Slashdot Mirror


The Secret to Tech's Next Big Breakthroughs? Stacking Chips (wsj.com)

Christopher Mims, writing for the Wall Street Journal: A funny thing is happening to the most basic building blocks of nearly all our devices. Microchips, which are usually thin and flat, are being stacked like pancakes (Editor's note: the link could be paywalled). Chip designers -- now playing with depth, not just length and width -- are discovering a variety of unexpected dividends in performance, power consumption and capabilities. Without this technology, the Apple Watch wouldn't be possible. Nor would the most advanced solid-state memory from Samsung, artificial-intelligence systems from Nvidia and Google, or Sony's crazy-fast next-gen camera. Think of this 3-D stacking as urban planning. Without it, you have sprawl -- microchips spread across circuit boards, getting farther and farther apart as more components are needed. But once you start stacking chips, you get a silicon cityscape, with everything in closer proximity.

The advantage is simple physics: When electrons have to travel long distances through copper wires, it takes more power, produces heat and reduces bandwidth. Stacked chips are more efficient, run cooler and communicate across much shorter interconnections at lightning speed, says Greg Yeric, director of future silicon technology for ARM Research, part of microchip design firm ARM.

15 of 116 comments (clear)

  1. Not really a new idea by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 4, Informative

    This was thought of a long time ago and experimented with, but the real problem with it was heat. You stack silicon on top of silicon, and there's heat build-up, and heat kills. The real 'breakthrough' and 'innovation' is being down to the 10nm scale, and other lower-power options, enabling silicon to run cooler yet at faster speeds.

    1. Re:Not really a new idea by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 5, Informative

      This was thought of a long time ago and experimented with, but the real problem with it was heat.

      No, it wasn't. You can run them at lower power and therefore generate less heat. The issue is that lithographic techniques don't let you get more than a few layers thick before the negative f-theta lenses employed are out of focus. You end up needing nano-positioning stages along the Z-axis, which as a matter of necessity means you need nano-positioning stages along at least 3 corners of a wafer, and along the X/Y (separate from the galvanometers or nanoactuated mirrors behind the negative f-theta lens) in order to keep the wafer aligned in the plane projected by the negative f-theta lens (just forget about doing this stuff with masks without using similarly complex alignment methods on both the wafer and the mask holder.)

      The real 'breakthrough' and 'innovation' is being down to the 10nm scale, and other lower-power options, enabling silicon to run cooler yet at faster speeds.

      No, it isn't. Scaling down allows you to run at lower power for higher frequencies, but you could just as easily reduce the frequency of the chip to spend less power. You end up getting less out of it, but not in terms of FLOPS/Watt - it's just that we focus on the FLOPS aspect more than the Wattage. Scaling along the Z axis has been the issue for a long time, you just can't do it with things in the nanometer range without absurdly complex chip fabrication equipment and effectively building 1 chip at a time (with a lithographic mask you can make hundreds or thousands of ICs at the same time because the Z axis changes relatively little across the X and Y axis, but when you're talking about building a little tower suddenly you have to deal with a host of changes.) To use the building analogy: you can tilt a 1-story building 5, even 15 degrees, and still drop a rock above a room to land on the roof of that room without knowing anything beyond the X and Y coordinate of the room relative to the floorplan - if you try the same thing on the 40th floor of a skyscraper tilted at even 1 degree you aren't going to be anywhere near it, you'll just hit an exterior wall several stories down.

    2. Re:Not really a new idea by religionofpeas · · Score: 4, Informative

      The issue is that lithographic techniques don't let you get more than a few layers thick before the negative f-theta lenses employed are out of focus

      They aren't making 3D chips. They are making regular chips, and then stack the dies directly on top of each other.

    3. Re:Not really a new idea by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 3

      You seem to have misread the comment. The issue in the past has been the actual process of making them in 3D (as opposed to heat, as the person I responded to had suggested.) I never said you couldn't stack a bunch of 2D chips manufactured separately (or in parallel, "separately" meaning "not a monolithic tower.")

    4. Re:Not really a new idea by pz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed. I spent part of my doctoral work trying to understand the heat issues and trying to come up with solutions. Fundamentally, heat extraction is a surface-area process, whereas heat generation is a bulk process. Thus as you start to increase the thickness of the material, the heat, in general, goes up with the volume, or r^3, but the cooling capacity goes up with the surface, or r^2. If you start from an approximately planar structure, for a while, this is OK, but very quickly you run into trouble. The situation does not scale indefinitely without uncontrolled temperature rise.

      One way of mitigating the issue when you are using a cooling fluid is to make the 3D structure porous, and flow the fluid through the device. We did just that. If relying on convection, you can fill the chip carrier with cooling fluid, and make a series of towers instead. We found the thermal latency was too slow for most applications in that case, but there were lots of assumptions that might have been incorrect for a specific situation.

      If you are willing to flow coolant, then the obvious way to make it scale is to create a branched structure, not unlike blood vessels, where there is a central macroscopic pump that circulates the coolant through a network of finer and finer tubes until the heat has been extracted, and then through the inverse network of thicker and thicker tubes until you get back to the pump (and external cooling mechanism). Nature has this sort of arrangement all over the place.

      My conclusion was that fundamentally 3D structures were going to have limited applicability without active cooling unless someone discovered the equivalent of room-temperature superconductivity for phonons (and thus heat) in an electrical semiconductor.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    5. Re:Not really a new idea by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Is it me or has slashdot got more douchebaggy recently?

