Get email delivery of the Cadence blog featured here
Parasitic extraction is a critical piece in design signoff. It translates geometry information such as wires and shapes into electrical properties such as Rs and Cs. Together with analysis technologies including simulation, timing, and EM/IR tools, parasitic extraction provides assurance that your design is ready to move ahead to production. Yet, advanced nodes bring new parasitic extraction challenges stemming from technologies and techniques such as FinFETs, stacked die, and multiple patterning, as well as from systematic and random variations. Smaller processes also add complexity to layout styles. There are simply more layers to consider and also more co-planar layers (like in FinFETs) that need to be modeled differently from an extraction standpoint. Simulation is affected, too, as characterizing FinFET SPICE models, for instance, is much more complicated than characterizing traditional SPICE models.
In the face of these challenges, 2.5D pattern matching technologies are increasingly demonstrating a lack of accuracy that’s needed at smaller processes. 2.5D tools pre-characterize small building blocks offline; at runtime, they perform matching with the small building blocks. While the building blocks are accurate, the real layout is not an exact match, so modeling needs to be done. Essentially, translating the real layout into a combination of small building blocks presents a performance gain, but accuracy takes a hit. However, this is the only way to make the tool run for large chips. So in the end, designers using 2.5D tools are forced to trade off between accuracy and performance, and have to make unnecessary compromises.
Can you really afford to leave performance on the table?
Market pressures continue to push more organizations to ramp up on advanced nodes as quickly as possible. To generate the original spec, foundries initially examine circuit performance with each new process. As the critical link to translate shape and geometry information to electrical conductivity characteristics like capacitance and resistance, extraction gets impacted immediately, as processing challenges on the foundry side translate into modeling challenges on the extraction side.
3D field solvers are more accurate than 2.5D tools but run more slowly. And the point of moving to advanced nodes is to design chips that run faster. But the same margin 1% loss on mature nodes could be a 10% loss at advanced nodes. If you don’t want to bear this level of loss, you might choose to run a field solver, sacrificing the turnaround time for greater accuracy.
Here are a few key designs where the performance sacrifice that comes with using 2.5D pattern-matching tools is proving to be detrimental:
As shown in the figure below, the 2.5D and 3D parasitic extraction tools market currently consists of:
Clearly, what’s needed is a 3D parasitic extraction tool that provides the high accuracy, high performance, and high capacity needed at advanced nodes. The market is more than ready for the next generation of 3D field solvers.
P.S. Thank you for reading The Design Chronicles blog! This is my last post here. I hope you've found the topics interesting and, if you haven't already, I encourage you to subscribe to all of our blogs from the subscription field on the far right of the main Cadence blogs page. You'll find informative tips and tricks, insightful news about the industry, and much more from the Cadence community.