Abstract Preview

Here is the abstract you requested from the IMAPS_2013 technical program page. This is the original abstract submitted by the author. Any changes to the technical content of the final manuscript published by IMAPS or the presentation that is given during the event is done by the author, not IMAPS.

Cost Comparison of 2.5D/3D Packaging to other Packaging Technologies
Keywords: Cost, TSV, Interposer
2.5D and 3D applications using through silicon vias (TSVs) are increasingly being considered as an alternative to conventional packaging. Miniaturization and high performance product requirements are driving this move – even though in many cases the cost of both 2.5D and 3D is still high. In this paper we will identify the major cost drivers for 2.5 and 3D packaging and assess cost reduction progress including current costs versus expected future costs. We will also compare these costs to alternative packaging technologies including flip chip, package on package (PoP), and fan-out wafer level packaging.
Chet A. Palesko, President
SavanSys Solutions LLC
Austin, TX

  • Amkor
  • ASE
  • Canon
  • Corning
  • EMD Performance Materials
  • Honeywell
  • Indium
  • Kester
  • Kyocera America
  • Master Bond
  • Micro Systems Technologies
  • MRSI
  • Palomar
  • Promex
  • Qualcomm
  • Quik-Pak
  • Raytheon
  • Rochester Electronics
  • Specialty Coating Systems
  • Spectrum Semiconductor Materials
  • Technic