2009 itrs emerging research devices working group face to face meeting n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
2009 ITRS Emerging Research Devices Working Group Face-to-Face Meeting PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
2009 ITRS Emerging Research Devices Working Group Face-to-Face Meeting

2009 ITRS Emerging Research Devices Working Group Face-to-Face Meeting

152 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

2009 ITRS Emerging Research Devices Working Group Face-to-Face Meeting

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. 2009 ITRSEmerging Research DevicesWorking GroupFace-to-Face Meeting Jim Hutchby - Facilitating San Francisco Hilton & Towers Hotel Franciscan A Room San Francisco, CA Sunday Dec 14, 2008 8:00 a.m. – 5:30 p.m.

  2. 2009 ITRSEmerging Research DevicesWorking GroupFace-to-Face Meeting U-In Chung & Jim Hutchby - Facilitating COEX InterContinental Hotel Room Moderato I Seoul, Korea Saturday Dec 6, 2008 9:00 – 17:30

  3. Emerging Research Devices Working Group • Atsuhiro Kinoshita Toshiba • Dae-Hong Ko Yonsei U. • Hiroshi Kotaki Sharp • Atsuhiro Kinoshita Toshiba • Atsuhiro Kinoshita Toshiba • Franz Kreupl Qimonda • Nety Krishna AMAT • Zoran Krivokapic AMD • Phil Kuekes HP • Jong-Ho Lee Kyungpook Nation U. • Lou Lome IDA • Hiroshi Mizuta U. Southampton • Murali Muraldihar Freescale • Fumiyuki Nihei NEC • Ferdinand Peper NICT • Yaw Obeng NIST • Dave Roberts Air Products • Kaushal Singh AMAT • Sadas Shankar Intel • Satoshi Sugahara Tokyo Tech • Shin-ichi Takagi U. Tokyo • Ken Uchida Toshiba • Yasuo Wada Toyo U. • Rainer Waser RWTH A • Franz Widdershoven NXP • Jeff Welser NRI/IBM • Philip Wong Stanford U. • Kojiro Yagami Sony • David Yeh SRC/TI • In-Seok Yeo Samsung • In-K Yoo SAIT • Peter Zeitzoff Freescale • Yuegang Zhang LLLab • Victor Zhirnov SRC • Hiroyugi Akinaga AIST • Tetsuya Asai Hokkaido U. • Yuji Awano Fujitsu • George Bourianoff Intel • Michel Brillouet CEA/LETI • Joe Brewer U. Florida • John Carruthers PSU • Ralph Cavin SRC • U-In Chung Samsung • Byung Jin Cho KAIST • Sung WoongChung Hynix • Shamik Das Mitre • Erik DeBenedictis SNL • Simon Deleonibus LETI • Kristin De Meyer IMEC • Michael Frank AMD • Christian Gamrat CEA • Mike Garner Intel • Dan Hammerstrom PSU • Wilfried Haensch IBM • Tsuyoshi Hasegawa NIMS • Shigenori Hayashi Matsushita • Dan Herr SRC • Toshiro Hiramoto U. Tokyo • Matsuo Hidaka ISTEK • Jim Hutchby SRC • Adrian Ionescu ETH • Kohei Itoh Keio U. • Kiyoshi Kawabata Renesas Tech • Seiichiro Kawamura Selete • Rick Kiehl U. Minn • Suhwan Kim Seoul Nation U. • Hyoungjoon Kim Samsung

  4. Emerging Research Devices Working Group Dec. 6th Seoul FxF Meeting Objectives • Meet with Korean ERD Working Group (Morning) • Discuss International Collaboration Processes in 2009 • ERD-Korean WG Inputs • 2007 Chapter Review – any Issues? • 2009 Scope and Content of Chapter • Other topics? • Meet with ERM (Afternoon) • Discuss ERM/ERD Interfaces & Collaboration in 2009 • Review Proposed Materials & Device Topics for 2009 • Discuss III-V and Ge Channel Replacement Materials? • Discuss new Potential Solutions section on “Carbon-based Nanoelectronics” • Devices in ERD-PIDs transition table - any entries limited by materials?

