journal article·2019-09

Power Delivery Network Modeling and Benchmarking for Emerging Heterogeneous Integration Technologies

Yang Zhang, Md Obaidul Hossen, Muhannad S. Bakir

Publisher page

Abstract

In this article, a power delivery network (PDN) modeling framework for heterogeneous integration platforms is presented, which includes both IR-drop and transient analysis. The model is validated using IBM power grid benchmarks, and maximum relative errors are less than 7.3%. To evaluate interposer and bridge-chip-based integration platforms, we assume a field-programmable gate array (FPGA)-CPU 2.5-D integration platform, of which the FPGA consumes 45 W and the CPU consumes 75 W. The simulation results show that an interposer with dense power/ground grid and microbumps can suppress power supply noise (PSN) by a small margin with the requirement of high-density through-silicon vias (TSVs). For bridge-chip-based integration, under the assumption that the active dice above the bridge-chips are not connected to the package power/ground planes, some PDN challenges are evaluated. Using multiple bridge-chips and smaller overlap areas between the bridge-chips and the active dice, the worst-case PSN in bridge-chip-based integration is minimized. Next, we perform parametric studies for these 2.5-D integration platforms as a function of C4 bump pitch and metal layers. Lastly, we propose to use TSVs in the bridgechip to reduce PSN. With nine bundled TSVs of 8 μm diameter, the IR-drop of bridge-chip-based integration technologies is only 1% higher than the standalone case.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: 3D IC and TSV technologies · Electromagnetic Compatibility and Noise Suppression · Electronic Packaging and Soldering Technologies

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (27)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1109/TED.2016.252136210.1109/TED.2016.2521362 ↗
2. 10.1109/TED.2015.239691410.1109/TED.2015.2396914 ↗
3. 10.1109/TCPMT.2013.228640310.1109/TCPMT.2013.2286403 ↗
4. 10.1109/JSSC.2014.235743210.1109/JSSC.2014.2357432 ↗
5. 10.1109/3DIC.2009.530653910.1109/3DIC.2009.5306539 ↗
6. A novel fan-out concept for ultra-high chip-to-chip interconnect density with 20- $\mu\text{m}$ pitch
7. 10.1109/ECTC.2016.20110.1109/ECTC.2016.201 ↗
8. 10.1109/LED.2016.264350210.1109/LED.2016.2643502 ↗
9. 10.1109/3DIC.2014.715218010.1109/3DIC.2014.7152180 ↗
10. 10.1109/ECTC.2015.715967310.1109/ECTC.2015.7159673 ↗
11. 10.1109/TCPMT.2017.265738210.1109/TCPMT.2017.2657382 ↗
12. Leveraging HyperFlex Architecture in Stratix 10 Devices to Achieve Maximum Power Reduction · 2019
13. 10.1145/3156685.309225610.1145/3156685.3092256 ↗
14. 10.1109/DATE.2007.36466310.1109/DATE.2007.364663 ↗
15. Predictive Technology Model · 2019
16. 10.1109/ISCA.2014.685319910.1109/ISCA.2014.6853199 ↗
17. Characterizing and evaluating voltage noise in multi-core near-threshold processors
18. 10.1109/ISCA.2014.685319510.1109/ISCA.2014.6853195 ↗
19. 10.1145/2593069.259316010.1145/2593069.2593160 ↗
20. AMD’s next generation GPU and high bandwidth memory architecture: FURY
21. 10.1109/LED.2017.277981310.1109/LED.2017.2779813 ↗
22. 10.1109/TCAD.2014.235957810.1109/TCAD.2014.2359578 ↗
23. Thermal-power delivery network co-analysis for multi-die integration
24. 10.1109/ISEMC.2016.757162010.1109/ISEMC.2016.7571620 ↗
25. 10.1109/ASPDAC.2008.448397810.1109/ASPDAC.2008.4483978 ↗
26. PowerPlay Early Power Estimators (EPE) and Power Analyzer (Stratix IV and Stratix V) · 2019
27. Enabling Next-Generation Platforms Using Altera’s 3D System-in-Package Technology · 2019