Journal of Electronic Testing

, Volume 5, Issue 2–3, pp 207–218 | Cite as

Multichip systems trade-off analysis tool

  • Peter A. Sandborn
  • Rajarshi Ghosh
  • Ken Drake
  • Magdy Abadir
  • Linda Bal
  • Ashish Parikh


This article discusses the conceptual/specification phase of multichip system design. The automation of conceptual design practices will decrease design and manufacturing risks by allowing system designers to view the entire performance design space early in the design cycle prior to the initiation of traditional physical design activities.

This article describes a software tool that performs interdisciplinary trade-off analysis and partitioning for multichip systems including multichip modules (MCMs) and traditional assembly approaches. The tool concurrently computes physical, electrical, thermal, reliability, testability, and cost performance metrics for multichip systems. This tool allows a large fraction of possible design, technology, material, test, and manufacturing approaches to be explored before decisions are made and resources committed.

An example set of trade-off results are presented which examine the trade-off between peripheral I/O format die and area array I/O format die in an MCM, as a function of partitioning a fixed functionality into a variable number of die.


Conceptual design flip chip bonding multichip module (MCM) packaging and interconnect trade-off analysis 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    C. A. Neugebauer and R. O. Carlson, “Comparison of Wafer Scale Integration with VLSI Packaging Approaches,”IEEE Transactions on Components, Hybrids, and Manufacturing Technology, CHMT-10, pp. 184–189, June 1987.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    V.K. Nagesh, D. Miller, and L. Moresco, “A Comparative Study of Interconnect Technologies,”Proc. Ninth Annual International Electronics Packaging Symposium, pp. 433–443, Sept. 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D.D. Gajski and R.H. Kuhn, “Guest Editors' Introduction: New VLSI Tools,”Computer, 16, pp. 11–14, Dec. 1983.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    W.P. Birmingham, A.P. Gupta, and D.P. Siewiorek,Automating the Design of Computer Systems, The MICON Project, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Boston, MA, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A.M. Dewey and S.W. Director,Principles of VLSI System Planning: A Framework of Conceptual Design, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. Bortolazzi and K.D. Mueller-Glaser, “Towards Computer Aided Specification of Analog Components,”Proc. IEEE Custom Integrated Circuits Conference, pp.10.7.1–10.7.4, May 1990.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P. Edmond, A.P. Gupta, D.P. Siewiorek, and A.A. Brennan, “ASSURE: Automated Design for Dependability,”Proc. of the 27th Design Automation Conference, pp. 555–560, June 1990.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D.L. Helbert, “The Integrated Product Engineering Expert System (IPEX) a Design/Producibility Advisor,”Proc. of NEPCON-West, pp. 157–163, Feb. 1992.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    P.A. Sandborn and H. Hashemi, “A Design Advisor and Model Building Tool for the Analysis of Switching Noise is Multichip Modules,”Proc. International Symposium on Microelectronics (ISHM), pp. 652–657, Oct. 1990.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J.P. Krusius, “System Interconnection of High Density Multichip Modules,”Proc. International Conference on Advances in Interconnects and Packaging, SPIE vol. 1390, pp. 261–270, Nov. 1990.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    P.A. Sandborn, “A Software Tool for Technology Trade-off Evaluation in Multichip Packaging,”Proc. Eleventh International Electronics Manufacturing Technology Symposium, pp. 337–341, Sept. 1991.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    P.A. Sandborn, “Technology Application trade-off Studies in Multichip Systems,”Proc. 1st International Conference on Multichip Modules, pp. 150–158, April 1992.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P.A. Sandborn, H. Hashemi, and L. Bal, “Design of MCMs for Insertion into Standard Surface Mount Packages,”Proc. NEPCON-West, pp. 651–660, Feb. 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P.A. Sandborn, M. Abadir, and C. Murphy, “A Partitioning Advisor for Studying the Trade-off Between Peripheral and Area Array Bonding of Components in Multichip Modules,”Proc. Fifteenth International Electronics Manufacturing Technology Symposium, pp. 271–276, Oct. 1993.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    H.B. Bakoglu,Circuits, Interconnections, and Packaging for VLSI, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, MA 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D.W. Dobberpuhl, et al., “A 200-MHz 64-b Dual-issue CMOS Microprocessor,”IEEE J. of Solid-State Circuits, vol. 27, pp. 1555–1567, Nov. 1992.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P.H. Dehkordi and D.W. Bouldin, “Design for Packagability: the Impact of Bonding Technology on the Size and Layout of VLSI Dies,”Proc. of the IEEE Multichip Module Conference, Santa Cruz, CA, pp. 153–159, March 1993.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    B.T. Murphy, “Cost-size Optima of Monolithic Integrated Circuits,”Proc. of the IEEE, vol. 52, pp. 1537–1545, Dec. 1964.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    T.W. Williams and N.C. Brown, “Defect Level as a Function of Fault Coverage,”IEEE Trans. on Computers, C-30, pp. 987–988, Dec. 1981.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    M. Abadir, A. Parikh, L. Bal, C. Murphy, and P. Sandborn, “High Level Test Economics Advisor (Hi-TEA),”Journal of Electronic Testing, 5, pp. 195–206, 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter A. Sandborn
    • 1
  • Rajarshi Ghosh
    • 1
  • Ken Drake
    • 1
  • Magdy Abadir
    • 1
  • Linda Bal
    • 1
  • Ashish Parikh
    • 1
  1. 1.Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC)Austin

Personalised recommendations