  5. Emerging Research Devices Working Group Dec. 6nd Seoul FxF Meeting – Morning Agenda 9:00 Welcome and Introductions Drs. U-InChung & J. Hutchby 9:15 Organization of Korean ERD & Dr. U-In Chung Proposals from each part 9:20 ERD Logic part Prof. Jong-Ho Lee 9:50 ERD Memory part Dr. In-Seok Yeo 10:20 Break 10:50 ERD Architecture part Prof. Soo-Hwan Kim 11:20 Emerging Research Materials Prof. Dae-Hong Ko 12:00 Lunch

  6. ERD/ERM Working Groups Joint Meeting Dec. 6th Seoul FxF Meeting – Afternoon Agenda • 13:15 Review Arch’ture Approaches & Issues TBA • 13:45 Review Memory Device Issues TBA/V. Zhirnov • 14:30 Review Logic Device Issues G. Bourianoff • 15:15 Break • 15:30 Review/summarize ERM Workshops M. Garner • Workshops • ERM Tables • 16:30 Review Carbon-based Nanoelectronic M. Garner • materials issues • 17:00 Review proposed interaction with ERD M. Garner and • Working Group J. Hutchby • 17:30 Adjourn

  7. Review Feedback on 2007 ERD Chapter Review ERD Chapter Organization for 2009 Leadership Mission and Scope Deliverables, Timeline and Events Chapter page count and page allocation Operating Process and Meetings Technology Entries Inclusion Criteria Broadly inclusive Maturity Metric (current publications) Kick off 2009 ITRS ERD Chapter Preparation Dec. 14th San Francisco FxF Meeting Objectives

  8. Review ERD Chapter Content for 2009 Major Technical Sections Architectures Logic Devices Selected Emerging Technologies Compliment or Extend CMOS Beyond CMOS Potential Solutions Memory Devices Selected Emerging Technologies Selected Potential Solutions Critical Review and Guiding Principle Sections Critical Review Selected Memory Devices Selected Logic Devices Guiding Principles Review ERD Decisions & Action Items for 2009 Kick off 2009 ITRS ERD Chapter Preparation Dec. 14th San Francisco FxF Meeting Objectives

  9. 7:30 Continental Breakfast 8:00 Introductions 8:10 Review meeting objectives and agenda J. Hutchby 8:20 Review ERD Organization for 2009 J. Hutchby Leadership Mission/Charter and Scope Deliverables, Timeline, and Events Chapter Page Count and Page Allocation Operating Process and Meetings 9:00 Review status of ERD J. Hutchby Chapter Status & Organization 2007 ERD Chapter Feedback (12/07) Decisions for 2009 10:00 Break Kick off 2009 ITRS ERD Chapter Preparation Dec. 14th San Francisco FxF Meeting Agenda

  10. 10:15 Review ERD Workshops and Discuss Status of Materials, Devices & Architectures 10:15 Materials M. Garner 11:00 Memory Devices V. Zhirnov 12:15 Lunch (Continue Discussion) 12:45 Logic Devices G. Bourianoff Complement or extend CMOS Beyond CMOS 2:15 Architectures R. Cavin 3:15 Break 3:30 Discuss Critical Review & Guiding Principle Sections 3:30 Critical Review J Hutchby Memory Devices Logic Devices 4:30 Guiding Principles J. Hutchby 5:00 Wrap up, Review Decisions and Actions Required J. Hutchby 5:30 Adjourn Kick off 2009 ITRS ERD Chapter Preparation Dec. 14th San Francisco FxF Meeting Agenda

  11. On behalf of the 2009 ITRS, develop an Emerging Research Devices chapter to -- Critically assess suitability and maturity of novel approaches/technologies for Information Processing technology intended to complement or extend ultimate CMOS Identify the most promising approach(es) to Information Processing technology to be implemented by 2022 To offer substantive input and guidance to – Global research community Relevant government agencies Technology managers Suppliers Mission/Charter of ERD Chapter

