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