UCIe Connectivity for 2.5D and 3D Multi-Die Designs

AI introduction

A white paper analyzes the differences and engineering considerations of UCIe die-to-die interconnect in 2.5D and 3D multi-die designs. In 2.5D packaging, UCIe links run through package channels, where insertion loss, crosstalk and rising data rates affect PHY and package design; 3D designs use shorter vertical connections and fine-pitch bonding to scale bandwidth through connection density, reducing the need for high-speed serialization, equalization and channel training.

Article · English

The differences and engineering considerations behind choosing and implementing UCIe connectivity for advanced multi-die designs.

popularity

UCIe provides a common standard for die-to-die connectivity, but connecting dies in a 2.5D package is fundamentally different from connecting them in a 3D design.

In 2.5D designs, UCIe links traverse package channels where insertion loss, crosstalk, and increasing data rates influence PHY and package design. In 3D designs, shorter vertical connections and fine-pitch bonding allow bandwidth to scale through connection density, reducing the need for high-speed serialization, equalization, and channel training.

This white paper examines those differences and the engineering considerations behind choosing and implementing UCIe connectivity for advanced multi-die designs.

What you’ll learn:

How UCIe connectivity differs across 2.5D and 3D designs
How F2B and F2F topologies affect interface design
How 3D integration changes implementation, test, and reliability requirements
How to align UCIe IP, package topology, and implementation strategy

Read more here.