’s just a reticle-size limitation. Another is heterogeneous integration, where you want multiple different processes, like an RF process or the I/O, which don’t need to be in 5nm.”

A 3.5D assembly also provides more flexibility to add additional processor cores, and higher yield because known good die can be manufactured and tested separately, a concept first pioneered by Xilinx in 2011 at 28nm.

3.5D is a loose amalgamation of all these approaches. It can include two to three chiplets stacked on top of each other, or even multiple stacks laid out horizontally.

“It’s limited vertical, and not just for thermal reasons,” said Bill Chen, fellow and senior technical advisor at ASE Group. “It’s also for performance reasons. But thermal is the limiting factor, and we’ve talked about many different materials to help with that — diamond and graphene — but that limitation is still there.”

This is why the most likely combination, at least initially, will be processors stacked on SRAM, which simplifies the cooling. The heat generated by high utilization of different processing elements can be removed with heat sinks or liquid cooling. And with one or more thinned out substrates, signals will travel shorter distances, which in turn uses less power to move data back and forth between processors and memory.

“Most likely, this is going to be logic over memory on a logic process,” said Javier DeLaCruz, fellow and senior director of Silicon Ops Engineering at Arm. “These are all contained within an SoC normally, but a portion of that is going to be SRAM, which does not scale very well from node to node. So having logic over memory and a logic process is really the winning solution, and that’s one of the better use cases for 3D because that’s what really shortens your connectivity. A processor generally doesn’t talk to another processor. They talk to each other through memory, so having the memory on a different floor with no latency between them is pretty attractive.”

The SRAM doesn’t necessarily have to be at the same node as the processors advanced node, which also helps with yield, and reliability. At a recent Samsung Foundry event, Taejoong Song, the company’s vice president of foundry business development, showed a roadmap of a 3.5D configuration using a 2nm chiplet stacked on a 4nm chiplet next year, and a 1.4nm chiplet on top of a 2nm chiplet in 2027.

Fig. 1: Samsung’s heterogeneous integration roadmap showing stacked DRAM (HBM), chiplets and co-packaged optics. Source: Samsung Foundry

Intel Foundry’s approach is similar in many ways. “Our 3.5D technology is implemented on a substrate with silicon bridges,” said Kevin O’Buckley, senior vice president and general manager of Foundry Services at Intel. “This is not an incredibly costly, low-yielding, multi-reticle form-factor silicon, or even RDL. We’re using thin silicon slices in a much more cost-efficient fashion to enable that die-to-die connectivity — even stacked die-to-die connectivity — through a silicon bridge. So you get the same advantages of silicon density, the same SI (signal integrity) performance of that bridge without having to put a giant monolithic interposer underneath the whole thing, which is both cost- and capacity-prohibitive. It’s working. It’s in the lab and it’s running.”

Fig. 2: Intel’s 3.5D model. Source: Intel

The strategy here is partly evolutionary — 3.5D has been in R&D for at least several years — and part revolutionary, because thinning out the interconnect layer, figuring out a way to handle these thinner interconnect layers, and how to bond them is still a work in progress. There is a potential for warping, cracking, or other latent defects, and dynamically configuring data paths to maximize throughput is an ongoing challenge. But there have been significant advances in thermal management on two- and three-chiplet stacks.

“There will be multiple solutions,” said C.P. Hung, vice president of corporate R&D at ASE. “For example, besides the device itself and an external heat sink, a lot of people will be adding immersion cooling or local liquid cooling. So for the packaging, you can probably also expect to see the implementation of a vapor chamber, which will add a good interface from the device itself to an external heat sink. With all these challenges, we also need to target a different pitch. For example, nowadays you see mass production with a 45 to 40 pitch. That is a typical bumping solution. We expect the industry to move to a 25 to 20 micron bump pitch. Then, to go further, we need hybrid bonding, which is a less than 10 micron pitch.”

Fig. 3: Today’s interposers support more than 100,000 I/Os at a 45m pitch. Source: ASE

Hybrid bonding solves another thorny problem, which is co-planarity across thousands of micro-bumps. “People are starting to realize that the densities we’re interconnecting require a level of flatness, which the guys who make traditional things to be bonded are having a hard time meeting with reasonable yield,” David Fromm, COO at Promex Industries. “That makes it hard to build them, and the thinking is, ‘So maybe we’ve got to do something else.’ You’re starting to see some of that.”

Taming the Hydra
Managing heat remains a challenge, even with all the latest advances and a 3.5D assembly, but the ability to isolate the thermal effects from other components is the best option available today, and possibly well into the future. Still, there are other issues to contend with. Even 2.5D isn’t easy, and a large percentage of the 2.5D implementations have been bespoke designs by large systems companies with very deep pockets.

One of the big remaining challenges is closing timing so that signals arrive at the right place at the right fraction of a second. This becomes harder as more elements are added into chips, and in a 3.5D or 3D-IC, this can be incredibly complex.

“Timing ultimately is the key,” said Sutirtha Kabir, R&D director at Synopsys. “It’s not guaranteed that at whatever your temperature is, you can use the same library for timing. So the question is how much thermal- and IR-aware timing do you have to do? These are big systems. You have to make sure your sign-off is converging. There are two things coming out. There are a bunch of multi-physics effects that are all clumped together. And yes, you could traditionally do one at a time as sign-off, but that isn’t going to work very well. You need to figure out how to solve these problems simultaneously. Ultimately, you’re doing one design. It’s not one for thermal, one for IR, one for timing. The second thing is the data is exploding. How do you efficiently handle the data, because you cannot wait for days and days of runtime and simulation and analysis?”

Physically assembling these devices isn’t easy, either. “The challenge here is really in the thermal, electrical, and mechanical connection of all these various die with different thicknesses and different coefficients of thermal expansion,” said Intel’s O’Buckley. “So with three die, you’ve got the die and an active base, and those are substantially thinned to enable them to come together. And then EMIB is in the substrate. There’s always intense thermal-mechanical qualification work done to manage not just the assembly, but to ensure in the final assembly — the second-level assembly when this is going through system-level card attach — that this thing stays together.”

