Is it possible to embed 10 or 100 or 1,000 GBytes of RAM inside an ASIC design today?
In general, what would be the maximum I could fit, if cost is not a limitation? Why?
Our need would be for a large number, but could be split into many independent banks if that makes things easier. For example, 1,000 independent banks of 100 MBytes each.
Or another possible partition (again, if it makes things easier) could be a single huge memory with "normal-size" address bus, say of 20 bits, with a huge data bus of 800,000 bits.
...Or a mixture of the idea above with the idea of the independent banks.
Not with your *likely* budget! :> I suspect any fab even thinking about considering your request would push heavily for a hybrid.
Cost is *always* a limitation.
And, cost is *always* a limitation.
Furthermore, cost is *always* a limitation.
You might try researching the available cores on the market currently. And, pricing an equivalent amount of COTS memory (with "whatever" other specifications you haven't mentioned).
Then, ask yourself if you plan on buying in the same sorts of quantities that this COTS memory is currently produced/sold.
If *not*, consider how willing a fab will be to tie up their resources for the quantities *you* want -- as an "exclusive" customer.
Is there some OVERWHELMING REASON why you couldn't locate the store *outside* the ASIC and take advantage of *commodity* memory to give you that capacity? E.g., even if it means you have to think a bit harder on your problem and implement some caching internal/external to the ASIC? ("Think smarter")
An interesting question. Bu the way you put it, if cost is not the limiting factor, what is? Does it have to be currently available? Does it have to fit on a chip of a given size?
If you place no constraints on the problem, you end up with an unconstrained answer.
You can get roughly 4Gb of DRAM on a 40mm**2 die these days. The biggest logic/memory die, reticle limited, you can make, is about
600mm**2 (that can be pushed a bit). So call it somewhere in the 60Gb range (7.5GB) , give or take. At that size you'd better leave a chunk for redundancy though (further reducing capacity), since you defect density will otherwise kill you.
Several option including stacking dies in a package, wafer scale integration, or some other sort of MCM technology (whether that counts depends on your definition of ASIC).
Alternatively, you could pay (if cost is really no object) to develop new steppers and whatnot with bigger reticle limits. Just be sure to bring your eleven figure bank balance.
So you want to put a Hard Drive on a single ASIC, or bank of ASICs?
That much data which has time limits to fill or read the whole lot, in RAM as data that is volatile. Means if that really is the case you dont care if power fails and loss of data; even if the whole system has has all sorts of multiple power sources, there are always situations where power is removed from maintenance to fire in building.
Suggests a tiny market, suggests tiny volumes, so unless you have a govt agency funding design you would never afford it or get it built.
Wonders if you want a disk drive size data why you dont use disk drive methods or methods in parallel and/or caching to solve the issue.
Or simply use hard drive(s) anyway.
--
Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
PC Services
Raspberry Pi Add-ons
Timing Diagram Font
GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
For those web sites you hate
Assuming 64 Gib with current technology mentioned in an other message, using a rectangular organization would be 256 Krows x 256 Kcolumns, thus an 18 bit row address would be needed and 256 K column sense amplifiers/latches effectively creating a 32 KiB cache line, thus eliminating much of the bottleneck caused by having a narrow (64-128 bit) multiplexed external data bus
That is a real issue how to handle cache collisions. While the memory array could be a single plane, after the column amplifiers, there must be multiple cache lines, at least one for code and an other for data, in practice much more.
Since code is more or less sequential, it would benefit from long cache lines, also using very long instruction words would be attractive, each bit could control directly some data path switching.
It is more problematic with data, how do you shuffle in and out huge amount of data. Using 9 KB Ethernet Jumbo frames, it would take more than three frames to fill the cache line. At 10 Gbit/s Ethernet a Jumbo frame takes 7 us or 140 Kframes/s.
So in order to utilize th full capacity of such memory architecture, you would need a lot of external I/O connections. So something like a
32 port 10 Gbit/s ethernet switch might be a possible application.
Indeed. If current fabs and wafer-processing tools are a limit, then with unlimited funds you can build your own fab, make your own tools, and develop your own fancy new 4D transistor geometries, electron-spin-cells, or sub-atomc-size black holes to be used as memory elements.
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! The PILLSBURY DOUGHBOY
at is CRYING for an END to
gmail.com BURT REYNOLDS movies!!
The post's subject puts a huge constraint on approaches like that: It has to happen today.
Don't know where the OP lives, but over here there's under 40 minutes left to do it. So the correct answer will be a lot closer to zero that the numbers I've seen so far. :-)
--
Stef (remove caps, dashes and .invalid from e-mail address to reply by mail)
"Why must you tell me all your secrets when it's hard enough to love
you knowing nothing?"
-- Lloyd Cole and the Commotions
I've survived about a half-dozen ASIC efforts, and you're right: you can't do anything today. Nor can you do anything this month or this quarter. In my experience it's pretty much always to late to do do anything this year.
Next year may or may not be possible...
--
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! Zippy's brain cells
at are straining to bridge
gmail.com synapses ...
Ok then. I'll change my answer. It's not possible to fit any amount of RAM on an ASIC today. ASIC design cycles take more than one day.
The point is, and others have made it in their replies, schedule and cost are ALWAYS driving factors in any design, not just ASICs. To minimize the role of schedule and cost is not productive in a discussion.
Um.... no. Technically, an FPGA qualifies as an ASIC. So, you could design and produce a functioning "ASIC" in a single 24 hr period (assuming you had the tools and components in place before you started).
Exactly. With infinite money and infinite time you can do "anything". Unfortunately, most of us mere mortals have *neither* -- so have to
*engineer* solutions that try to find some "sweet spot"...
