Monolithic 3D Inc., the Next Generation 3D-IC Company
  • Home
  • Technology
    • Technology
    • Papers, Presentations and Patents
    • Overview >
      • Background
      • Why Monolithic 3D?
      • Paths to Monolithic 3D
      • Applications
    • Ion-Cut: The Building Block
    • Monolithic 3D Logic >
      • RCAT
      • HKMG
      • Laser Annealing
      • RCJLT
      • 3D Embedded RAM
      • 3D Gate Array
      • FPGA
      • Ultra Large Integration - Redundancy and Repair
    • Monolithic 3D Memory >
      • 3D DRAM
      • 3D Resistive Memories
      • 3D Flash
    • Monolithic 3D Electro-Optics >
      • 3D Image Sensors
      • 3D Micro-Displays
  • 3D-IC Edge
    • 3D-IC Edge
  • News & Events
    • News & Events
    • S3S15 Game Change 2.0 Video/P
    • Webcast
    • Webinar
    • Press Releases
    • In the News
    • Upcoming Events
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • History
    • Team
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Blog
  • Simulators

Device Process Variations and Supply Voltage: Two Trains Rolling Towards a Head-On Collision

11/11/2011

1 Comment

 
Picture
We have a guest contribution today from Paul Lim, MonolithIC 3D Inc.'s Principal Device Engineer. Paul is one of the best device simulation people I know, and has spent many years working on that subject. He talks about the case that device threshold voltage variations will become increasingly imposing as we scale down, especially as supply voltage is lowered.

In a previous blog post (Device Variability and Scaling), I gave an introduction to the effects of device variability on device parameters, such as threshold voltage, as we scale down. It was clear that threshold voltage variations become increasingly larger as device dimensions get smaller. At the end of the post, I promised that in a future blog I would present the case that device threshold voltage variations will become increasingly imposing as we scale down, especially as supply voltage is lowered. Well, here it is!

Threshold voltage variations are usually manageable in current digital circuits by sweeping them under the noise margin rug. However, as many of you very well know, shrinking of device dimensions leads to higher overall power consumption and necessitates lowering the supply voltage. Pretty soon, we will run out of rug space to sweep under!

As a review, let’s discuss the two big reasons why we need to scale down the supply voltage as we scale down device dimensions. The first and obvious reason is to ensure the physical integrity of the devices and avoid breakdowns. Smaller devices and thinner oxides simply can’t handle extreme electric fields.

The second reason has to do with power consumption, and there are a few aspects to this. Let us consider a single CMOS gate. For this case, if we ignore the short-circuit dissipation, the dynamic power PD is described by the familiar:
Picture

(1)

where a  is the activity factor of the output node, C is the total capacitance of the output node, V is the supply voltage, and f  is the operating frequency. Clearly, we can’t do very much with a, C, and f  as they either stay flat or even tend to go up with nodal scaling as in the cases of C (e.g. from increasing interconnect capacitance) and f  (the drive for faster chips).  But not only can we do something with the supply voltage V, whatever we do with it is squared!

Static power PS can be summarized as:
Picture

(2)

where IL is the leakage current which consists of the MOSFET sub-threshold current, gate tunneling current, and junction reverse leakage currents. All these current components increase as we scale the devices down and again, we are left with tweaking the supply voltage. So as it appears, the only way we can reduce power dissipation is by reducing the supply voltage.

There are however, also several reasons as to why we can’t keep scaling down the supply voltage. The first is that there are intrinsic material parameters that cannot be changed significantly, much less scaled, which include the bandgap energy and built-in junction potential of Silicon. Furthermore, the scaling potential of the MOSFET threshold voltage is very limited. For example, the sub-threshold leakage current for a device with a threshold voltage of 200mV is way too high and it will be hard to turn the device off. Lastly, the threshold voltage variations due to process fluctuations will force us to actually RAISE the threshold voltage to avoid having some small percentage of devices that don’t turn off.

Let us look again at the chart (Figure 1) from my previous blog post showing the trends of the supply voltage and the range of threshold voltage variations versus gate length.
Picture
Figure 1. Range of threshold voltage variations, and supply voltage, vs. gate length, showing the increasing ratio of threshold voltage range and supply voltage as devices scale down

Figure 1 from Device Variability and Scaling

At the gate length node of 16nm, we can see that we need to raise the threshold voltage above 400mV just to accommodate the range of the threshold voltage variations, approaching the predicted 800mV supply voltage for that node. I can’t even imagine how difficult it would be beyond the 16nm node! At nodes further than 16nm, developing a manufacturing process that can handle the process variations AND maintain good yield will be prohibitively expensive. It seems that the only choices we have are either to switch to different materials (e.g. Germanium, III-V’s) or slow down scaling and go up (e.g. monolithic 3D).
1 Comment
george storm
11/10/2011 08:35:11 pm

Of course the trend is not generally disputed - albeit some parameters have reducing effect as the gate becomes thinner (trapped charge, for example). So the important parameters are built-in potential due to gate granularity (eventually move to mono-crystalline metal gate?), and variations in gate insulator thickness (ALD can take us only so far...)

You also mention different material (Ge, III-V etc.) I'm unclear how Germanium in particular would help with this problem. The ultimate limiting issue of subthreshold slope depends only on the temperature, and isn't breakdown in Germanium more of a problem than in silicon?
I'm not clear what happens to the breakdown in Silicon when the bandgap is modified by the closeness of edge interfaces, but this might help in the medium term.
Similarly, I didnt understand how/why larger gate area of the finfet and related structures would degrade VT variability. Naively, the increased diversity would be helpful.
Eventually, of course we will run out of headroom (not necessarily Voltage, however) to reduce geometries - but I suspect that physics and human ingenuity will allow us a few more generations.

In the mean-time, interconnect continues to limit speed, and 3D monolithic integration will certainly help with this. Similarly, as high-resolution mask costs grow faster than the number of devices supported, 3D should also help with front-end costs.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Search Blog


    Meet the Bloggers


    Follow us


    To get email updates subscribe here:


    Recommended Links

    3D IC Community
    3D IC LinkedIn Discussion Group

    Recommended Blogs

    • 3D InCites by Francoise von Trapp
    • EDA360 Insider by Steve Leibson
    • Insights From the Leading Edge by Phil Garrou
    • SemiWiki by Daniel Nenni, Paul Mc Lellan, et al.

    Archives

    March 2022
    December 2021
    August 2021
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    December 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    August 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011

    Categories

    All
    3d Design And Cad
    3dic
    3d Ic
    3d Nand
    3d Stacking
    3d Technology
    Brian Cronquist
    Dean Stevens
    Deepak Sekar
    Dram
    Education
    Heat Removal And Power Delivery
    Industry News
    Israel Beinglass
    Iulia Morariu
    Iulia Tomut
    Monolithic3d
    Monolithic 3d
    MonolithIC 3D Inc.
    Monolithic 3d Inc.
    Monolithic 3d Technology
    Moore Law
    Outsourcing
    Paul Lim
    Repair
    Sandisk
    Semiconductor
    Semiconductor Business
    Tsv
    Zeev Wurman
    Zvi Or Bach
    Zvi Or-Bach

    RSS Feed

© Copyright MonolithIC 3D Inc. , the Next-Generation 3D-IC Company, 2012 - All Rights Reserved, Patents Pending