And depending upon demands for speed, the interconnects and interconnect materials can change. “Hybrid bonding gives you, by far, the best signal and power density,” said Arm’s DeLaCruz. “And it gives you the best thermal conductivity, because you don’t have that underfill that you would otherwise have to put in between the die, which is a pretty significant barrier. This is likely where the industry will go. It’s just a matter of having the production base.”

Hybrid bonding has been used for years for image sensors using wafer-on-wafer connections. “The tricky part is going into the logic space, where you’re moving from wafer-on-wafer to a die-on-wafer process, which is more complex,” DeLaCruz said. “While it currently would cost more, that’s a temporary problem because there’s not much of an installed base to support it and drive down the cost. There’s really no expensive material or equipment costs.”

Toward mass customization
All of this is leading toward the goal of choosing chiplets from a menu and then rapidly connecting them into some sort of architecture that is proven to work. That may not materialize for years. But commercial chiplets will show up in advanced designs over the next couple years, most likely in high-bandwidth memory with a customized processor in the stack, with more following that path in the future.

At least part of this will depend on how standardized the processes for designing, manufacturing, and testing become. “We’re seeing a lot of 2.5D from customers able to secure silicon interposers,” said Ruben Fuentes, vice president for the Design Center at Amkor Technology. “These customers want to place their chiplets on an interposer, then the full module is placed on a flip-chip substrate package. We also have customers who say they either don’t want to use a silicon interposer or cannot secure them. They prefer an RDL interconnect with S-SWIFT or with S-Connect, which serves as an interposer in very dense areas.”

But with at least a third of these leading designs only for internal use, and the remainder confined to large processor vendors, the rest of the market hasn’t caught up yet. Once it does, that will drive economies of scale and open the door to more complete assembly design kits, commercial chiplets, and more options for customization.

“Everybody is generally going in the same direction,” said Fuentes. “But not everything is the same height. HBMs are pre-packaged and are taller than ICs. HBMs could have 12 or 16 ICs stacked inside. It makes a difference from a co-planarity and thermal standpoint, and metal balancing on different layers. So now vendors are having a hard time processing all this data because suddenly you have these huge databases that are a lot bigger than the standard packaging databases. We’re seeing bridges, S-Connect, SWIFT, and then S-SWIFT. This is new territory, and we’re seeing a performance gap in the packaging tools. There’s work that needs to be done here, but software vendors have been very proactive in finding solutions. Additionally, these packages need to be routed. There is limited automated routing, so a good amount of interactive routing is still required, so it takes a lot of time.”

Fig. 4: Packaging roadmap showing bridge and hybrid bonding connections for modules and chiplets, respectively. Source: Amkor Technology

What’s missing
The key challenges ahead for 3.5D are proven reliability and customizability — requirements that are seemingly contradictory, and which are beyond the control of any single company. There are four major pieces to making all of this work.

EDA is the first important piece of the puzzle, and the challenge extends just beyond a single chip. “The IC designers have to think about a lot of things concurrently, like thermal, signal integrity, and power integrity,” said Keith Lanier, technical product management director at Synopsys. “But even beyond that, there’s a new paradigm in terms of how people need to work. Traditional packaging folks and IC designers need to work closely together to make these 3.5D designs successful.”

It’s not just about doing more with the same or fewer people. It’s doing more with different people, too. “It’s understanding the architecture definition, the functional requirements, constraints, and having those well-defined,” Lanier said. “But then it’s also feasibility, which includes partitioning and technology selection, and then prototyping and floor-planning. This is lots and lots of data that is required to be generated, and you need analysis-driven exploration, design, and implementation. And AI will be required to help designers and system design teams manage the sheer complexity of these 3.5D designs.”

Process/assembly design kits are a second critical piece, and this is likely to be split between the foundries and the OSATs. “If the customer wants a silicon interposer for a 2.5D package, it would be up to the foundry that’s going to manufacture the interposer to provide the PDK. We would provide the PDK for all of our products, such as S-SWIFT and S-Connect,” said Amkor’s Fuentes.

Setting realistic parameters is the third piece of the puzzle. While the type of processing elements and some of the analog functions may change — particularly those involving power and communication — most of the components will remain the same. That determines what can be pre-built and pre-tested, and the speed and ease of assembly.

“A lot of the standards that are being deployed, like UCIe interfaces and HBM interfaces are heading to where 20% is customization and 80% is on the shelf,” said Intel’s O’Buckley. “But we aren’t there today. At the scale that our customers are deploying these products, the economics of spending that extra time to optimize an implementation is a decimal point. It’s not leveraging 80/20 standards. We’ll get there. But most of these designs you can count on your fingers and toes because of the cost and scale required to do them. And until the infrastructure for standards-based chiplets gets mature, the barrier of entry for companies that want to do this without that scale is just too high. Still, it is going to happen.”

Ensuring processes are consistent is the fourth piece of the puzzle. The tools and the individual processes don’t need to change. “The customer has a ‘target’ for the outcome they want for a particular tool, which typically is a critical dimension measured by a metrology tool,” said David Park, vice president of marketing at Tignis. “As long as there is some ‘measurement’ that determines the goodness of some outcome, which typically is the result of a process step, we can either predict the bad outcome — and engineers have to take some corrective or preventive action — or we can optimize the recipe of that tool in real time to keep the result in the range they want.”

Park noted there is a recipe that controls the inputs. “The tool does whatever it is supposed to do,” he said. “Then you measure the output to see how far you deviated from the acceptable output.”

The challenge is that inside of a 3.5D system, what is considered acceptable output is still being defined. There are many processes with different tolerances. Defining what is consistent enough will require a broad understanding of how all the pieces work together under specific workloads, and where the potential weaknesses are that need to be adjusted.

“One of the problems here is as these densities get higher and the copper pillars get smaller, the amount of space you need between the pillar and the substrate have to be highly controlled,” said Dick Otte, president and CEO of Promex. “There’s a conflict — not so much with how you fabricate the chip, because it usually has the copper pillars on it — but with the substrate. A lot of the substrate technologies are not inherently flat. It’s the same issue with glass. You’ve got a really nice flat piece of glass. The first thing you’re going to do is put down a layer of metal and you’re going to pattern it. And then you put down a layer of dielectric, and suddenly you’ve got a lump where the conductor goes. And now, where do you put the contact points? So you always have the one plan which is going to be the contact point where all the pillars come in. But what if I only need one layer and I don’t need three?”

