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.

Chipmakers continue to claw for every spare nanometer to continue scaling down circuits, but a technology involving things that are much bigger—hundreds or thousands of nanometers across—could be just as significant over the next five years.

Called hybrid bonding, that technology stacks two or more chips atop one another in the same package. That allows chipmakers to increase the number of transistors in their processors and memories despite a general slowdown in the shrinking of transistors, which once drove Moore’s Law. At the IEEE Electronic Components and Technology Conference (ECTC) this past May in Denver, research groups from around the world unveiled a variety of hard-fought improvements to the technology, with a few showing results that could lead to a record density of connections between 3D stacked chips: some 7 million links per square millimeter of silicon.

All those connections are needed because of the new nature of progress in semiconductors, Intel’s Yi Shi told engineers at ECTC. Moore’s Law is now governed by a concept called system technology co-optimization, or STCO, whereby a chip’s functions, such as cache memory, input/output, and logic, are fabricated separately using the best manufacturing technology for each. Hybrid bonding and other advanced packaging tech can then be used to assemble these subsystems so that they work every bit as well as a single piece of silicon. But that can happen only when there’s a high density of connections that can shuttle bits between the separate pieces of silicon with little delay or energy consumption.

Out of all the advanced-packaging technologies, hybrid bonding provides the highest density of vertical connections. Consequently, it is the fastest growing segment of the advanced-packaging industry, says Gabriella Pereira, technology and market analyst at Yole Group. The overall market is set to more than triple to US $38 billion by 2029, according to Yole, which projects that hybrid bonding will make up about half the market by then, although today it’s just a small portion.

In hybrid bonding, copper pads are built on the top face of each chip. The copper is surrounded by insulation, usually silicon oxide, and the pads themselves are slightly recessed from the surface of the insulation. After the oxide is chemically modified, the two chips are then pressed together face-to-face, so that the recessed pads on each align. This sandwich is then slowly heated, causing the copper to expand across the gap and fuse, connecting the two chips.

Making Hybrid Bonding Better

1. Hybrid bonding starts with two wafers or a chip and a wafer facing each other. The mating surfaces are covered in oxide insulation and slightly recessed copper pads connected to the chips’ interconnect layers.
2. The wafers are pressed together to form an initial bond between the oxides.
3. The stacked wafers are then heated slowly, strongly linking the oxides and expanding the copper to form an electrical connection.

1. To form more secure bonds, engineers are flattening the last few nanometers of oxide. Even slight bulges or warping can break dense connections.
2. The copper must be recessed from the surface of the oxide just the right amount. Too much and it will fail to form a connection. Too little and it will push the wafers apart. Researchers are working on ways to control the level of copper down to single atomic layers.
3. The initial links between the wafers are weak hydrogen bonds. After annealing, the links are strong covalent bonds [below]. Researchers expect that using different types of surfaces, such as silicon carbonitride, which has more locations to form chemical bonds, will lead to stronger links between the wafers.
4. The final step in hybrid bonding can take hours and require high temperatures. Researchers hope to lower the temperature and shorten the process time.
5. Although the copper from both wafers presses together to form an electrical connection, the metal’s grain boundaries generally do not cross from one side to the other. Researchers are trying to cause large single grains of copper to form across the boundary to improve conductance and stability.

Hybrid bonding can either attach individual chips of one size to a wafer full of chips of a larger size or bond two full wafers of chips of the same size. Thanks in part to its use in camera chips, the latter process is more mature than the former, Pereira says. For example, engineers at the European microelectronics-research institute Imec have created some of the most dense wafer-on-wafer bonds ever, with a bond-to-bond distance (or pitch) of just 400 nanometers. But Imec managed only a 2-micrometer pitch for chip-on-wafer bonding.

The latter is a huge improvement over the advanced 3D chips in production today, which have connections about 9 μm apart. And it’s an even bigger leap over the predecessor technology: “microbumps” of solder, which have pitches in the tens of micrometers.

