The landscape of IC design is experiencing a profound transformation. With the physical and economic limits of conventional two-dimensional scaling, the industry is rapidly embracing three-dimensional integrated circuits (3D IC) to unlock higher performance, lower power consumption, and denser silicon utilization.
For semiconductor professionals, understanding the distinct nuances of 3D IC microarchitectures is no longer optional. It’s becoming essential for those seeking to maintain a competitive edge in next-generation system design.
Microarchitecting in the 3D IC era represents more than an incremental change from traditional practices. It entails a fundamental redefinition of how data and controls move through a system, how blocks are partitioned and co-optimized across both horizontal and vertical domains, and how early-stage design decisions address the unique challenges of 3D integration.
This article aims to provide essential context and technical depth for practitioners working toward highly integrated, efficient, and resilient 3D IC systems.
3D IC technology now stands at a pivotal juncture. Source: Siemens EDA
Putting things in context
To grasp the impact of 3D IC, it’s crucial to define microarchitecture in the IC context. System architecture typically refers to a design’s functional organization as seen by software engineers—abstract functions, data flows, and protocols. Microarchitecture, viewed through the hardware engineer’s lens, describes how those features are realized in silicon using components like register files, arithmetic logic units, and on-chip memory.
Microarchitecture centers around two domains: the datapath, which encompasses the movement and transformation of data, and the control, which dictates how and when those data movements occur. Together, they determine not only performance and efficiency but also testability and resiliency.
Furthermore, while traditional ICs optimize microarchitecture in two dimensions, 3D ICs require designers to expand their strategies into the vertical axis as well. Because data in 3D ICs no longer flows only laterally, it must be orchestrated through stacked dies, each potentially featuring its own process technology, supply voltage, or clock domain. Inter-die communication—typically realized with micro-bumps, through-silicon vias, or hybrid bonding—becomes critical for both data and control signals.
With the move toward submicron interconnection pitches, design teams must address tighter integration densities and the unprecedented task of partitioning logic and memory across multiple vertical layers. This process is not unlike assembling a three-dimensional puzzle.
Effective microarchitecture in this context demands careful co-optimization of logic, physical placement, routing, and inter-die signaling—with far-reaching implications for system latency, bandwidth, and reliability.
Moreover, some microarchitectural components can be realized in three dimensions themselves. Stacked memory sitting directly above compute units, for example, enables true compute-in-memory subsystems, affecting both density and performance but also introducing significant challenges related to signal integrity, thermal design, and manufacturing yield.
Taking complexity to the third dimension
A major trend shaping modern IC development is the shift toward software-defined silicon, where software can customize and even dynamically control hardware features. While this approach provides great flexibility, it also increases complexity and requires early, holistic consideration of architectural trade-offs—especially in 3D ICs, where the cost of late-stage changes is prohibitive.
The high costs of 3D IC design and manufacturing in general demand an upfront commitment to rigorous partitioning and predictive modeling. Errors or unforeseen bottlenecks that might be addressed after tape-out in traditional design can prove disastrous in 3D ICs, where physical access for rework or test is limited.
It is thus essential for system architects and microarchitects to collaborate early, determining both physical placement of blocks and the allocation of functionality between programmable and hardwired components.
This paradigm also introduces new questions, such as which features should be programmable versus fixed? And how can test coverage and configurability be extended into the post-silicon stage? Design teams must maintain a careful balance among performance, area, power, and system flexibility as they partition and refine the design stack.
Among the most significant physical challenges in 3D integration is the sharp increase in power density. Folding a two-dimensional design into a 3D stack compresses the area available for power delivery, while escalating local heat generation. Managing thermal issues becomes significantly more difficult, as deeper layers are insulated from heat sinks and are more susceptible to temperature gradients.
Test and debug also become more complex. As interconnect pitches shrink below one-micron, direct probing is not practical. Robust testability and resilience need to be designed in from the architecture and circuit level, using techniques like embedded test paths, built-in self-test, and adaptive power management long before finalization.
Finally, resiliency—the system’s ability to absorb faults and maintain operation—takes on new urgency. The reduced access for root-cause analysis and repair in 3D assemblies compels development of in-situ monitoring, adaptive controls, and architectural redundancy, requiring innovation that extends into both the digital and analog realms.
The need for automation
The complexity of 3D IC design can only be managed through next-generation automation. Traditional automation has centered on logic synthesis, place and route, and verification for 2D designs. But with 3D ICs, automation must span package assembly, die stacking, and especially multi-physics domains.
Building 3D ICs requires engineers to bridge electrical, thermal, and mechanical analyses. For instance, co-design flows must account for materials like silicon interposers and organic substrates. This necessitates tightly integrated EDA tools for early simulation, design-for-test verification, and predictive analysis—giving teams the ability to catch issues before manufacturing begins.