Conclusion
For the past decade, the chip industry has been trying to figure out a way to balance faster processing, domain-specific designs, limited reticle size, and the enormous cost of scaling an SoC. After investigating nearly every possible packaging approach, interconnect, power delivery method, substrate and dielectric material, 3.5D has emerged as the front runner — at least for now.

This approach provides the chip industry with a common thread on which to begin developing assembly design kits, commercial chiplets, and to fill in the missing tools and services throughout the supply chain. Whether this ultimately becomes a springboard for full 3D-ICs, or a platform on which to use 3D stacking more effectively, remains to be seen. But for the foreseeable future, large chipmakers have converged on a path forward to provide orders of magnitude performance improvements and a way to contain costs. The rest of the industry will be working to smooth out that path for years to come.

Related Reading
Intel Vs. Samsung Vs. TSMC
Foundry competition heats up in three dimensions and with novel technologies as planar scaling benefits diminish.
3D Metrology Meets Its Match In 3D Chips And Packages
Next-generation tools take on precision challenges in three dimensions.
Design Flow Challenged By 3D-IC Process, Thermal Variation
Rethinking traditional workflows by shifting left can help solve persistent problems caused by process and thermal variations.
Floor-Planning Evolves Into The Chiplet Era
Automatically mitigating thermal issues becomes a top priority in heterogeneous designs.

The post 3.5D: The Great Compromise appeared first on Semiconductor Engineering.

The Ansys team is gearing up for an exciting time at DAC this week, where we’ll be sharing a whole new way of visualizing physical phenomena in 3D-IC designs, powered by NVIDIA Omniverse, a platform for developing OpenUSD and RTX-enabled 3D applications and workflows. Please attend our Exhibitor Forum session so we can show you the valuable design insights you can gain by interactively viewing surface currents, temperatures and mechanical deformations in a representative 3D-IC design.

Visualizing physical phenomena in 3D is a new paradigm for IC packaging signal and power integrity (SI/PI) engineers who are more familiar with schematics and 2D results plots (TDR, eye diagrams, SYZ parameters, etc). There’s a good reason for that – it really hasn’t been practical to save 3D physics data – or even to run full 3D simulations – for complex IC package designs until more recent (~5-10 years) advancements in Ansys solver technologies along with increasing accessibility to high performance compute power. I have had the pleasure of supporting a few early adopters in the SI/PI engineering community as they used 3D field plotting in HFSS to gain design insights that helped them avoid costly tape-out delays and chip re-spin. Their experiences motivate my desire to share this invaluable capability with the greater IC packaging design community.

I started my career using HFSS to design antennas for biomedical applications. Like me, the greater antenna and RF component design community has been plotting fields in 3D from Day 1 – I don’t know of any antenna engineer that hasn’t plotted a 3D radiation pattern after running an HFSS simulation. What I do know is that I’ve met hundreds of SI/PI engineers who have never plotted surface currents in their package or PCB models after running an HFSS simulation. And that must change.

…but why exactly? What value does one gain by plotting fields in 3D? If you don’t know what kind of design insights you gain by plotting fields, please allow me to show you because seeing is revealing.

Let’s say I send a signal from point A and it reflects off 3 different plates before returning back to point A:

Fig. 1: The plot below shows the received power from a sensor placed at Point A (the same position as the emitter). Can you tell which bump in this two 2D plot is the original signal returned back home?

Fig. 2: No? Neither can I. Even if you somehow guessed correctly, could you explain what caused all those other bumps with certainty?

With HFSS field plotting, everything becomes crystal clear:

Video 1: 3-bounce animation.

The original signal returns after a travel distance of 6 meters around the circle while the rest of the bumps result from other reflections – this is the kind of physical insight that a 2D plot simply can’t deliver.

Advanced packaging for 3D-IC design can’t be done with generic rules of thumb. To meet stringent specifications (operate at higher frequencies, speeds, and lower latency, power consumption), engineers are demanding the use of HFSS because its gold-standard reputation has come from countless validation studies comparing simulated results against measurement, and there is no room to compromise on accuracy for these very complex and costly designs. As more electronics are packed into tighter spaces, the risk for unwanted coupling between the different components (often stacked vertically) increases and being able to identify the true aggressors becomes more challenging. That’s when field visualization as a means to debug – i.e., uncover, learn, truly understand – what’s happening becomes an invaluable tool.

What exactly is causing unwanted radiation or reflections? What exactly is the source of noise coupling into this line? Are we seeing any current crowding on conductors or significant volume losses in dielectrics that may lead to thermal problems? Plot the fields and you will have the information required to diagnose issues and design the exact right solution – nothing more (over-designed), nothing less (failing design).

If you’re one of the early adopters who has plotted fields in highly complex designs, you will know that fields post-processing can be very graphics intensive – especially if you want to immerse yourself in the physical phenomena taking place in your design by plotting in a full 3D volume and cutting through the 3D space layer by layer. Ansys uses the enhanced graphics and visual rendering capabilities offered by NVIDIA Omniverse core technologies, available as APIs, to provide a seamlessly interactive and more intuitive experience, increasing accessibility to design insights that engineers can only gain by physics visualization.

I’m not asking my SI/PI engineering colleagues to ditch the schematics and 2D results plots – I just believe that they should (and inevitably will!) add 3D field plotting into their design process. The rise in design complexity coupled with advancements in Ansys and NVIDIA technologies is poised to make 3D field plotting – an invaluable yet heretofore underutilized tool in the world of signal and power integrity design – a practical requirement. For a first look into what will one day be commonplace design practice, please attend our Exhibitor Forum session on Wed., June 26, 1:45 PM -3:00 PM at DAC to experience our interactive demonstration of Ansys physics visualization in a representative 3D-IC design, powered by NVIDIA Omniverse.

The post Powering Next-Generation Insightful Design appeared first on Semiconductor Engineering.

