By: David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com), February 6, 2015 12:44 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
carop (carop.delete@this.somewhere.org) on February 5, 2015 3:40 pm wrote:
> David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on February 5, 2015 12:45 pm wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I am. I've heard a number of people make the argument that it's better to normalize to Weff,
> > but the reasoning doesn't make sense to me (why not calculate leakage normalized to Weff?).
> > Moreover, most other companies are not disclosing effective width, so it makes things even harder.
> >
>
> With the gate wrapping around the fin, you effectively get higher device width per footprint of the device and
> for a given device footprint (which is typically set by number of metal tracks you allocate to a given standard
> cell and how much space is wasted to isolate devices and plug gate contacts) you get higher drive current.
Yes, we are totally agreed here.
>The
> catch is that the higher Ion comes at the price of higher capacitance which Intel is not quoting.
Well yes, that's how you get better control over the transistor.
> > I don't find this argument particularly compelling, in part because I heard it mostly from
> > companies that aren't disclosing much about their own FinFET process (e.g., TSMC).
> >
>
> I believe it was IBM that suggested active current (Ieff) as a metric of speed in an IEDM paper.
Ieffective is something else. Ieffective is a metric that Intel had quoted numerous times. I cannot quite recall the definition, but I think its
Ieffective = Average of Ion @ Vgs=Vdd and Ion @ Vgs = 1/2 Vdd
It's essentially a measure of how well the transitor performs when not fully on, but in the upper end of the linear region.
> The figure is from the STM FD-SOI N10 paper which was presented at IEDM 2014.
>
> - [13] is Intel@VLSI2012
> - [14] is Intel@IEDM2012
> - [15] is TSMC@IEDM2013
>
> I included the figure for a quick Intel N22 and TSMC N16 device comparison. No, IBM did not normalize
> drive current to footprint in their IEDM 2014 SOI FinFET paper either. Intel seems to be the
> only manufacturer normalizing the drive current of their FinFET devices to footprint. I do not
> want to argue with that, but this is something to bear in mind when benchmarking.
I know that normalizing to effective width is a valid metric, but my point is that I don't understand exactly what it is saying. I know what normalizing to drawn width means.
> At N22, Intel used a fin height of about 35nm and fin pitch of 60nm. At N14, they increased fin height to
> 42nm and dropped fin pitch to 42nm. So the shrink from N22 to N14 increased channel width by 70% but drive
> current by less than 30% (15% nMOS, 41% pMOS). How do you explain this performance difference then?
Well it could be due to stress or other factors that determine performance.
David
> David Kanter (dkanter.delete@this.realworldtech.com) on February 5, 2015 12:45 pm wrote:
> >
> > Yes, I am. I've heard a number of people make the argument that it's better to normalize to Weff,
> > but the reasoning doesn't make sense to me (why not calculate leakage normalized to Weff?).
> > Moreover, most other companies are not disclosing effective width, so it makes things even harder.
> >
>
> With the gate wrapping around the fin, you effectively get higher device width per footprint of the device and
> for a given device footprint (which is typically set by number of metal tracks you allocate to a given standard
> cell and how much space is wasted to isolate devices and plug gate contacts) you get higher drive current.
Yes, we are totally agreed here.
>The
> catch is that the higher Ion comes at the price of higher capacitance which Intel is not quoting.
Well yes, that's how you get better control over the transistor.
> > I don't find this argument particularly compelling, in part because I heard it mostly from
> > companies that aren't disclosing much about their own FinFET process (e.g., TSMC).
> >
>
> I believe it was IBM that suggested active current (Ieff) as a metric of speed in an IEDM paper.
Ieffective is something else. Ieffective is a metric that Intel had quoted numerous times. I cannot quite recall the definition, but I think its
Ieffective = Average of Ion @ Vgs=Vdd and Ion @ Vgs = 1/2 Vdd
It's essentially a measure of how well the transitor performs when not fully on, but in the upper end of the linear region.
> The figure is from the STM FD-SOI N10 paper which was presented at IEDM 2014.
>
> - [13] is Intel@VLSI2012
> - [14] is Intel@IEDM2012
> - [15] is TSMC@IEDM2013
>
> I included the figure for a quick Intel N22 and TSMC N16 device comparison. No, IBM did not normalize
> drive current to footprint in their IEDM 2014 SOI FinFET paper either. Intel seems to be the
> only manufacturer normalizing the drive current of their FinFET devices to footprint. I do not
> want to argue with that, but this is something to bear in mind when benchmarking.
I know that normalizing to effective width is a valid metric, but my point is that I don't understand exactly what it is saying. I know what normalizing to drawn width means.