If I gave you a piece of plastic that performed a specific function when you twiddled certain pins in a certain way would you agree it was an ASIC? It's obviously an IC. It performs a specific function defined by its intended application.
If you deencapsulated it and found a full custom mask with my initials in the lower left corner, would you be satisfied?
If, instead, you found a generic SoC with a *masked* ROM would your opinion change?
What if it was a generic SoC with a FLASH store? Or, EPROM?
What if it was BBSRAM?
As far as you are concerned, the functionality is rigidly defined when I put the device into your hands.
What if the SoC was, instead, a sea of gates and the "programming" was masked? What about, *electrically* configured?
Ages ago, we used MPU's (not MCU's!) with external *masked* ROM. Long lead times. High setup charges. Big minimum quantities. Dirt cheap once you got over all that up-front stuff! But,
*really* hard to change!! (there were chips produced whose sole purpose was to "patch ROMs" -- piggy back it onto your circuit so it would jam *it's* data onto the bus in place of the masked ROM's... at particular addresses!)
Then, EPROM! Program it on your premises. No long lead times. No minimum quantities. No setup charges. Terribly expensive ($25/KB). Not well suited to large volumes. But, if you wanted to change your mind often (e.g., development), perfect choice!
Hmmm... folks really like this convenience! And, higher volumes, competition, fab improvements are bringing the cost *way* down! Unfortunately, the ceramic package is a huge cost penalty.
"Hey, many folks are using these in PRODUCTION, now! They don't need to erase/reprogram them. Why have a window at all?" Hence came the OTP parts. And, if you were really clever, you could actually *reprogram* these!
[Early in the OTP adoption, we were getting "masked" parts that were actually OTP's that the manufacturer was programming for us -- cheaper than running a new batch of a particular mask set]
Repeat with FLASH, etc.
[We used to make *instantly* reprogrammable "ROMs" -- no need to erase and reprogram as that took a lot of development time -- out of static RAMs with batteries glued to their backsides along with some glue logic]
I.e., these are all just cost/manufacturing tradeoffs made by the customer -- OR BY THE VENDOR.
PLAs have taken the same sort of approach. Moving from fusible links (PALs), to EPROM cells, masked metalization layers (sea-of-gates and STL), etc. The fixed AND-OR arrays of early devices moving to more complex macrocells, then generic sea-of-gates and, now, back towards more "predefined subsystems" interconnected on chip. (i.e., very few designs nowadays are more than SSI+MSI+LSI on the same die -- but with configurable interconnects)
But, how the interconnects are made is really just a manufacturing economy. Do you trade off general purpose routing capability for functional gate real estate, etc.? Wanna bet the cost point keeps shifting as geometries shrink and yields improve -- and customers shift to "OTP-ish" implementations instead of full custom?
Once is programmed, it's functionality is defined. Specific. If the OP's "RAM requirements" were more modest, he could give those to someone and receive his ASIC a few hours later -- guaranteed to perform the application specific functionality desired AND NOTHING MORE (though the "ASIC" would strongly resemble an FPGA! :> )
Do you only consider "full customs" as ASICs? And, of those, do designs built from standard cells rate a different/lesser designation?
YMMV, of course. Until the day you crack open a "full custom" and find some *programmable* part hiding inside :>
Likewise, even my customers who make ASICs would not consider PLD or FPGA or PLA being an ASIC, or for that matter any MCU with configurable I/O.
Then again they tend to do a lot of mixed/signal work and a lot with mixed/signal Cell ASICs.
A custom Mask ROM is easier to do than even a metallisation layer custom ASIC.
Mind you these days there are some interesting barriers to making ASICs these days in less than 500k unit runs, especially small or older packages (like QFP or SOIC) for small pin count devices.
--
Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
PC Services
Raspberry Pi Add-ons
Timing Diagram Font
GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
For those web sites you hate
That's really odd. I've *never* heard anyone define the term ASIC from the perspective of the containing device's consumer. Really.
*Never.* Doesn't that make *any* chip inside a box you sell to a consumer an ASIC?
It's an ASIC because you, as the device manufacturer, pay a fab to make masks, and fab chips. PLDs of all flavors, microprocessors, etc., are *not* ASICs by any definition I've ever heard.
Mask programmable devices do occupy something of grey area in the middle, but OTP programmable device do not (and are clearly not ASICs). Gate array devices fall into the mask programmable area somewhere. But in general, I'd consider mask programmed devices to be ASICs or near-ASICs.
Now some other possibilities in the gray area exist. For example, you could call Xilinx and ask them to make a FPGA with some extra embedded doodad just for you.
And so long as we're talking Xilinx, where should we put their EasyPath stuff? At least some of those are just their normal FPGAs with the programmed for you at the factory, and with their programming fuses blown? (IOW, these are intended to be the equivalent of mask-programmed versions of an otherwise field-programmable device).
Certainly full custom devices are usually ASICs, but also standard cell designs.
Yes no matter how much you are willing to pay, most packaging lines will not setup up for less than 250k to 500k units. Partly because lots are preferring QFN or BGA as their default packaage types. Mainly because if you want 20k parts in SOIC or QFP requires line changes and setups, typically -
half a day setup line less than day for the run half a day to reset line to normal use
COB (Chip On Board) or COG (Chip On Glass is getting more common to avoid packaging issues in smaller runs and partly hiding IC manufacture.
Finding those willing to package ASIC small runs gets more difficult as time goes on.
--
Paul Carpenter | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
PC Services
Raspberry Pi Add-ons
Timing Diagram Font
GNU H8 - compiler & Renesas H8/H8S/H8 Tiny
For those web sites you hate
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.