“With the equipment available, it’s easier to align wafer to wafer than chip to wafer. Most processes for microelectronics are made for [full] wafers,” says Jean-Charles Souriau, scientific leader in integration and packaging at the French research organization CEA Leti. But it’s chip-on-wafer (or die-to-wafer) that’s making a splash in high-end processors such as those from AMD, where the technique is used to assemble compute cores and cache memory in its advanced CPUs and AI accelerators.

In pushing for tighter and tighter pitches for both scenarios, researchers are focused on making surfaces flatter, getting bound wafers to stick together better, and cutting the time and complexity of the whole process. Getting it right could revolutionize how chips are designed.

WoW, Those Are Some Tight Pitches

The recent wafer-on-wafer (WoW) research that achieved the tightest pitches—from 360 nm to 500 nm—involved a lot of effort on one thing: flatness. To bond two wafers together with 100-nm-level accuracy, the whole wafer has to be nearly perfectly flat. If it’s bowed or warped to the slightest degree, whole sections won’t connect.

Flattening wafers is the job of a process called chemical mechanical planarization, or CMP. It’s essential to chipmaking generally, especially for producing the layers of interconnects above the transistors.

“CMP is a key parameter we have to control for hybrid bonding,” says Souriau. The results presented at ECTC show CMP being taken to another level, not just flattening across the wafer but reducing mere nanometers of roundness on the insulation between the copper pads to ensure better connections.

“It’s difficult to say what the limit will be. Things are moving very fast.” —Jean-Charles Souriau, CEA Leti

Other researchers focused on ensuring those flattened parts stick together strongly enough. They did so by experimenting with different surface materials such as silicon carbonitride instead of silicon oxide and by using different schemes to chemically activate the surface. Initially, when wafers or dies are pressed together, they are held in place with relatively weak hydrogen bonds, and the concern is whether everything will stay in place during further processing steps. After attachment, wafers and chips are then heated slowly, in a process called annealing, to form stronger chemical bonds. Just how strong these bonds are—and even how to figure that out—was the subject of much of the research presented at ECTC.

Part of that final bond strength comes from the copper connections. The annealing step expands the copper across the gap to form a conductive bridge. Controlling the size of that gap is key, explains Samsung’s Seung Ho Hahn. Too little expansion, and the copper won’t fuse. Too much, and the wafers will be pushed apart. It’s a matter of nanometers, and Hahn reported research on a new chemical process that he hopes to use to get it just right by etching away the copper a single atomic layer at a time.

The quality of the connection counts, too. The metals in chip interconnects are not a single crystal; instead they’re made up of many grains, crystals oriented in different directions. Even after the copper expands, the metal’s grain boundaries often don’t cross from one side to another. Such a crossing should reduce a connection’s electrical resistance and boost its reliability. Researchers at Tohoku University in Japan reported a new metallurgical scheme that could finally generate large, single grains of copper that cross the boundary. “This is a drastic change,” says Takafumi Fukushima, an associate professor at Tohoku. “We are now analyzing what underlies it.”

Other experiments discussed at ECTC focused on streamlining the bonding process. Several sought to reduce the annealing temperature needed to form bonds—typically around 300 °C—as to minimize any risk of damage to the chips from the prolonged heating. Researchers from Applied Materials presented progress on a method to radically reduce the time needed for annealing—from hours to just 5 minutes.

CoWs That Are Outstanding in the Field

Imec used plasma etching to dice up chips and give them chamfered corners. The technique relieves mechanical stress that could interfere with bonding.Imec

Chip-on-wafer (CoW) hybrid bonding is more useful to makers of advanced CPUs and GPUs at the moment: It allows chipmakers to stack chiplets of different sizes and to test each chip before it’s bound to another, ensuring that they aren’t dooming an expensive CPU with a single flawed part.

But CoW comes with all of the difficulties of WoW and fewer of the options to alleviate them. For example, CMP is designed to flatten wafers, not individual dies. Once dies have been cut from their source wafer and tested, there’s less that can be done to improve their readiness for bonding.

