Paper detail

Thermal Analysis of a 3D Stacked High-Performance Commercial Microprocessor using Face-to-Face Wafer Bonding Technology

3D integration technologies are seeing widespread adoption in the semiconductor industry to offset the limitations and slowdown of two-dimensional scaling. High-density 3D integration techniques such as face-to-face wafer bonding with sub-10 $μ$m pitch can enable new ways of designing SoCs using all 3 dimensions, like folding a microprocessor design across multiple 3D tiers. However, overlapping thermal hotspots can be a challenge in such 3D stacked designs due to a general increase in power density. In this work, we perform a thorough thermal simulation study on sign-off quality physical design implementation of a state-of-the-art, high-performance, out-of-order microprocessor on a 7nm process technology. The physical design of the microprocessor is partitioned and implemented in a 2-tier, 3D stacked configuration with logic blocks and memory instances in separate tiers (logic-over-memory 3D). The thermal simulation model was calibrated to temperature measurement data from a high-performance, CPU-based 2D SoC chip fabricated on the same 7nm process technology. Thermal profiles of different 3D configurations under various workload conditions are simulated and compared. We find that stacking microprocessor designs in 3D without considering thermal implications can result in maximum die temperature up to 12°C higher than their 2D counterparts under the worst-case power-indicative workload. This increase in temperature would reduce the amount of time for which a power-intensive workload can be run before throttling is required. However, logic-over-memory partitioned 3D CPU implementation can mitigate this temperature increase by half, which makes the temperature of the 3D design only 6$^\circ$C higher than the 2D baseline. We conclude that using thermal aware design partitioning and improved cooling techniques can overcome the thermal challenges associated with 3D stacking.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.