The semiconductor industry is preparing for the migration from proprietary chiplet-based systems to a more open chiplet ecosystem, in which chiplets fabricated by different companies of various technologies and device nodes can be integrated in a single package with acceptable yield.

To make this work as expected, the chip industry will have to solve a variety of well-documented technical and business issues, and it will have to rein in some of the grander visions of what’s possible — at least initially. The basic challenge is aligning domain-specific performance demands of end systems, which contain a growing number of chiplets, with the assembly and packaging capabilities and methodologies of IDMs, foundries, and OSATs. This includes the creation of assembly development kits (ADKs) that are roughly the equivalent of process development kits (PDKs), which today are codified with manufacturing specifications.

A PDK provides the appropriate level of detail needed to develop planar chips, marrying design tools with fab processes to achieve a predictable outcome. But making this work for an ADK with heterogeneous chiplets is many times more complex. Design and assembly teams need to manage thermal, mechanical, and electrical co-dependencies that cause electrical and mechanical stress, resulting in warpage, reduced yield, and reliability issues under real-world workloads. Layered on top of this the business and legal issues related to packaging of different devices from different manufacturers.

“Chiplets are a growing trend, especially in the HPC and networking segments, with potential to scale to other applications,” said Gabriela Pereira, technology and market analyst for semiconductor packaging at Yole Intelligence. “The industry has understood that high-end advanced packaging technologies are needed to connect them — but that’s much more complex than it seems. Connecting chiplets requires the design of high-bandwidth interconnections at the package level, which can take different forms — e.g., 2D, 2.5D or 3D — while ensuring that the thermal and power requirements are fulfilled.”

Commercial chiplet-based devices generally are domain-specific, and sometimes developed for a specific workload. So despite a big industry push to create a LEGO-like mix-and-match ecosystem for chiplets — which today includes multiple IP and EDA vendors, foundries, memory suppliers, OSATs, substrate suppliers, etc. — making this work as planned will require time and a massive amount of work.

Fig. 1: System assembly requires tighter coupling between chipmakers and OSATs. Source: ASE

In creating heterogeneous integrated designs, it’s essential to have much tighter collaboration between foundries, IDMs, OSATs, and PCB manufacturers. And because each chiplet-based system will be customized, the number of assembly processes will grow substantially. For example, one OSAT noted that among its ~5,000 customers, there are ~1,000 different assembly processes.

That diversity in products and processes makes it difficult to achieve predictable results by choosing chiplets from a large menu of options.

“We’ve already encountered a lot of limitations including not only the silicon, but also integration and the ecosystem,” said Lihong Cao, senior director at ASE Group, at MEPTEC’s Road to Chiplets forum. She stressed that customers continue to push for a low-cost chiplet assembly process, which is creating constructive tension between developing a sophisticated assembly process and the economic realities of different industry sectors. Computing devices for automotive have a higher cost sensitivity than for data centers, for example, but their chips operate in a harsher environment over a longer lifetime.

What’s needed is a defined set of assembly process recipes — basically, a highly limited menu of choices — that are specific to the end application (HPC, automotive, RF telecommunications) in order to lower the cost of chiplet-based systems. OSATs and foundries already are moving in that direction for high-performance computing. For example, at its 2024 Direct Connect event, Intel shared its six different package processes for chiplets. TSMC and Samsung also offer defined sets of chiplet processes. But the success of these assembly processes requires engineering teams to co-optimize the flows, processes, and materials to best match the system requirements.

Fig. 2: Integrated platform development requires tightly coupled architectural analysis that co-optimizes the system design to architecture to assembly process and packaging material selections. Source: Applied Materials

“Previously, when we designed a system we only had to be worried about the system requirements. Once we start segregating into dies and reassembling them, we have to start looking at other things. We have to worry about putting them together while considering signal integrity between dies, reliability, thermals, etc.,” said Itai Leshniak, director of AI systems solutions at Applied Materials, at the MEPTEC forum. “If we take the case of AI-based computer vision, we can break it down layer by layer — on the hardware side, determining which computer vision processors, sensors, filters are needed to break it down into the architecture at layer. Then we begin to go through how to package all these chiplets, and then which materials to use and how to take advantage of those materials.”

Materials and assembly processes
Conceptually, design engineers will use chiplets to design a system. However, the co-design and integration is far more complicated than assembling a set of LEGO blocks, because the chiplets, interposers, and package substrates come from different design houses and manufacturing facilities. The advanced packaging technologies used to connect chiplets vary with an alphabet soup of names — FOWLP, FOPLP, CoWoS, etc., each of which poses additional design and material choices along with certain process limitations.

Fig. 3: There are a multitude of choices in multi-die packaging from the high-level layout to substrates, materials, bonding methods, and cooling materials. Source: Synopsys

Currently engineering teams determine the tradeoffs among the different packaging options to select materials, derive a process recipe, and determine design rules.

Materials are a good starting point. “Materials are very important because they enable new products and packaging technologies,” Tanja Braun, deputy group manager at the Fraunhofer Institute for Reliability and Microintegration IZM. “As you move into more advanced packaging, process is getting much more complex because you are putting more things together. In the end, it’s a combination of equipment, materials, and process development.”

There are three thermal parameters that are critical in package assembly processes — coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE), glass transition temperature (T_g), and thermal conductivity. These factors affect how a material behaves in manufacturing to packaging processes, as well as how it behaves in the field.

“Challenges for our materials include temperature limitations of different die,” said Rama Puligadda, CTO at Brewer Science. “We have to ensure that the temperatures used for bonding materials don’t exceed the thermal limitations of any of the chips that are being integrated into the package. Additionally, there may be some subsequent processes like redistribution layer (RDL) formation or molding. Our materials have to survive those processes. They have to survive the chemicals they come in contact with throughout the packaging process scheme. Mechanical stresses in the package add additional challenges for bonding materials.”

Within a stack of chiplets-on-substrate with an optional interposer, their material attributes affect the thermal-mechanical stresses between neighboring materials, as well. This directly impacts interconnect dimensional control over a large area substrate area.

