From WikiChip
Editing chiplet
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
This page supports semantic in-text annotations (e.g. "[[Is specified as::World Heritage Site]]") to build structured and queryable content provided by Semantic MediaWiki. For a comprehensive description on how to use annotations or the #ask parser function, please have a look at the getting started, in-text annotation, or inline queries help pages.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
As the industry moves to smaller [[process nodes]], costs for yielding large dies continues to increase. Compared to 250 mm² [[die]] on the [[45 nm process]], the [[16 nm process]] more than doubles the cost/mm² and the [[7 nm process]] nearly double that to 4x the cost per yielded mm². Moving to the [[5 nm]] and even [[3 nm]] nodes, the cost is expected to continue to increase. Fabricating large monolithic dies will becomes increasingly less economical. One solution to easing the economics of manufacturing chips with a large amount of [[transistors]], the industry has started shifting to chiplet-based design whereby a single chip is broken down into multiple smaller chiplets. | As the industry moves to smaller [[process nodes]], costs for yielding large dies continues to increase. Compared to 250 mm² [[die]] on the [[45 nm process]], the [[16 nm process]] more than doubles the cost/mm² and the [[7 nm process]] nearly double that to 4x the cost per yielded mm². Moving to the [[5 nm]] and even [[3 nm]] nodes, the cost is expected to continue to increase. Fabricating large monolithic dies will becomes increasingly less economical. One solution to easing the economics of manufacturing chips with a large amount of [[transistors]], the industry has started shifting to chiplet-based design whereby a single chip is broken down into multiple smaller chiplets. | ||
− | + | Consider a [[D0]] of 0.1 defects per cm². Below is a plot of percent of [[yield]] per wafer for a die of various sizes versus the same die consisting of two, three, and four chiplets. Note that an additional 10% overhead for the cross-die communication has been added to the chiplet-based design. | |
− | Consider a [[D0]] of 0.1 defects per cm². | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | Below is a plot of percent of [[yield]] per wafer for a die of various sizes versus the same die consisting of two, three, and four chiplets. Note that an additional 10% overhead for the cross-die communication has been added to the chiplet-based design. | ||
:[[File:monolithic design vs chiplet yield.png|800px]] | :[[File:monolithic design vs chiplet yield.png|800px]] |