> At N22, Intel used a fin height of about 35nm and fin pitch of 60nm. At N14, they increased fin height to
> 42nm and dropped fin pitch to 42nm. So the shrink from N22 to N14 increased channel width by 70% but drive
> current by less than 30% (15% nMOS, 41% pMOS). How do you explain this performance difference then?
Well it could be due to stress or other factors that determine performance.
David
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
ARM announces A72 | Maynard Handley | 2015/02/03 11:36 AM |
ARM announces A72 | anon | 2015/02/03 12:53 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Hugo Décharnes | 2015/02/03 01:20 PM |
ARM announces A72 | juanrga | 2015/02/03 04:15 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Wilco | 2015/02/04 12:58 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Eric Bron | 2015/02/04 01:48 AM |
ARM announces A72 | none | 2015/02/04 02:24 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Eric Bron | 2015/02/04 02:42 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/04 07:01 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Anon | 2015/02/04 07:35 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/04 07:58 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Groo | 2015/02/04 09:24 AM |
ARM Marketing, BS up to my ears | David Kanter | 2015/02/04 10:51 AM |
ARM Marketing, BS up to my ears | Maynard Handley | 2015/02/04 01:59 PM |
ARM Marketing, BS up to my ears | David Kanter | 2015/02/04 02:21 PM |
ARM Marketing, BS up to my ears | Groo | 2015/02/04 02:30 PM |
ARM announces A72 | juanrga | 2015/02/04 04:23 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Wilco | 2015/02/04 03:01 PM |
ARM announces A72 | juanrga | 2015/02/04 04:06 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Anon | 2015/02/04 01:28 AM |
ARM announces A72 | juanrga | 2015/02/04 04:31 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Aaron Spink | 2015/02/04 06:49 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Ronald Maas | 2015/02/03 07:23 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Seni | 2015/02/04 12:19 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Maynard Handley | 2015/02/04 10:42 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Seni | 2015/02/04 12:33 PM |
ARM announces A72 | dmcq | 2015/02/04 12:57 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Ronald Maas | 2015/02/04 06:42 PM |
ARM announces A72 | anon | 2015/02/04 05:19 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/04 07:31 AM |
ARM announces A72 | David Kanter | 2015/02/04 10:25 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/04 01:33 PM |
ARM announces A72 | anon | 2015/02/04 10:27 PM |
ARM announces A72 (fixed format) | anon | 2015/02/04 10:29 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/04 11:11 PM |
ARM announces A72 | anon | 2015/02/05 12:02 AM |
ARM announces A72 | anon | 2015/02/04 05:57 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Wilco | 2015/02/03 01:39 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Maynard Handley | 2015/02/03 02:13 PM |
ARM announces A72 | anon | 2015/02/03 02:29 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Wilco | 2015/02/03 02:44 PM |
ARM announces A72 | David Kanter | 2015/02/04 09:56 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Peter Greenhalgh | 2015/02/04 10:56 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Aaron Spink | 2015/02/04 11:59 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Alberto | 2015/02/07 10:22 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/07 10:47 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Alberto | 2015/02/07 12:44 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/07 02:35 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Alberto | 2015/02/08 01:09 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/08 11:05 AM |
ARM announces A72 | David Kanter | 2015/02/08 12:39 AM |
ARM announces A72 | dmcq | 2015/02/08 04:14 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Michael S | 2015/02/08 04:38 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Gabriele Svelto | 2015/02/10 05:11 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Jouni Osmala | 2015/02/10 11:24 AM |
slit vs unified | Michael S | 2015/02/10 01:57 PM |
slit vs unified | dmcq | 2015/02/11 05:44 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Doug S | 2015/02/08 09:00 AM |
ARM announces A72 | Exophase | 2015/02/08 10:57 AM |
ARM announces A72 | dmcq | 2015/02/04 01:10 PM |
ARM announces A72 | David Kanter | 2015/02/04 02:28 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Wilco | 2015/02/04 01:59 PM |
ARM announces A72 | Aaron Spink | 2015/02/04 09:31 PM |
Intel 32nm vs 14 nm | Michael S | 2015/02/05 01:03 AM |
Intel 32nm vs 14 nm | Wilco | 2015/02/05 02:27 AM |
Intel 32nm vs 14 nm | David Kanter | 2015/02/05 09:05 AM |
Intel 32nm vs 14 nm | carop | 2015/02/05 11:12 AM |
Normalize to drawn or effective width? | David Kanter | 2015/02/05 11:45 AM |
Normalize to drawn or effective width? | carop | 2015/02/05 02:40 PM |
Normalize to drawn or effective width? | David Kanter | 2015/02/06 12:44 PM |