      The chances are your one line comment is not as smart or insightful as the person who did a Phd in the topic. Everyone already knew about the square-cube law. It's quite clear from his post that the point was to get around it.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    6. Re:Not really a new idea by 14erCleaner · · Score: 2

      The Cray-3 was using 3D chip stacking back in the early 1990's, but it was with low-integration gallium arsenide chips. Even so, the cooling was insane - immersion in a flourocarbon fluid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
  2. Benefits and drawbacks by Baron_Yam · · Score: 2

    Benefits: 3D circuits (with the extra potential complexity that implies), smaller chip for the same complexity (with reduced signal distance and heat generation)

    Drawback: Getting heat out of the chip as only the outer layers will be next to a heat sink. Then again, we're talking 3D here... maybe they'll figure out how to weave a mesh of tiny heat pipes around the circuits.

  3. Urban Crime by sycodon · · Score: 4, Funny

    How long until little bits of data on their Lightcycles start causing trouble?

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    1. Re:Urban Crime by sycodon · · Score: 2

      Got a bit of a runny nose this morning.

      Thanks for asking.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  4. Many issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In my EE grad class in 1998, we discussed chip stacking. Given the 2D manufacturing tech at the time (where chips are designed and manufactured in 2D then cut and seated in a larger housing), the biggest issue was literally how to bridge the 3rd dimension. Any imperfection in the wafer would mean an uneven seat when stacked. You have heat dissipation issues, which means a limitation in clock speed. And the simple act of aligning the layers at nm distances wasn't possible at the time. To get around this, you design a larger contact pad to allow for misalignment. The problem then was what happens when you have large plates in electric fields? That's right, capacitance, which screws up the expected voltage and creates resonance. It would revolutionize the industry, but there are a ton of technical issues to overcome.

    1. Re:Many issues by religionofpeas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's an image:
      http://electronicpackaging.asm...

      As you can see, there's no need for nanometer alignment. Small imperfections aren't a problem either.

  5. looks familiar by Ubi_NL · · Score: 2

    Isn't that the magical breakthrough that made cyberdyne so much money?
    https://i.ytimg.com/vi/DGQlYCFT7d0/maxresdefault.jpg

    --

    If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
  6. Mirror to avoid paywall by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Informative

    https://archive.fo/Af3EZ

    By Christopher Mims
    Nov. 19, 2017 9:00 a.m. ET

    A funny thing is happening to the most basic building blocks of nearly all our devices. Microchips, which are usually thin and flat, are being stacked like pancakes.

    Chip designers-now playing with depth, not just length and width-are discovering a variety of unexpected dividends in performance, power consumption and capabilities.

    Without this technology, the Apple Watch wouldn't be possible. Nor would the most advanced solid-state memory from Samsung, artificial-intelligence systems from Nvidia and Google, or Sony's crazy-fast next-gen camera.

    Think of this 3-D stacking as urban planning. Without it, you have sprawl-microchips spread across circuit boards, getting farther and farther apart as more components are needed. But once you start stacking chips, you get a silicon cityscape, with everything in closer proximity.

    The advantage is simple physics: When electrons have to travel long distances through copper wires, it takes more power, produces heat and reduces bandwidth. Stacked chips are more efficient, run cooler and communicate across much shorter interconnections at lightning speed, says Greg Yeric, director of future silicon technology for ARM Research, part of microchip design firm ARM.

    While the principles that underlie 3-D microchips are straightforward, making them is anything but. First proposed in the 1960s, the technology has sporadically appeared in high-end applications, such as military hardware, Mr. Yeric says.

    But stacked-chip offerings from most major chipmakers-AMD, Intel, Apple, Samsung and Nvidia-plus smaller, specialized companies like Xilinx, have been around only five years or so, says Sinjin Dixon-Warren, an analyst at microchip research firm TechInsights. What changed? Engineers started running out of other ways to squeeze more performance out of microchips.

    Stacked chips are frequently part of a "package" of other scrunched-together chips. In addition to saving space, this lets makers create many different chips-with different manufacturing processes-and then more or less literally glue them all together. The "3-D system in package" approach contrasts with the "system on a chip" approach frequently used in mobile phones, where all the different components of the phone are etched on a single piece of silicon.

    One of the most advanced 3-D chip packages has powered the Apple Watch since its introduction, Mr. Dixon-Warren says. Thirty different chips are hermetically sealed inside a plastic envelope. To save space, memory is stacked on top of the logic circuit, he says. The watch couldn't be so compact without chip stacking.

    But where Apple's chips are stacked only two stories high, Samsung has produced a veritable silicon high-rise. Samsung's V-NAND flash memory, used for storing data in phones, cameras and laptops, has 64 chips placed one atop the other. Samsung just announced that a future version will have 96 layers.

    Nvidia's Volta microprocessors are built for artificial intelligence, with up to eight layers of high-bandwidth memory stacked onto the GPU. Shown, Nvidia chips exhibited at the Computex show in Taipei in May.

    Memory is a natural application for chip-stacking technology, since it solves a problem that has long plagued chip designers: Adding more cores to anything from an iPad to a supercomputer didn't translate to hoped-for speed gains because of the communications lag between logic circuits and the memory they need to do their jobs. Sticking memory right on top of chips allows for many more short connections between the two.

    That's how Nvidia's built-for-AI Volta microprocessors work, says Brian Kelleher, the company's senior vice president of hardware engineering. By stacking up to eight layers of high-bandwidth memory directly on top of the GPU, these chips are breaking records in processing efficiency.

    "We are power-limited," says Mr. Kelleher, referring to the amount of

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
  7. Re:stack'm up.. 1st post :) by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Funny

    From what I can recall, Pringles were the first to stack chips.