  12. Integrated emerging research memory, logic and new architecture technologies enabled by supporting -- Materials and process technologies Modeling and simulation Metrologies Technology Entries will be selected based on level of published research activity, credibility and progress Should show significant maturity in research domain Further adoption limited by research issues Scope of ERD Chapter

  13. Research Devices and Architectures – Published by 2 or more groups in archival literature and peer reviewed conferences, or Published extensively by 1 group in archival literature and peer reviewed conferences Scope of ERD ChapterCriteria for Including Technology Entries

  14. Provides a valuable macro function more efficiently than CMOS Energy restorative process (e.g. gain) Functionally interfaceable with CMOS At or above room temperature operation Minimum energy per functional operation Minimum, scalable cost per function Scope of ERD Chapter Fundamental Requirements for CMOS Extension Information Processing Technologies

  15. Information processing throughput orders of magnitude beyond ultimately scaled CMOS Energy restorative process (e.g. gain) Functionally compatible with CMOS At or above room temperature operation Reduced energy per functional operation Reduced, scalable cost per function Scope of ERD Chapter Fundamental Requirements for Beyond CMOS Information Processing Technology Entries

  16. ERD Function Leader Chapter Chair – North America Hutchby Chapter Co-chair – Europe TBD Chapter Co-chair – Japan ERD Hiramoto Chapter Co-chair – Korea ERD Chung Memory Zhirnov Logic Bourianoff Architecture Cavin Editorial Team Hutchby, Bourianoff, Cavin, Chung, Garner/Herr, Hiramoto, Zhirnov ITRS Liaisons PIDS Ng, Hutchby FEP Herr Modeling & Simulation Shankar Materials Shankar Metrology Herr Design Yeh/Bourianoff More than Moore Brillouet Proposed 2009 ERD Working Group Organization

  17. ERD Chapter due August 21, 2009 Major Tasks and Time Line Outlines for Memory, Logic, Architecture, Mat’l March 18 Technology Requirements Tables April 6 Guiding Principles Section June 1 Draft Text Completed Memory, Logic, Architecture, Material July 6 Functional Organization & Critical Review July 20 Scope, Difficult Challenges, etc. July 27 Chapter Completed August 21 Chapter Frozen Sept. 15 Major Face-to-Face Meetings in 2009 ITRS/ERD Meeting near Brussels, Belgium March 18 ITRS/ERD Meeting at Semicon West (SF, CA) July 12 ITRS/ERD Meeting near Hsinchu, Taiwan Nov. 30 2009 ITRS/ERD Major Deliverables and Timeline

  18. 2008 ERD/ERM Workshops Done Done Done Done Done

  19. Scope (1 page) Difficult Challenges (1) Taxonomy Chart (1) Devices Memory Devices (15) Logic Devices (15) Architectures (8) Critical Assessment (6) Fundamental Guiding Principles (3) Total Pages (50) Draft ERD Chapter Outline DRAFT

  20. Feedback on 2007 ERD Chapter Overall Comments • Increase involvement of international members – strengthen ties between US – EU – Asia. Requires good balance of representing members from these three regions. • Mission of ERD is not clear cut to universities – clearly state the mission in the introduction. • Need more detailed discussion of key messages and issues between ERD and ERM • To what extent and how does ERD/ERM deal with More than Moore? • Need a metric to gauge the potential of each Technology Entry to be disruptive. • Is a Technology Entry being limited by Fundamental Limits or a technologically limited research gap? • ERD needs to maintain a dialog with the Systems Drivers Chapter • Should ERD continue to include a failing Technology Entry?