“If you go work the numbers, you will find that the level of tolerance and control required is frightening,” said Dick Otte, CEO of Promex Industries. “You’re talking about controlling dimensions equivalent to the width of a grass blade over the length of a football field, so that’s roughly 1 in 100,000.”

The goal is uniform heating of the structure in reflow in order to attain the best process results and to avoid cracking. “When you’re taking it through a 250 degrees centigrade temperature change, then you need to heat up slowly so that the top doesn’t get hot before the bottom does,” said Otte.

Multi-physics to comprehend co-optimization
Multi-physics modeling has become the go-to method for co-optimizing packaging design and assembly process development. That affects both permanent and temporary materials, as well the placement of processors, memories, and other components.

“You always looking to what the customer needs electrically, because that’s going to help define the material set. The material set is broadly applicable to a bunch of speed ranges. As long as you don’t step outside of those electrical specifications, theoretically you should be okay,” said Mike Kelly, vice president of advanced package and technology integration at Amkor Technology.

To save many iterations of empirically based development, engineers can use physics-based simulations to understand the impact of a material set’s properties impact on the assembly process, power/thermals, and mechanical vibrations.

Consider that HPC chiplet products can consume ~1,000 watts at peak performance so the power and thermal interactions need to be fully understood.

“We’ve struggled, as everybody has, with this blizzard of complexity in the different techniques. Not only do they vary across different vendors, but they’re also varying over time,” said Marc Swinnen, director of product marketing at Ansys. “Our approach has been to identify the essentials that need to be worked on. We work jointly with customers to develop a simulation flow that actually achieves what is needed now.”

Materials are just one piece of the puzzle. “Then there’s the assembly stresses that need to be modeled to know whether you can correctly assemble this device. The third one is mechanical vibration,” Swinnen said. “Can your device withstand those regular vibrations? Modeling these attributes ties directly into our mechanical analysis tools — acoustic, thermal, vibration, etc. In the end, you’re going to have to do physics simulation. We’re trying to make it accessible to people in many different forms. But the bedrock of our tool offerings is that we have the meshing simulation and analysis. It’s a question of getting the data in the right format in a way that’s practical and usable.”

Evolving assembly design kits
For conventional packages, OSATs provide design rules for each packaging technology. These need to consider electrical, mechanical and thermal design requirements and manufacturing process limitations. In effect this is a multi-dimensional bounding box. Suppliers perform iterations with the customer to create a product specific process recipe.

Rules cover the macro-level attributes. “At a minimum, what you see from design rules is maximum package size, maximum silicon size, and whether silicon can be [mounted] on both sides of the substrate, such that when you follow these constructions the final product will have a lifetime of 1,000 thermal cycles, for example,” said Fraunhofer’s Braun.

In addition, design rules need to describe routing constraints for the interposer and/or redistribution layer, such as RDL line widths and spaces, ball-grid/pillar/pad size and pitches, and the maximum number of interconnections.

Breaking up a monolithic HPC device into multiple dies shifts some of the semiconductor design/process complexity into the packaging space. That makes things much more complicated. Consider that to connect 10 dies requires on order of 100,000 traces within the interposer’s or substrate’s redistribution layer.

To cope with the complexity at the chip level, the IC industry has long relied upon process design kits (PDKs) to capture design rules in an electronic file that can be imported into EDA tools. Their counterparts, assembly design kits (ADKs), are relatively immature.

“We call it Smart Package,” said Amkor’s Kelly. “It’s an ADK that we give to every customer who’s doing their own design. It is a set of macros, and a customization of a database tailored to a customer’s particular design. For chiplets, it is a high-density fan-out package technology. And it’s cognizant of the limitations for metal density and metal spacing, etc. This makes it easier for us to do design rule checks (DRCs).”

But right now, with the level of customization still required, how an ADK is derived and what it entails is in flux. Partnerships between EDA tool vendors, OSATs, and semiconductor device providers are required.

“We come from the IC world where everything is very rigid,” said Kenneth Larsen, director of 3D-IC product management in Synopsys‘ EDA Group. “On the OSAT side, and maybe this is because it’s so custom, design rules seem like a data sheet. Then you build and optimize the products over time or in collaboration with the OSAT. It’s not an electronic exchange. In the IC world, this would be totally unheard of. While it is possible to tweak a few things, you have a qualification process. And it seems like that’s not there yet for packaging.”

Materials and associated assembly recipes ultimately drive what’s possible for a chiplet-substrate stack in terms of pillar pitch, RDL line widths and spaces, bonding processes, and chiplet placement tolerances. But within a handful of ADKs, there are many possible interactions to consider.

The current focus is on co-optimizing the system design with the chiplet assembly process, leading to an assembly process development flow (see figure 4). This flow considers the needs of customization of an assembly process, and it creates the necessary design rules to be used by package designers.

Fig. 4: Chip-package hybrid flow. Source: ASE

“First you need to define your structure using chiplets. Are you using substrate RDL, 2.5D RDL, or a bridge? After that you need to consider your structure’s materials. What kind of material do you choose to fulfill your electrical performance and the mechanical stress requirements,” said Cao. “After that, you do pre-analysis to ensure all the structures and materials you use are workable in terms of electrical, warpage and mechanical stress.”

The design planning flow also includes the evaluation of die-to-die interconnects through the documents for co-design sign-off.

Conclusion
Before chiplet-based designs can be enabled outside the IDM model, the industry needs to complete the ecosystem that bridges the manufacturing and design complexity. This is because the need to co-optimize the system architecture based on materials, process, and integration capabilities is essential. While this would be easier with a set of well-defined products for the chiplet ecosystem to drive forward on, that has not happened yet.

Engineering teams across the design and manufacturing stack will need to collaborate to choose the appropriate materials, architectures, processes, etc., to develop a final chiplet-based product that is designable. As ASE group’s Cao noted, “An integrated design and manufacturing ecosystem is important. It is very critical to have collaboration among IDM, vendors, materials suppliers. Everyone needs to work together to really enable integration for the real applications.”

Related stories
Fan-Out Packaging Gets Competitive
Manufacturability reaches sufficient level to compete with flip-chip BGA and 2.5D.

