journal article·2022-11

Analysis of Power Delivery Network (PDN) in Bridge-Chips for 2.5-D Heterogeneous Integration

Md Obaidul Hossen, Ankit Kaul, Eriko Nurvitadhi, Mondira Deb Pant, Ravi Gutala, Aravind Dasu, Muhannad S. Bakir

Publisher page

Abstract

In this article, we investigate the impact of power delivery network (PDN) in bridge-chip-based 2.5/3-D heterogeneous integration platforms. The focus of the article is bridge-chip-based central processing unit (CPU)-field-programmable gate array (FPGA) and FPGA-stacked memory integration technologies. While bridge-chip-based interconnect platforms present PDN challenges, depending on the power map, including a PDN in the bridge-chip can help reduce the impact significantly. We perform three case studies: 1) inclusion of ground network in the bridge-chip; 2) inclusion of power and ground network in the bridge-chip; and 3) inclusion of metal-insulator-metal (MIM) decoupling capacitors in the bridge-chip. Inclusion of both power and ground network can reduce DC IR drop by ~20% for a CPU-FPGA integration case study and by ~40% for an FPGA-stacked memory configuration. Our $L (di/dt)$ noise analysis shows that if we include decoupling capacitors in the bridge-chip, we can significantly reduce the high-frequency ripple in the power supply. We also perform a design space exploration for power delivery with the following parameters: 1) resistance of the PDN in the bridge-chip; 2) decoupling capacitor density in the bridge-chip; and 3) overlap region between a bridge-chip and active dice.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: 3D IC and TSV technologies · Electromagnetic Compatibility and Noise Suppression · Low-power high-performance VLSI design

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

Affiliations

School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

Intel Corporation, Santa Clara, CA, USA

Funding

Intel Corporation

References (33)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1109/JSSC.2014.235743210.1109/JSSC.2014.2357432 ↗
2. 2020
3. 10.1145/3156685.309225610.1145/3156685.3092256 ↗
4. 10.1109/HOTI.2010.2410.1109/HOTI.2010.24 ↗
5. 10.1109/ECTC.2016.20110.1109/ECTC.2016.201 ↗
6. 10.1109/ECTC.2018.0006310.1109/ECTC.2018.00063 ↗
7. 10.1109/LED.2016.264350210.1109/LED.2016.2643502 ↗
8. 2020
9. 2020
10. 2020
11. 10.1145/3297663.331030510.1145/3297663.3310305 ↗
12. 10.1109/LED.2017.277981310.1109/LED.2017.2779813 ↗
13. 10.1109/TCPMT.2017.265738210.1109/TCPMT.2017.2657382 ↗
14. 10.1109/ECTC.2016.6510.1109/ECTC.2016.65 ↗
15. 10.1109/ISSCC.2017.787025710.1109/ISSCC.2017.7870257 ↗
16. 10.1109/MM.2017.3710.1109/MM.2017.37 ↗
17. Heterogeneous system coherence for integrated cpu-gpu systems
18. 10.1109/ISCA.2014.685319510.1109/ISCA.2014.6853195 ↗
19. 2020
20. 2020
21. 10.1109/ECTC.2018.0023010.1109/ECTC.2018.00230 ↗
22. 10.1109/DATE.2007.36466310.1109/DATE.2007.364663 ↗
23. 2020
24. 10.1109/TCPMT.2019.293156810.1109/TCPMT.2019.2931568 ↗
25. 10.1109/EPEPS.2018.853428810.1109/EPEPS.2018.8534288 ↗
26. 10.1109/TED.2019.295430110.1109/TED.2019.2954301 ↗
27. 10.1109/ECTC32696.2021.0003410.1109/ECTC32696.2021.00034 ↗
28. 10.1109/EPEPS.2018.853426010.1109/EPEPS.2018.8534260 ↗
29. 10.1109/DAC.1999.78211810.1109/DAC.1999.782118 ↗
30. 10.1109/ISEMC.2012.635178910.1109/ISEMC.2012.6351789 ↗
31. 10.1109/ISSCC.2017.787045210.1109/ISSCC.2017.7870452 ↗
32. 10.1109/JSSC.2018.288886610.1109/JSSC.2018.2888866 ↗
33. 10.1109/IMW.2017.793908410.1109/IMW.2017.7939084 ↗