Vinu, I don't disagree; my point was a hint that I didn't think Alex was asking about the biggest performance limiting feature. Aubrey Sparkman=20 Enterprise Engineering Signal Integrity Team Dell, Inc.=20 Aubrey_Sparkman@xxxxxxxx=20 (512) 723-3592 -----Original Message----- From: Vinu Arumugham [mailto:vinu@xxxxxxxxx]=20 Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 2:20 PM To: Sparkman, Aubrey Cc: alexh1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: [SI-LIST] Re: Effect of Pwr-Gnd plane pairing vs. non-paired planes on signal return currents If there are no ground vias nearby, a ground reference to ground reference switch would behave the same as a ground reference to a power reference switch. I expect the two stack-ups to behave the same. Thanks, Vinu Aubrey_Sparkman@xxxxxxxx wrote: >Alex, >The thing that caught my attention is that your signal switched from=20 >ground reference on top to power referenced on bottom, not that you=20 >removed a couple of reference planes....=3D20 > >But that's just my quick gut reaction.... > >Aubrey Sparkman=3D20 >Enterprise Engineering Signal Integrity Team Dell, Inc.=3D20=20 >Aubrey_Sparkman@xxxxxxxx=3D20 >(512) 723-3592 > >-----Original Message----- >From: si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx=20 >[mailto:si-list-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] >On Behalf Of Alex Horvath >Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 1:45 PM >To: si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: [SI-LIST] Effect of Pwr-Gnd plane pairing vs. non-paired=20 >planes on signal return currents > >Normally, when I design a multi layer stackup I always try to alternate >and pair Pwr-Gnd planes to maximize inter-plane capacitance. For=20 >example, a 16 layer stackup might look like- > =3D20 > =3D20 > Sig - - - - - - -=3D20 > Gnd -------------- > Pwr -------------- > Sig - - - - - - - - > Sig - - - - - - - - > Gnd -------------- > Pwr -------------- > Sig - - - - - - - - > Sig - - - - - - - - > Gnd -------------- > Pwr -------------- > Sig - - - - - - - - > Sig - - - - - - - - > Gnd--------------- > Pwr --------------- > Sig - - - - - - -=3D20 > =3D20 > For cost reasons I might be forced into a stackup with the same=20 >number of signal layers but with 2 power planes removed (14 layers,=20 >same dielectric thickness) - > =3D20 > Sig - - - - - - -=3D20 > Gnd -------------- > Pwr -------------- > Sig - - - - - - - - > Sig - - - - - - - - > Gnd -------------- > Sig - - - - - - - - > Sig - - - - - - - - > Gnd -------------- > Sig - - - - - - - - > Sig - - - - - - - - > Gnd--------------- > Pwr --------------- > Sig - - - - - - -=3D20 > =3D20 > =3D20 > Let's assume a signal traverses from the top signal layer to the=20 >bottom layer in both stackups. Let us also assume as a worst case that=20 >there are no nearby vias or decoup caps and the signal edge rate is=20 >approximately 10 times the via length (about 200 psec). Is there a=20 >significant difference in the expected signal quality when comparing=20 >these 2 stackups? > =3D20 > My gut feel is that all else being equal the primary factor=20 >determining signal quality is the spacing of the planes. The DC=20 >assignment of the planes has (again ignoring effect of gnd or pwr vias) >little effect and thus the signal quality in the above cases would be=20 >virtually identical. > =3D20 > Since I hate to bet my designs on a gut feel hopefully someone can=20 >confirm or deny my assumptions. > =3D20 > >------------------------------------------------------------------ >To unsubscribe from si-list: >si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field > >or to administer your membership from a web page, go to: >//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list > >For help: >si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field > >List FAQ wiki page is located at: > http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ > >List technical documents are available at: > http://www.si-list.org > >List archives are viewable at: =3D20 > //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list >or at our remote archives: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages >Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: > http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu > =3D20 >------------------------------------------------------------------ >To unsubscribe from si-list: >si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field > >or to administer your membership from a web page, go to: >//www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list > >For help: >si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field > >List FAQ wiki page is located at: > http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ > >List technical documents are available at: > http://www.si-list.org > >List archives are viewable at: =20 > //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list >or at our remote archives: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages >Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: > http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu > =20 > > =20 > ------------------------------------------------------------------ To unsubscribe from si-list: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'unsubscribe' in the Subject field or to administer your membership from a web page, go to: //www.freelists.org/webpage/si-list For help: si-list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'help' in the Subject field List FAQ wiki page is located at: http://si-list.org/wiki/wiki.pl?Si-List_FAQ List technical documents are available at: http://www.si-list.org List archives are viewable at: //www.freelists.org/archives/si-list or at our remote archives: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/si-list/messages Old (prior to June 6, 2001) list archives are viewable at: http://www.qsl.net/wb6tpu