Page 87 - System on Package_ Miniaturization of the Entire System
P. 87

Intr oduction to System-on-Chip (SOC)     63


                    the host-side PC-based software used for application development. The SOC verification
                    needs to ensure that these two software components interface and interact with the
                    SOC hardware to provide the desired system functionality.
                    Design for Test
                    Given that the SOC technology roadmap is moving feverishly toward smaller silicon
                    feature sizes, the use of newer physical processing methods involving interconnect
                    materials like copper and low-K dielectric, and the integration and reuse of complex IP
                    and memory from various sources, it is becoming increasingly important to ensure the
                    quality and reliability of the silicon used. At the same time the cost involved in measuring
                    these quality levels needs to also come down to reduce the overall SOC cost. It is
                    important that the right set of vectors are generated and applied to not just ensure the
                    ease of detecting manufacturing defects but also to ensure a reduction in the overall test
                    time. The process of integrating features or logic to enable this is called “design for
                    test.” While the use of built-in self-test (BIST) techniques for memories have been in
                    use, increasingly designers are adopting BIST techniques to test logic as well, so as to
                    achieve higher quality at a lower cost.

                    Technology Scaling
                    Process technology is linearly shrinking at approximately 70 percent per generation.
                    This enables the implemention of a logic function in half the die area compared to the
                    previous technology node, hence lowering the cost.
                       While every advanced process technology node provides the 70 percent linear
                    shrink, the bond pad pitch (for wire-bond packaging) and bump pitch (for flip-chip
                    packaging) have not scaled accordingly. In addition, I/Os and analog components do
                    not shrink as much as the standard logic. These factors need to be taken into consideration
                    when assessing the cost benefit of moving to a new technology node.
                       Every new process node comes with an increased reticle cost and increased
                    fabrication cycle time. The wafer manufacturing cost depends on several factors such as
                    the cost of capital involved in the procurement of steppers and scanners and the cost of
                    the process material and fabrication facilities. Wafer throughput also impacts the
                    manufacturing cost, and this throughput is directly dependent on the number and size
                    of the “steps” printed on the wafer. Typically, a 130-nm mask set can cost around
                    US$750,000, while the 90-nm mask set costs over 1 million U.S. dollars.
                       As indicated in Figure 2.16, technology scaling has resulted in finer geometry sizes,
                    which in turn has caused an increased resistance in both wires and vias. The number of
                    metal layers that are supported in current technology nodes has also increased the
                    cross-coupling capacitance to ground capacitance ratio. Lower device thresholds have


                         800                                                          4.0
                                                                                      3.0
                        Pitch (nm)  600                                               2.0  Aspect ratio
                         400
                                                                                      1.0
                         200
                           0                                                          0.0
                                1997        2001       2006       2009       2012
                    FIGURE 2.16  Interconnect geometry trends. (Source: ICCAD 2000 Tutorial)
   82   83   84   85   86   87   88   89   90   91   92