Which Direction for EDA - 2D, 3D, or 360?

2d3d360.JPGA hiker comes to a fork in the road and doesn’t know which way to go to reach his destination. Two men are at the fork, one of whom always tells the truth while the other always lies. The hiker doesn’t know which is which. He may ask one of the men only one question to find his way.

Which man does he ask, and what is the question?


There’s been lots of discussion over the last month or 2 about the direction of EDA going forward. And I mean literally, the “direction” of EDA. Many semiconductor industry folks and proponents have been telling us to hold off on that obituary for 2D scaling and Moore’s law. Others have been doing quiet innovation in the technologies needed for 3D die and wafer stacks. And Cadence has recently unveiled its holistic 360 degree vision for EDA that has us developing apps first and silicon last.

I’ll examine each of these orthogonal directions in the next few posts. In this post, I’ll first examine the problem that is forcing us to make these choices.

The Problem

One of the great things about writing this blog is that I know that you all are very knowledgeable about the industry and technology and I don’t need to start with the basics. So I’ll just summarize them here for clarity:

  • Smaller semiconductor process geometries are getting more and more difficult to achieve and are challenging the semiconductor manufacturing equipment, the EDA tools, and even the physics. No doubt there have been and always will be innovations and breakthroughs that will move us forward, but we can no longer see clearly the path to the next 3 or 4 process geometries down the road. Even if you are one of the people who feels there is no end to the road, you’d have to admit that it certainly is getting steeper.
  • The costs to create fabs for these process nodes is increasing drastically, forcing consolidation in the semiconductor manufacturing industry. Some predict there will only be 3 or 4 fabs in a few years. This cost is passed on to the cost of the semiconductor device. Net cost per gate may not be rising, but the cost to ante up with a set of masks at a new node certainly is.
  • From a device physics and circuit design perspective, we are hitting a knee in the curve where lower geometries are not able to deliver on the full speed increases and power reductions achieved at larger nodes without new “tricks” being employed.
  • Despite these challenges, ICs are still growing in complexity and so are the development costs, some say as high as $100M. Many of these ICs are complex SoCs with analog and digital content, multiple processor cores, and several 3rd party IP blocks. Designing analog and digital circuits in the same process technology is not easy. The presence of embedded processors means that software and hardware have intersected and need to be developed harmoniously … no more throwing the hardware over-the-wall to software. And all this 3rd party IP means that our success is increasingly dependent on the quality of work of others that we have never met.
  • FPGAs are eating away at ASIC market share because of all the factors above. The break even quantity between ASIC and FPGA is increasing, which means more of the lower volume applications will choose FPGAs. Nonetheless, these FPGAs are still complex SoCs requiring similar verification methods as ASICs, including concurrent hardware and software development.

There are no doubt many other factors, but these are the critical ones in my mind. So, then, what does all this mean for semiconductor design and EDA?

At the risk of using a metaphor, many feel we are at a “fork-in-the-road”. One path leads straight ahead, continuing the 2D scaling with new process and circuit innovations. Another path leads straight up, moving Moore’s law into the 3D dimension with die stacks in order to cost effectively manage increasing complexity. And one path turns us 180 degrees around, asking us to look at the applications and software stack first and the semiconductor last. Certainly, 3 separate directions.

Which is the best path? Is there another path to move in? Perhaps a combination of these paths?

I’ll try to examine these questions in the next few posts. Next Post: Is 2D Scaling Really Dead or Just Mostly Dead?


Answer to Riddle: Either man should be asked the following question: “If I were to ask you if this is the way I should go, would you say yes?” While asking the question, the hiker should be pointing at either of the directions going from the fork.

harry the ASIC guy

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ... Loading ...

Tags: , , , ,

5 Responses to “Which Direction for EDA - 2D, 3D, or 360?”

  1. Dennis Brophy Says:

    I’ve always liked this riddle! :)

  2. helhak Says:

    The answer to the riddle is not correct. The hiker should ask either of the two gentleman “If I were to ask this gentleman here if this is the way I should go, would he say yes?”. This way he factors in the lie in the response. The hiker should then follow the opposite of the advise.
    I’ll comment on the EDA puzzle after I read the rest of the story :)

  3. harry Says:

    Yeah, that was the answer I had figured out too, but this one works the same if you think it through.

  4. Ry Schwark Says:

    I read your new answer to the riddle as a subtle way of pointing out my answer to the question about which way the industry should go. The answer is yes. Yes to 2d, 3d and application-centric. We should move in each of these directions.

    I don’t think we’ll know the right answer until we do them all, and I suspect like so many other times in technology which is the right answer depends on your particular question, or in this case design problem.

  5. Michał Siwiński Says:

    As long as the hiker ask, it will start a path of decisions. The status quo is the enemy, and the EDA industry has been historically… well, stuck admiring the status quo. Not all customers can continue to differentiate by going to the next node. True, costs are part of it, but the problem is bigger… we, as consumers, in a way don’t care as much about how it runs, but rather what it runs. After all, do you know or really care what processor speed your smart-phone is running at? Probably not, but its applications are a different story…

Leave a Reply