System heterogeneity also sets 3D IC apart. Diverse IP, technology nodes, and even substrate compositions all coexist within a single package. Addressing this diversity, along with long design cycles and high non-recurring engineering costs, demands multi-domain, model-based simulation and robust design automation to perform comprehensive early validation and analysis.
Meanwhile, traditional packaging workflows—often manual and reliant on Windows-based tools—lag far behind the automated flows for silicon IC implementation. Closing this gap and enabling seamless integration across all domains is essential for realizing the full promise of 3D IC architectures.
The evolving role of AI and design teams
As system complexity escalates, the industry is shifting from human-centered to increasingly machine-centered design methodologies. The days of vertical specialization are yielding to interdisciplinary engineering, where practitioners must understand electrical, mechanical, thermal, and system-level concerns.
With greater reliance on automation, human teams must increasingly focus on oversight, exception analysis, and leveraging AI-generated insights. Lifelong learning and cross-functional collaboration are now prerequisites for EDA practitioners, who will require both broader and more adaptable skillsets as design paradigms continue to evolve.
Artificial intelligence is already transforming electronic design automation. Modern AI agents can optimize across multiple, often competing, objectives—proposing floorplans and partitioning schemes that would be unfeasible for manual evaluation. Looking ahead, agentic AI—teams of specialized algorithms working in concert—promise to orchestrate ever more complex design sequences from architecture to verification.
Building failure resilient systems
As the boundaries between architectural roles blur, collaboration becomes paramount. In a world of software-defined silicon, architects, microarchitects, and implementation engineers must partner closely to ensure that design intent, trade-offs, and risk mitigation are coherently managed.
Real-world progress is already visible in examples like AMD’s 3D integration of SRAM atop logic dies. Such hybrid approaches demand careful analysis of read and write latency, since splitting a kernel across stacked dies can introduce undesirable delays. Partitioning memory and processing functions to optimize performance and energy efficiency in such architectures is a delicate exercise.
Heterogeneous integration also enables new microarchitectural approaches. High-performance computing has long favored homogeneous, mesh-based architectures, but mobile and IoT applications may benefit from hub-and-spoke or non-uniform memory access models, requiring flexible latency management and workload distribution.
Adaptive throttling, dynamic resource management, and redundancy strategies are growing in importance as memory access paths and their latencies diverge, and architectural resiliency becomes mission critical.
As failure analysis becomes more complex, designs must include real-time monitoring, self-healing, and redundancy features—drawing upon proven analog circuit techniques now increasingly relevant to digital logic.
Thermal management presents fresh hurdles as well: thinning silicon to expose backside connections diminishes its native lateral thermal conductivity, potentially requiring off-die sensor and thermal protection strategies—further reinforcing the need for holistic, system-level co-design.
3D IC moving forward
3D IC stands at a pivotal juncture. Its widespread adoption depends on early, multi-disciplinary design integration, sophisticated automation, and a holistic approach to resiliency. While deployment so far has largely targeted niche applications, such as high-speed logic-memory overlays, 3D IC architectures promise adoption across more segments and vastly more heterogeneous platforms.
For industry practitioners, the challenges are formidable, including three-dimensional partitioning, integrated automation across disciplines, and entirely new approaches to test, debug, and resilience. Meeting these challenges requires both technical innovation and significant organizational and educational transformations.
Success will demand foresight, tight collaboration, and the courage to rethink assumptions at every step of the design cycle. Yet the benefits are bountiful and largely untapped.
Todd Burkholder is a senior editor at Siemens DISW. For over 25 years, he has worked as editor, author, and ghost writer with internal and external customers to create print and digital content across a broad range of EDA technologies. Todd began his career in marketing for high-technology and other industries in 1992 after earning a Bachelor of Science at Portland State University and a Master of Science degree from the University of Arizona.
Pratyush Kamal is director of Central Engineering Solutions at Siemens EDA. He is an experienced SoC and systems architect and silicon technologist providing technical leadership for advanced packaging and new foundry technology programs. Pratyush previously held various jobs at Google and Qualcomm as SoC designer, SoC architect, and systems architect. He also led 3D IC research at Qualcomm, focusing on both wafer-on-wafer hybrid bond and monolithic 3D design integrations.
Editor’s Note
This is the first part of the three-part article series about 3D IC architecture. The second part, to be published next week, will focus on how design engineers can put 3D IC to work.
Related Content
- 3D IC Design
- Thermal analysis tool aims to reinvigorate 3D-IC design
- Heterogeneous Integration and the Evolution of IC Packaging
- Tighter Integration Between Process Technologies and Packaging
- Advanced IC Packaging: The Roadmap to 3D IC Semiconductor Scaling
The post Making your architecture ready for 3D IC appeared first on EDN.