  21. Feedback on 2007 ERD ChapterEmerging Research Memory Devices • Transfers • Engineered Tunnel Barrier Memory to PIDS and FEP • Keep the Ferroelectric FET Memory Technology in ERD • Include STT RAM as a new entry. Given progress, should we include STT RAM in a new Potential Solution Table for Memory Technologies? • Other comments • Re-combine the capacitive and resistive memory tables • Discuss other materials (in addition to Pt/NiO/Pt) for Fuse/Anti-fuse Memory • Try to elucidate fundamental limits of Memory Devices • Add a new row to memory table to include Storage Capacity • Address Memory Architecture, perhaps in the Architecture Section • Why do all the memory technology entries have for “Best Projected Write Cycles” a value of 3E16 ? • Include scaling projections for all Memory Technology Entries • The Memory Group is preparing a single reference document containing scaling projections and citations

  22. Feedback on 2007 ERD ChapterEmerging Research Logic Devices (1/3) • Transfers proposed • III-V Alternate Channel Materials to PIDS/FEP and • Low Dimensional Materials to PIDS/FEP • Move Molecular Devices to the Transition Table. • Include Band-to-Band Tunneling Device category in Table 1. • Move RTD out of Table 2 to Transition Table • Other comments • The comprehensive review with references is important • Like having two tables to represent the traditional, digital Boolean device applications and the new table to represent new, perhaps analog, applications of emerging research devices. • Include chart entitled “Evolution of Extended CMOS” from Japan ERD • The best demonstrated parameters are obtained from different devices. Is it possible to obtain them simultaneously on one device? We should include a note to this effect. • Define “Switching Speed” and “Circuit Speed”

  23. Feedback on 2007 ERD ChapterEmerging Research Logic Devices (2/3) • Other comments • Discuss “Spin Gain Transistor” and “Spin Torque Transistor” in text. “Single Spin device” is not in the table • Should we constrain Logic Technology by availability of Memory Tech? • Should use term “high mobility/high velocity” instead of “high mobility” • Improve linkages to the Architecture Section and to the System Drivers Chapter. • Increase emphasis on Table 2 while maintaining Table 1. Place a stronger emphasis on non-linear response functions. Think about how to amend Table 1 to differentiate “Beyond CMOS” devices. • Separate Spin FETs from Spin State Devices (Spin transport without charge transport) and evaluate as separate categories. • Divide Table 1 into 2 tables – one for CMOS extension and the other for Beyond CMOS? • Include Spin Wave Bus in Table 1?

  24. Feedback on 2007 ERD ChapterEmerging Research Logic Devices (3/3) • Other comments • Keep SETs in Table 2, Alternative Information Processing Technologies • Change Multiferroic Tunnel Junction Devices to Multiferroic Switching Device and keep in Table 2.

  25. Feedback on 2007 ERD ChapterEmerging Research Architectures • Transfers proposed • Should we continue the “Homogeneous Multicore Section • Other comments • Morphic Architectures might include: Associative Memory Processor; Cellular Nonlinear Networks; and Neuromorphic LSIs for collision avoid. • Should Emerging Memory Architectures be addressed in this Section? • Recommend evaluation of integrating energy sources, storage memory, low-power sensors, and computational engines • Consider using biological concepts for new architectures to obtain high energy efficiency. • Consider integration of biological elements

  26. Feedback on 2007 ERD ChapterCritique Section for Memory &Logic Tech Entries • Comments • Important section to survey technology trend of emerging research devices • Standard Deviation is very helpful • How and why were the Evaluation Criteria chosen? • Need much more discussion of the data. • How can we critically review Architectural approaches? Should we try? • Should we use different colors because our use of red, white and yellow has a different meaning than the use of these colors in other chapters of the ITRS. • We need to sure our Critique Section analysis is consistent with the text for the Technology Entries, e.g., we need to be sure the highs and lows in the Critique are addressed as strengths and research gaps in the text sections.

  27. Feedback on 2007 ERD ChapterScope, Difficult Challenges, Taxonomy & Guiding Principles • Scope: In general the Scope is very good. However, the statement “…, CMOS certainly will provide a platform processing technology for sometime beyond the end of dimensional scaling, exploiting the notion that the ultimately scaled MOSFET is a nearly ideal electronic charge-based device” is a rather strong statement. Is it too strong? Should we say something about the technology “cost” in the Scope? • Difficult Challenges: The Difficult Challenges are very good. • Guiding Principles • The five original Guiding Principles are very good. • The sixth Guiding Principle related to “Architecture” needs clarification as to whether it only applies to “Beyond CMOS” or to both “Beyond CMOS” and CMOS integrated with Beyond CMOS devices?That is do we address: (1) New architectures with conventional devices and/or (2) New architectures with beyond CMOS devices on CMOS infrastructure?.