Inside Panel-Level Fan-Out Technology
Fraunhofer’s panel experts dig into why this approach is needed and where the challenges are to making it work.

Next Steps For Panel-Level Packaging
Where it’s working, and what challenges remain for even broader adoption.

Mini-Consortia Forming Around Chiplets
Commercial chiplet marketplaces are still on the distant horizon, but companies are getting an early start with more limited partnerships.

What Can Go Wrong In Heterogeneous Integration
Workflows and tools are disconnected, mechanical stress is ill-defined, and complete co-planarity is nearly impossible. But there are solutions on the horizon.

Mechanical Challenges Rise With Heterogeneous Integration
But gaps in tools make it difficult to address warpage, structural issues, and new materials in multi-die/multi-chiplet designs.

Chiplets: 2023 (EBook)
What chiplets are, what they are being used for today, and what they will be used for in the future.

The post What Works Best For Chiplets appeared first on Semiconductor Engineering.

The semiconductor industry is preparing for the migration from proprietary chiplet-based systems to a more open chiplet ecosystem, in which chiplets fabricated by different companies of various technologies and device nodes can be integrated in a single package with acceptable yield.

To make this work as expected, the chip industry will have to solve a variety of well-documented technical and business issues, and it will have to rein in some of the grander visions of what’s possible — at least initially. The basic challenge is aligning domain-specific performance demands of end systems, which contain a growing number of chiplets, with the assembly and packaging capabilities and methodologies of IDMs, foundries, and OSATs. This includes the creation of assembly development kits (ADKs) that are roughly the equivalent of process development kits (PDKs), which today are codified with manufacturing specifications.

A PDK provides the appropriate level of detail needed to develop planar chips, marrying design tools with fab processes to achieve a predictable outcome. But making this work for an ADK with heterogeneous chiplets is many times more complex. Design and assembly teams need to manage thermal, mechanical, and electrical co-dependencies that cause electrical and mechanical stress, resulting in warpage, reduced yield, and reliability issues under real-world workloads. Layered on top of this the business and legal issues related to packaging of different devices from different manufacturers.

“Chiplets are a growing trend, especially in the HPC and networking segments, with potential to scale to other applications,” said Gabriela Pereira, technology and market analyst for semiconductor packaging at Yole Intelligence. “The industry has understood that high-end advanced packaging technologies are needed to connect them — but that’s much more complex than it seems. Connecting chiplets requires the design of high-bandwidth interconnections at the package level, which can take different forms — e.g., 2D, 2.5D or 3D — while ensuring that the thermal and power requirements are fulfilled.”

Commercial chiplet-based devices generally are domain-specific, and sometimes developed for a specific workload. So despite a big industry push to create a LEGO-like mix-and-match ecosystem for chiplets — which today includes multiple IP and EDA vendors, foundries, memory suppliers, OSATs, substrate suppliers, etc. — making this work as planned will require time and a massive amount of work.

Fig. 1: System assembly requires tighter coupling between chipmakers and OSATs. Source: ASE

In creating heterogeneous integrated designs, it’s essential to have much tighter collaboration between foundries, IDMs, OSATs, and PCB manufacturers. And because each chiplet-based system will be customized, the number of assembly processes will grow substantially. For example, one OSAT noted that among its ~5,000 customers, there are ~1,000 different assembly processes.

That diversity in products and processes makes it difficult to achieve predictable results by choosing chiplets from a large menu of options.

“We’ve already encountered a lot of limitations including not only the silicon, but also integration and the ecosystem,” said Lihong Cao, senior director at ASE Group, at MEPTEC’s Road to Chiplets forum. She stressed that customers continue to push for a low-cost chiplet assembly process, which is creating constructive tension between developing a sophisticated assembly process and the economic realities of different industry sectors. Computing devices for automotive have a higher cost sensitivity than for data centers, for example, but their chips operate in a harsher environment over a longer lifetime.

What’s needed is a defined set of assembly process recipes — basically, a highly limited menu of choices — that are specific to the end application (HPC, automotive, RF telecommunications) in order to lower the cost of chiplet-based systems. OSATs and foundries already are moving in that direction for high-performance computing. For example, at its 2024 Direct Connect event, Intel shared its six different package processes for chiplets. TSMC and Samsung also offer defined sets of chiplet processes. But the success of these assembly processes requires engineering teams to co-optimize the flows, processes, and materials to best match the system requirements.

Fig. 2: Integrated platform development requires tightly coupled architectural analysis that co-optimizes the system design to architecture to assembly process and packaging material selections. Source: Applied Materials

“Previously, when we designed a system we only had to be worried about the system requirements. Once we start segregating into dies and reassembling them, we have to start looking at other things. We have to worry about putting them together while considering signal integrity between dies, reliability, thermals, etc.,” said Itai Leshniak, director of AI systems solutions at Applied Materials, at the MEPTEC forum. “If we take the case of AI-based computer vision, we can break it down layer by layer — on the hardware side, determining which computer vision processors, sensors, filters are needed to break it down into the architecture at layer. Then we begin to go through how to package all these chiplets, and then which materials to use and how to take advantage of those materials.”

Materials and assembly processes
Conceptually, design engineers will use chiplets to design a system. However, the co-design and integration is far more complicated than assembling a set of LEGO blocks, because the chiplets, interposers, and package substrates come from different design houses and manufacturing facilities. The advanced packaging technologies used to connect chiplets vary with an alphabet soup of names — FOWLP, FOPLP, CoWoS, etc., each of which poses additional design and material choices along with certain process limitations.

Fig. 3: There are a multitude of choices in multi-die packaging from the high-level layout to substrates, materials, bonding methods, and cooling materials. Source: Synopsys

Currently engineering teams determine the tradeoffs among the different packaging options to select materials, derive a process recipe, and determine design rules.

Materials are a good starting point. “Materials are very important because they enable new products and packaging technologies,” Tanja Braun, deputy group manager at the Fraunhofer Institute for Reliability and Microintegration IZM. “As you move into more advanced packaging, process is getting much more complex because you are putting more things together. In the end, it’s a combination of equipment, materials, and process development.”

