Design-for-Si Initiatives - Process-Design Integration -

1. M Nowak / Riko R March 2007 Design-for-Si Initiatives- Process-Design Integration -

2. Demo at 65 • Deploy at 45 Design–for–Si Initiatives for Post Design-Rule Era • Its the Process-Design Integration, Stupid !!! • Improve product cost-performance by alignment of process and design sweet spots F-1 Yield & Layout Its the DFM Simulators ! F-2 Variability & Corners Its Geometry Aware Timing ! F-3 Physical Design & Cost Its the RDR Opportunity ! F-4 Architecture Design & Cost Its VAM & VSP ! • Demo at 45 • Deploy at ? NOW-ish

3. Value Proposition : Smaller Die with Managed Functional Yield Risk F 1 : Zero Physical DFM Margin Its all about Layout Polishing Start with an Aggressive Library that excludes (most of ) DFM Rule padding Use “DFM ECO” Loop to add the DFM Pad only where it may be necessary. Use the DFM Simulators to identify where are the opportunities

4. F 2 : Zero Electrical DFM Margin Tighten corners to exclude Shape D DFM LPE to account for non-litho systematics Tighten corners to exclude Shape, Thickness, OCV D Its all about Geometry Awareness in the Timing Flow OCV to account for global systematics used in SSTA ECO to correct impact of block level interactions on yield or performance Tighten corners to exclude Thickness & Shape D Value Proposition : Tighter Margins with Managed Parametric Yield Risk

5. Value Proposition : DFM-Correct by Construction Layout F 3 : Correct by Construction Layout [= RDR ??] It (should be) all about manufacturable topographies Establishing Collaborative efforts with select supply chain partners to explore trade-offs • Not a new concept • Rigorous gridded design has been around for a while • Traditionally it cost area vs. more flexible rules • Hence rejected in 65 and 45 (so far) – especially by volume shops • Reason for this (inevitable) conclusion • Comparison based on same set of Design Rules • Comparison based on same Design Methodology • New RDR (Compelling ? ) Drivers • Some say RDR is inevitable – question is when (32 ?) • But then that is what they said about it at 65 and 45 and … • Dual Exposure Demands Design Fragmentation ? • EUV Negates -29% / year Cost / Gate Reduction ? • Strain Variability Management ? • New RDR Proposition (s) • Negate area loss through better yield, or • Tighter lay out rules, or • Better design methodologies

6. Design Process Value Proposition : Optimized Process & Design “Sweet Spot” Alignment F 4 : Holistic Process-Design Co Optimization It (should be) all about manufacturable architectures • Our Strategy : IFM • Fabless entities tend to Have an Intrinsic Disadvantage in this Arena • Less intimate with the process world • Morph the fabless model to address the challenge : Integrated Fabless Manufacturer • Necessary at the bleading edge • Requirement : A Structured Methodology for Co-Optimization Analyses • To steer the design • To steer the process • Two Exploratory Co-Optimization Initiatives • In Parametric Domain : • Performance vs power vs variability • In Area (Cost) Domain : • Area vs Yield vs Design Content ….

7. Product Specific Cost-Benefit Trade Off Analyses F 3 : DFM Junction in the Road ? • Restricted Design Rules = Designability Risks • Must manage via use of pushed rules or custom techniques to negate area loss • ADVANTAGE : better manufacturability and yields, and easy design interface • DISADVANTAGE : Cost Benefits vs Process Maturity • Flexible Design Rules = Manufacturability Risks • Must manage via Use of DFM Rules or DFM Simulators & Models to “Polish” the Layout • ADVANTAGE : Minimum overhead for Area or margin for Performance • DISADVANTAGE : it is complex and carries overhead in the design flow