1 / 3

2.5D & 3D Standards : Leading or Lagging ?

2.5D & 3D Standards : Leading or Lagging ?. Riko R DAC 2014 Si2 Panel Discussion Monday , June 2, 2014 3:00 pm San Francisco, CA. Leading or Lagging. There is an ‘optimal’ sequence of evolution Standards after R&D : not to constrain the technology development effort

deborah-powers
Download Presentation

2.5D & 3D Standards : Leading or Lagging ?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2.5D & 3D Standards : Leading or Lagging ? Riko R DAC 2014 Si2 Panel Discussion Monday , June 2, 2014 3:00 pm San Francisco, CA

  2. Leading or Lagging • There is an ‘optimal’ sequence of evolution • Standards after R&D : not to constrain the technology development effort • Infrastructure after Standards : mitigate infrastructure (e.g. EDA tools) development risks • Products after Infrastructure : reduced barrier to implementation • Inputs, Coordination and Feedback: obviously a good thing that flows upstream • So Why the Worry • There are no high volume / high profile 2.5D and/or 3D products (yet) • There is no ‘pull’ for Infrastructure • There is no ‘pull’ for Standards • The standards community (Si2, JEDEC, IEEE, 3DEC, SEMI..) has developed a number of 2.5D & 3D manufacturing and design standards – but is not feeling the love • That is the way it SHOULD be ! • It is bad for us all when lack of infrastructure retards product development • It is bad for us all when infrastructure developers deploy de-facto (closed) standards Inputs & Constraints R&D Standards Infrastructure Product FeedBack

  3. So What, if Anything, is Wrong ? • Diagnoses: The industry suffers from schizophrenia when it comes to 3D and More-than-Moore technology • 1stpersonality: Disillusionment with 2.5D & 3D technologies due to lack of product adoption • Action : Lets cut the investment in R&D • 2nd personality: Belief that 2.5D & 3D technologies will preserve More’s Law in the long term • Action : consensus on need for long term R&D • Symptoms: Paranoia & Paralyses • e.g. we develop a set of 2.5D & 3D standards and then worry that we are too far ahead of the demand … • Prescription : Close the “Gap” in the Industry • Invest in long term R&D for 2.5D & 3D technologies • MtM technology R&D with 5 – 10 year horizon • Materials, processes, models, design tools & methods, architectures …. credible ITRS-like Road Map … suitable set of technology centers … • Who in the Industry is doing this ? • Need a Consortium for collaborative pre competitive R&D focused on More than Moore class of technologies Standards More-than-Moore Technology Development There is not a lack or surplus of Standards There is Lack of pre-standard Development Effort

More Related