  28. Decisions for 2009 Chapter • Memory • Include device structural aspects of the new NW PCRAM in ERD with a summary of the materials issues. Include more materials information in ERM on this topic. • Include the Spin Torque Transfer MRAM in ERD/ERM. • Decide whether or not to include the “Magnetic Domain” or “Racetrack Memory” in ERD. We need to focus on mP applications. • We will keep nanomechanical memory in ERD Memory Table. • Move the Ferroelectric Effects Tunneling Barrier Memory from the Electronic Effects Memory category to the Memory Transition Table • Leave “Redox type” memories in the ERD. These are different than ionic cation migration effects memory. • By categorizing using a physics-based system, a given material that exhibits 2 or more effects will be listed in each category.

  29. Decisions for 2009 Chapter • Logic • ERD/ERM recommends carbon-based nanoelectronics to include CNT, graphene for more resources and roadmapping for IRC as part of promising technologies for 5-10 years demonstration horizon • Carbon-based nanoelectronics will be included in the 2009 ERD chapter via a two new Potential Solutions tables – for materials and for device issues. • Seven potential technologies were considered: • Carbon-based Nanoelectronics • Collective spin • Spin torque transfer • Atomic and electrochemical metal • CMOL/FPNI • Single Electron Transistor • NEMS

  30. Comments 9/23/08 • Does this include wires, vias, pkg technology, etc. – no • For emphasis on Carbon-based NE Mike will connect w/ ESH Jim Jewett • ERM Table of Applications & Proposed Structure • What is infrastructure mean? • Equipment issue is important. • Potential Solution Chart • Don’t tie down the time frame too rigidly • Label chart by material or device structure • Label as More Moore and Beyond CMOS • Can we have a memory driver as we have a logic driver? • Entries

  31. Action Items (1/2)

  32. Action Items (2/2)

  33. Critical Review on Critical Assessment F. Nihey (NEC) 1. Changes in Critical Assessment(2007<->2005) 2. Short Comments

  34. ERD - Critical Assessment - Memory Engineered Tunnel Barrier Fuse/Anti-Fuse Nano Mechanical Nano Floating Gate Engineered Tunnel Barrier Electron Injection Ferroelectric FET Insulator Resistance Change Polymer Ionic Molecular 2005 Edition Ferroelectric FET Macromolecular Molecular 2007 Edition

  35. ERD – Critical Assessment - Logic Engineered Tunnel Barrier 1D Structure Channel Replacement Mat. Single Electron Tunneling 1D Structure Resonant Tunneling Single Electron Tunneling Molecular Molecular Ferromagnetic Spin 2005 Edition Ferromagnetic Spin 2007 Edition

  36. Evaluation - Memory 2005 2007 2005 2007 2005 2005 2007 2007

  37. Evaluation – Logic (1/2) 2005 2007 2005 2007 2005 2007

  38. Evaluation – Logic (2/2)

  39. How can be improved? Something missing? Other comments? Suggestions: for each memory candidate, include very short comments (arguments!) on the high-scored and low-scored features: main advantages versus open issues(when possible quantify comments). when applicable, for each memory candidate, short comment about level of concrete demonstration and/or prospects for NV, SRAM, DRAM identify contributors. Critical review: memory

  40. Team: • Jim Hutchby et al, Reviewer: Adrian M. Ionescu • Goals: • assess each Technology Entry (TE) for Memory & Logic • compare/benchmark with/against: • Si CMOS logic • memory technology to displace • provide the ERD community with and funding agencies with ERD WG collective view of the overall (long term) potential of each TE Critical Review: overview

  41. > 20 >16 - 18 >18 - 20 < 16 Critical Review – Memory (1/2) 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1

  42. > 20 >16 - 18 >18 - 20 < 16 Critical Review – Memory (2/2) 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1