[SI-LIST] Re: Power Supply Distribution/Filtering/Decouplin g Guide]
- From: "Michael E. Vrbanac" <vrbanacm@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: swldstn@xxxxxxxxxxxx, <si-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 01:25:59 -0600
Steve,
Your points are quite important and represent the other half of the problem.
In my opinion, the best thing would be to have the best minds on both sides of
the issue working on making this happen in a win-win situation. Assuming
that component performance is going to advance, its no mystery that eventually
power decoupling is going to end up in the package and die. So it seems
inevitable regardless of what we think the cost is now. Besides, cost seems to
plummet after folks have expended a good deal of effort to solve the
problem and
find a good way to do it. The only thing left to decide is whether we'll
let the problem
kick us in the seat of the pants or whether we look at this thing squarely
and handle
it now.
The industry has done things like this many times before and the cost was
staggering
initially but everyone survived. We'll make it through this one,
too. There's just too many
bright folks interested in this one. I hope you'll be one of the folks
that will be able
to make it happen.
Finally, in looking at how to communicate to engineers regarding decoupling
requirements for your products, how would you tell them to do their decoupling
for a variety of design situations since not all folks are doing "digital
only" designs
and some have special low power noise requirements? Since they know their
specific design requirements and you probably wouldn't, how might we help them
know "when" to beef up or reduce the decoupling design complexity?
Best Regards,
Michael E. Vrbanac
At 11:03 PM 1/13/2004 -0500, Steven M. Waldstein wrote:
>To all,
>
>As a component designer we also struggle with the best trade-offs
>of power delivery and how they impact component cost. Often times
>we are forced to find the lowest cost solution that is sub optimum
>because we continually pressured on price. Eliminating on package
>capacitor saves money as well as smaller die with less on die
>decoupling.
>
>An other example of this is package size. I think larger, easier
>to route ( in the package and on the board ) are a better trade off
>but customers push on cost the forces us into smaller BGA substrates
>that offer poorer signal quality and more PCB layers so the component
>cost, not system cost, can be optimized.
>
>Even with this we have adopted a philosophy that the die/package/PCB
>power delivery must work and we do reference designs we think are
>representative of end user systems and technology. That's the best way
>we know of the deliver a quality product. The faster end users can
>design and field their systems the sooner we see volume purchases.
>We want to lower or eliminate the system integrators barriers.
>
>Steve
>swldstn@xxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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
Other related posts:
