Subject: RE: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx
From: "Srinivasan, Balaji" <[email-masked]>
To: "Kau, Derchang" <[email-masked]>
Cc: "Srinivasan, Balaji" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2020 18:31:21 +0000

The correct file.

With die size updated

Rev 1.1 11/18/20

 

From: Srinivasan, Balaji 
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 10:18 AM
To: Kau, Derchang <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

I sent you the wrong file

From: Kau, Derchang <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 10:17 AM
To: Srinivasan, Balaji <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

ATF32 is 133mm2 not 97mm2.   What do I miss?

From: Balaji Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 10:14 AM
To: "Kau, Derchang" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Balaji Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

Ye to add die size and fold the calibration tab into this calculator.

Will do that. To answer dies size question

 

From: Kau, Derchang <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 10:07 AM
To: Srinivasan, Balaji <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

Do I understand correctly, 33.5p SXP (A.k.a. ATF32) is 97mm2

From: Balaji Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 10:00 AM
To: "Kau, Derchang" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Balaji Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

If I understand your question it is about tile logic as percentage of tile area. It becomes smaller at 33.5 as expected ( lv doesn’t scale)

See yellow boxes.

From: Srinivasan, Balaji <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 8:15 AM
To: Kau, Derchang <[email-masked]>
Cc: Srinivasan, Balaji <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

Sorry- let me finish calc up, then I will reply.

 

From: Kau, Derchang <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2020 8:13 AM
To: Srinivasan, Balaji <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

What is your judgement?   Smaller or bigger @ 33.5p?

From: Balaji Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thursday, November 19, 2020 at 8:10 AM
To: "Kau, Derchang" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Balaji Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

No, I have 3dxp building bism, wip

 

From: Kau, Derchang <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 7:49 PM
To: Srinivasan, Balaji <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

Any trouble getting the footprint assessment?

From: Balaji Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 4:52 PM
To: "Kau, Derchang" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Balaji Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

33 5 atf yes, 335 bism in progress, send it tonight.

From: Kau, Derchang <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 12:59 PM
To: Srinivasan, Balaji <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

Don’t want to confuse the tasking….  Do you have footprint dimension analysis on 33.5p?

 

From: Balaji Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 12:41 PM
To: "Kau, Derchang" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Balaji Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

Will do

From: Kau, Derchang <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 10:07 AM
To: Srinivasan, Balaji <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

Also, can you do a pictorial on die size using ‘atf calibration’.  The pictorial will be like google map.   

From die à core +io/peri + scribe

Core à partition matrix

Partition à tile matrix + partial overhead

All with X and Y dimension included

 

From: Balaji Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 9:22 AM
To: "Kau, Derchang" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Balaji Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

Wip afternoon eta

From: Kau, Derchang <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:21 AM
To: Srinivasan, Balaji <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

Thanks.   What about 33.5nm version?

From: Balaji Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 9:18 AM
To: "Kau, Derchang" <[email-masked]>
Cc: Balaji Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Subject: RE: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

 

#1  partition overhead is a fixed offset. (3.2658 + 0.3733) x 32 + 17.21 = 133.67 mm^2

#2 first swag at synergy ratings

#3 using term CMOS limited instead of CUA limited.

 

From: Kau, Derchang <[email-masked]> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:13 AM
To: Srinivasan, Balaji <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx

What is the change?

 

From: Balaji Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 at 8:44 AM
To: "Kau, Derchang" <[email-masked]>, Balaji Srinivasan <[email-masked]>
Subject: 3dxp-vs-bism-footprint-comparison.xlsx