Nevertheless, researchers at Intel reported CoW hybrid bonds with a 3-μm pitch, and, as mentioned, a team at Imec managed 2 μm, largely by making the transferred dies very flat while they were still attached to the wafer and keeping them extra clean throughout the process. Both groups used plasma etching to dice up the dies instead of the usual method, which uses a specialized blade. Unlike a blade, plasma etching doesn’t lead to chipping at the edges, which creates debris that could interfere with connections. It also allowed the Imec group to shape the die, making chamfered corners that relieve mechanical stress that could break connections.

CoW hybrid bonding is going to be critical to the future of high-bandwidth memory (HBM), according to several researchers at ECTC. HBM is a stack of DRAM dies—currently 8 to 12 dies high—atop a control-logic chip. Often placed within the same package as high-end GPUs, HBM is crucial to handling the tsunami of data needed to run large language models like ChatGPT. Today, HBM dies are stacked using microbump technology, so there are tiny balls of solder surrounded by an organic filler between each layer.

But with AI pushing memory demand even higher, DRAM makers want to stack 20 layers or more in HBM chips. The volume that microbumps take up means that these stacks will soon be too tall to fit properly in the package with GPUs. Hybrid bonding would shrink the height of HBMs and also make it easier to remove excess heat from the package, because there would be less thermal resistance between its layers.

“I think it’s possible to make a more-than-20-layer stack using this technology.” —Hyeonmin Lee, Samsung

At ECTC, Samsung engineers showed that hybrid bonding could yield a 16-layer HBM stack. “I think it’s possible to make a more-than-20-layer stack using this technology,” says Hyeonmin Lee, a senior engineer at Samsung. Other new CoW technology could also help bring hybrid bonding to high-bandwidth memory. Researchers at CEA Leti are exploring what’s known as self-alignment technology, says Souriau. That would help ensure good CoW connections using just chemical processes. Some parts of each surface would be made hydrophobic and some hydrophilic, resulting in surfaces that would slide into place automatically.

At ECTC, researchers from Tohoku University and Yamaha Robotics reported work on a similar scheme, using the surface tension of water to align 5-μm pads on experimental DRAM chips with better than 50-nm accuracy.

The Bounds of Hybrid Bonding

Researchers will almost certainly keep reducing the pitch of hybrid-bonding connections. A 200-nm WoW pitch is not just possible but desirable, Han-Jong Chia, a project manager for pathfinding systems at Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. , told engineers at ECTC. Within two years, TSMC plans to introduce a technology called backside power delivery. (Intel plans the same for the end of this year.) That’s a technology that puts the chip’s chunky power-delivery interconnects below the surface of the silicon instead of above it. With those power conduits out of the way, the uppermost levels can connect better to smaller hybrid-bonding bond pads, TSMC researchers calculate. Backside power delivery with 200-nm bond pads would cut down the capacitance of 3D connections so much that a measure of energy efficiency and signal speed would be as much as eight times better than what can be achieved with 400-nm bond pads.

Chip-on-wafer hybrid bonding is more useful than wafer-on-wafer bonding, in that it can place dies of one size onto a wafer of larger dies. However, the density of connections that can be achieved is lower than for wafer-on-wafer bonding.Imec

At some point in the future, if bond pitches narrow even further, Chia suggests, it might become practical to “fold” blocks of circuitry so they are built across two wafers. That way some of what are now long connections within the block might be able to take a vertical shortcut, potentially speeding computations and lowering power consumption.

And hybrid bonding may not be limited to silicon. “Today there is a lot of development in silicon-to-silicon wafers, but we are also looking to do hybrid bonding between gallium nitride and silicon wafers and glass wafers…everything on everything,” says CEA Leti’s Souriau. His organization even presented research on hybrid bonding for quantum-computing chips, which involves aligning and bonding superconducting niobium instead of copper.

“It’s difficult to say what the limit will be,” Souriau says. “Things are moving very fast.”

This article was updated on 11 August 2024.

This article appears in the September 2024 print issue as “The Copper Connection.”