There are three thermal parameters that are critical in package assembly processes — coefficients of thermal expansion (CTE), glass transition temperature (T_g), and thermal conductivity. These factors affect how a material behaves in manufacturing to packaging processes, as well as how it behaves in the field.

“Challenges for our materials include temperature limitations of different die,” said Rama Puligadda, CTO at Brewer Science. “We have to ensure that the temperatures used for bonding materials don’t exceed the thermal limitations of any of the chips that are being integrated into the package. Additionally, there may be some subsequent processes like redistribution layer (RDL) formation or molding. Our materials have to survive those processes. They have to survive the chemicals they come in contact with throughout the packaging process scheme. Mechanical stresses in the package add additional challenges for bonding materials.”

Within a stack of chiplets-on-substrate with an optional interposer, their material attributes affect the thermal-mechanical stresses between neighboring materials, as well. This directly impacts interconnect dimensional control over a large area substrate area.

“If you go work the numbers, you will find that the level of tolerance and control required is frightening,” said Dick Otte, CEO of Promex Industries. “You’re talking about controlling dimensions equivalent to the width of a grass blade over the length of a football field, so that’s roughly 1 in 100,000.”

The goal is uniform heating of the structure in reflow in order to attain the best process results and to avoid cracking. “When you’re taking it through a 250 degrees centigrade temperature change, then you need to heat up slowly so that the top doesn’t get hot before the bottom does,” said Otte.

Multi-physics to comprehend co-optimization
Multi-physics modeling has become the go-to method for co-optimizing packaging design and assembly process development. That affects both permanent and temporary materials, as well the placement of processors, memories, and other components.

“You always looking to what the customer needs electrically, because that’s going to help define the material set. The material set is broadly applicable to a bunch of speed ranges. As long as you don’t step outside of those electrical specifications, theoretically you should be okay,” said Mike Kelly, vice president of advanced package and technology integration at Amkor Technology.

To save many iterations of empirically based development, engineers can use physics-based simulations to understand the impact of a material set’s properties impact on the assembly process, power/thermals, and mechanical vibrations.

Consider that HPC chiplet products can consume ~1,000 watts at peak performance so the power and thermal interactions need to be fully understood.

“We’ve struggled, as everybody has, with this blizzard of complexity in the different techniques. Not only do they vary across different vendors, but they’re also varying over time,” said Marc Swinnen, director of product marketing at Ansys. “Our approach has been to identify the essentials that need to be worked on. We work jointly with customers to develop a simulation flow that actually achieves what is needed now.”

Materials are just one piece of the puzzle. “Then there’s the assembly stresses that need to be modeled to know whether you can correctly assemble this device. The third one is mechanical vibration,” Swinnen said. “Can your device withstand those regular vibrations? Modeling these attributes ties directly into our mechanical analysis tools — acoustic, thermal, vibration, etc. In the end, you’re going to have to do physics simulation. We’re trying to make it accessible to people in many different forms. But the bedrock of our tool offerings is that we have the meshing simulation and analysis. It’s a question of getting the data in the right format in a way that’s practical and usable.”

Evolving assembly design kits
For conventional packages, OSATs provide design rules for each packaging technology. These need to consider electrical, mechanical and thermal design requirements and manufacturing process limitations. In effect this is a multi-dimensional bounding box. Suppliers perform iterations with the customer to create a product specific process recipe.

Rules cover the macro-level attributes. “At a minimum, what you see from design rules is maximum package size, maximum silicon size, and whether silicon can be [mounted] on both sides of the substrate, such that when you follow these constructions the final product will have a lifetime of 1,000 thermal cycles, for example,” said Fraunhofer’s Braun.

In addition, design rules need to describe routing constraints for the interposer and/or redistribution layer, such as RDL line widths and spaces, ball-grid/pillar/pad size and pitches, and the maximum number of interconnections.

Breaking up a monolithic HPC device into multiple dies shifts some of the semiconductor design/process complexity into the packaging space. That makes things much more complicated. Consider that to connect 10 dies requires on order of 100,000 traces within the interposer’s or substrate’s redistribution layer.

To cope with the complexity at the chip level, the IC industry has long relied upon process design kits (PDKs) to capture design rules in an electronic file that can be imported into EDA tools. Their counterparts, assembly design kits (ADKs), are relatively immature.

“We call it Smart Package,” said Amkor’s Kelly. “It’s an ADK that we give to every customer who’s doing their own design. It is a set of macros, and a customization of a database tailored to a customer’s particular design. For chiplets, it is a high-density fan-out package technology. And it’s cognizant of the limitations for metal density and metal spacing, etc. This makes it easier for us to do design rule checks (DRCs).”

But right now, with the level of customization still required, how an ADK is derived and what it entails is in flux. Partnerships between EDA tool vendors, OSATs, and semiconductor device providers are required.

“We come from the IC world where everything is very rigid,” said Kenneth Larsen, director of 3D-IC product management in Synopsys‘ EDA Group. “On the OSAT side, and maybe this is because it’s so custom, design rules seem like a data sheet. Then you build and optimize the products over time or in collaboration with the OSAT. It’s not an electronic exchange. In the IC world, this would be totally unheard of. While it is possible to tweak a few things, you have a qualification process. And it seems like that’s not there yet for packaging.”

Materials and associated assembly recipes ultimately drive what’s possible for a chiplet-substrate stack in terms of pillar pitch, RDL line widths and spaces, bonding processes, and chiplet placement tolerances. But within a handful of ADKs, there are many possible interactions to consider.

The current focus is on co-optimizing the system design with the chiplet assembly process, leading to an assembly process development flow (see figure 4). This flow considers the needs of customization of an assembly process, and it creates the necessary design rules to be used by package designers.

Fig. 4: Chip-package hybrid flow. Source: ASE

“First you need to define your structure using chiplets. Are you using substrate RDL, 2.5D RDL, or a bridge? After that you need to consider your structure’s materials. What kind of material do you choose to fulfill your electrical performance and the mechanical stress requirements,” said Cao. “After that, you do pre-analysis to ensure all the structures and materials you use are workable in terms of electrical, warpage and mechanical stress.”

