We reported earlier this year that 2008 was anything but a stellar start in terms of venture capital for semiconductor startups. It does not take a genius to see that the semiconductor market has been on shaky ground as of late, excluding a couple companies here and there. Nevertheless, running across two articles that highlight the negative and are published on the same day, while addressing the opposite sides of the semiconductor spectrum, is rather depressing.

The first article, titled Why Chip Stocks are Down and written by Steve Tobak, focuses on established semiconductor companies and examines why they have significantly underperformed the market over the last few years even though chip sales have experienced double-digit growth over the same period. According to Steve, some of the lackluster performance can be explained by the recent memory chip glut. Additionally, the dot-com bust which inflated the stock prices of more than one semiconductor company still rears its ugly head to some degree. And while an in-depth analysis of the entire sector is sort of lacking in the article, one observation regarding companies that bucked the trend is quite enlightening: “Proprietary products in hot markets resist negative sector trends, while commodities suffer the most.” This observation is exemplified by companies such as Qualcomm and Marvel who have done rather well for themselves. Interestingly, nVidia did quite well over the same time period too, while Intel stayed about flat - One would think that the fortunes of these two companies would be in lock-step, but this turns out not to be the case at least as far as stock valuation is concerned.

The second article is a commentary by Chris Fisher titled What Price Entrepreneurship? Essentially, the article questions whether starting or joining a semiconductor startup makes sense from an individual’s financial point of view. Chris estimates that a semiconductor startup needs to raise in-between $60 and $120 million these days. Money alone of course does not guarantee that the company will be successful – Montalvo comes to mind as a recent example. Now, if getting this much money was not difficult enough, Chris points out that public markets recently have valued semiconductor companies on the low side at about three times revenues. Add to this the dismal performance of semiconductor IPOs as of late, a lack of interest by established companies in acquiring new ones, and one has to wonder if time spent on a semiconductor startup is time well spent. Of course, if money is your most important objective, then Web 2.0 and related startups which usually require significantly less startup capital might be a better option at this point. Although from my experience, many semiconductor aficionados will very much cringe at the idea of writing code all day or having to sit through code reviews.

A little over a year ago we briefly discussed through-silicon vias (TSV). We examined some potential advantages and provided a link to a little TSV primer. Back then, the projection was that we ought to expect chips featuring TSV by the beginning of 2008. And while a few ICs here and there have been manufactured using TSV, a general standard was lacking thus slowing adoption across the industry. To overcome this problem, the 3D-IC Alliance, whose founding members include Tezzaron Semiconductor and Ziptronix, has released a first standard for 3D integration, dubbed the Intimate Memory Interface Standard (IMIS) – could they really not come up with a better name? While complaining, what is up with the 3D-IC website? It is truly an eyesore, and bags for a makeover.

Anyhow, as with most standards, the specification is quite extensive coming in at over thirty pages, but keep in mind that tables and diagrams take up a lot of that space.  The contents cover pin specifications and pin usage direction for most common memory types and their variations. Following the pins, the actual surface and target requirements are discussed at length. This section is split into three categories: Direct Bond Interconnect (DBI) which is championed by Ziptronix, Copper to Copper Bonding which is backed by Tezzaron under the FaStack brand, and a third category which at this point is undefined and reserved for future use. The final section is a short discussion of footprint diagrams and their variations.

As mentioned in our prior post, there are some immediate advantages that come to mind: shorter interconnect paths and more compact floor plans that no longer need to account for large caches, however, what we missed are the possible implications for Integrated Circuit (IC) security. On this topic, Tezzaron has a short paper which within the space of a couple pages, discusses on a high-level some of the reverse engineering techniques, as well as the two major security advantages for 3D ICs. To summarize, the first advantage is that if one of the layers in the stack is face-up while the connecting one is face-down, the outside surfaces would consist only of I/O pads, making etching and de-layering difficult. The second advantage is the fact that with a well defined interface, separate components can now be manufactured at different foundries, further reducing the risk that the final functionality of the part might be exposed. Obviously, the paper is intended as promotional material for 3D ICs, nevertheless it makes a few interesting points and is worth checking out for those interested in the subject.

Last fall we profiled Black Sand Technologies when they successfully completed raising $8.2 Million in Series A funding. Other than a few appointments of individuals to key positions, there really has not been much news regarding the company since. Needless to say, their web-site has also not been updated with any new product information. But thanks to Forbes.com and Clair Cain Miller who wrote the actual article, we get a little insight on Black Sand’s chief technologist Susanne Paul and her thoughts regarding silicon based power amplifiers.

If you ever wondered what it takes to be a chief technologist, here are a few clues: you ought to be able to work 80-hour weeks, while taking care of several children, and fixing your own car troubles! Anyhow, here is why she believes that silicon based power amplifiers are they way to go in the future. First of all, gallium arsenide, which is currently used for power amplifier design, is much more expensive to manufacture than silicon. The article points out that the cost per wafer for gallium arsenide has been constant over the last 25 years at about $400. In stark contrast, the same waver costs only about $45 for silicon. Additionally, silicon based amplifiers ought to consumer significantly less power then their gallium arsenide counterparts, assuming that engineers will be able to develop algorithms allowing them to vary their broadcasting strength based on transmission distance. They should also be less susceptible to interference, such as tall buildings, and more flexible in accommodating different networks when people are roaming.

Sounds pretty impressive, but should you believe what Susanne is saying? Well how about this quote from the aforementioned article: “She is uniquely qualified, as the only human being in the world ever to have built and put into production a silicon power amp - Venu Shamapant, Austin Ventures” What else do we learn from the article? Well, it seems that Black Sand is expecting to have their first silicon samples later this summer and believe their design will be incorporated into cell phone products in the 2009 time frame. This of course assumes that none of the other startups pursuing similar solutions, or some of the established players in the cellular filed will be able beat them to the punch.