The design planning flow also includes the evaluation of die-to-die interconnects through the documents for co-design sign-off.

Conclusion
Before chiplet-based designs can be enabled outside the IDM model, the industry needs to complete the ecosystem that bridges the manufacturing and design complexity. This is because the need to co-optimize the system architecture based on materials, process, and integration capabilities is essential. While this would be easier with a set of well-defined products for the chiplet ecosystem to drive forward on, that has not happened yet.

Engineering teams across the design and manufacturing stack will need to collaborate to choose the appropriate materials, architectures, processes, etc., to develop a final chiplet-based product that is designable. As ASE group’s Cao noted, “An integrated design and manufacturing ecosystem is important. It is very critical to have collaboration among IDM, vendors, materials suppliers. Everyone needs to work together to really enable integration for the real applications.”

Related stories
Fan-Out Packaging Gets Competitive
Manufacturability reaches sufficient level to compete with flip-chip BGA and 2.5D.

Inside Panel-Level Fan-Out Technology
Fraunhofer’s panel experts dig into why this approach is needed and where the challenges are to making it work.

Next Steps For Panel-Level Packaging
Where it’s working, and what challenges remain for even broader adoption.

Mini-Consortia Forming Around Chiplets
Commercial chiplet marketplaces are still on the distant horizon, but companies are getting an early start with more limited partnerships.

What Can Go Wrong In Heterogeneous Integration
Workflows and tools are disconnected, mechanical stress is ill-defined, and complete co-planarity is nearly impossible. But there are solutions on the horizon.

Mechanical Challenges Rise With Heterogeneous Integration
But gaps in tools make it difficult to address warpage, structural issues, and new materials in multi-die/multi-chiplet designs.

The post What Works Best For Chiplets appeared first on Semiconductor Engineering.

Intel this week made a strong case for how it will regain global process technology leadership, unfurling an aggressive technology and business roadmap that includes everything from several more process node shrinks that ultimately could scale into the single-digit angstrom range to a broad shift in how it approaches the market. Both will be essential for processing the huge amount of data for AI everywhere, and to win back some of the market share that NVIDIA currently wields.

Intel’s strategy is many layers thick. It includes a long list of innovations, including backside power delivery, which significantly reduces congestion and noise in more than a dozen metal layers, to 2.5D and 3D-ICs using a standard architecture for internally developed and third-party chiplets and IP. And it encompasses everything from a broad and open ecosystem — a sharp departure from its past own-it-all strategy, which once prompted anti-competitive charges — as well as a willingness to work more closely with customers, competitors, and governments to achieve its goals.

Whether Intel delivers on that promise remains to be seen. But the breadth of its vision, particularly for Intel Foundry, and the ambitious delivery schedule represent a sharp change in direction and culture for the 56-year-old chipmaker.

Of particular note is how the companies internal silos are being deconstructed. Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger said there will be a clean line between Intel products and Intel Foundry, but noted the foundry will be offer Intel developments and innovations developed by the product teams. “The à la carte menu is wide open for the industry,” he said during a Q&A session. “Clearwater Forest, which I showed today, is a construct that was innovated by my Xeon team — how to do hybrid bonding, Intel three base dies, 18A top die, being able to solve a lot of the CoWoS/Foveros problems using EMIB and hybrid bonding. That will become a set of collaterals that will benefit the foundry. They’re going to sell that constructional opportunity as a better way to build AI chips. So clearly, I’m taking product group intellectual property and leveraging it on the foundry side.”

This may sound like business as usual for a foundry, but Intel for years waffled over its commitment to a foundry model. In fact, it was viewed as an IDM that only began selling wafers to customers as the cost of maintaining its own fab began to skyrocket out of country. Creating separation between the two is a fundamental shift, and it’s an essential one for building trust in a complex world of sometimes partners, sometimes competitors. In the past, the company closely guarded its IP, confining that to its own processors rather than unbundling it and selling it to potential competitors. With this new division, Intel potentially can generate profits both from customized chips that leverage technologies it develops internally for other applications, as well as its own chip business.

Gelsinger is adamant about this being a leading-edge technology company, not a supplier of all components required in systems. “I’m not going to solve 200mm supply chain issues,” he said. “And, by the way, there are not going to be more 200mm factories built, for the most part, outside of specialty like SiC. There are some crazy discussions, like when some Europeans say, ‘I don’t need a leading-edge factory in Europe. Give me a 40nm node.’ What a stupid statement. It takes 5 years to build a new 40nm node, which is already 20 years old, and to make it economically viable, we’re going to have to run it 30 more years. Move the designs to more modern nodes as opposed to expecting to build old factories that are already out of date.”

Put in perspective, Intel is basically taking the Apple approach to chipmaking. How it fares against the other two leading-edge foundries isn’t clear at this point. Until 22nm, which was 16/14nm for Samsung and TSMC, Intel was the front runner in process technology. Several nodes later, it was trailing both Samsung and TSMC. The company is on a mission to regain its leadership.

“Great industries have two or three strong players,” said Gelsinger. “TSMC is a great company, and we’re going to build a great foundry, as well. And we’re going to challenge each other to further greatness. They are the best company in terms of customer support, bar none, in the industry, and they do not have a legacy of leadership technologies. They implement technologies with great customer support. We have a deep legacy of leadership technologies across domains that we created…At our innovation conference in September, I showed three companies participating in chiplet standardization — Synopsys, Intel, and TSMC. With our test chips — with our test chips. The world wants chiplets across a range of suppliers. I think we’ll be doing some of that. I think they’re going to be doing some of that. And I want to make sure that our mutual customers have great choice and technology benefits.”

If successful, Intel Foundry may not be the lowest-cost chipmaker, as TSMC founder Morris Chang has intimated. But if it can win back some key customers, and attract a lot of new ones with better performance, higher energy efficiency, and more customization options, that may not matter. What does matter is execution on the roadmap, and the number of companies rallying around Intel appears to indicate that significant changes are afoot, and that the competitive landscape could be a lot more fluid than it was several years ago.

The post Intel, And Others, Inside appeared first on Semiconductor Engineering.