Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Current desktop and consumer applications for microprocessors require that systems be Energy Star compliant. In addition, other power management initiatives such as Advanced Configuration Power Interface (ACPI) define low power system states that the operating system controls. These initiatives are directed at reducing the energy consumption of desktop computer equipment during periods of inactivity as well as providing quick resumption of activity. From an electronic packaging perspective, systems will power down more often when not in use during typical conditions of daily use. Each power down cycle may result in a temperature excursion and affects the fatigue life of area array solder joints. This requirement results in the need of increased reliability of soldered surface mount ceramic packages. Although there is a generic definition of the Energy Star (ACPI) requirement, there is disagreement on what it means to the fatigue life of the solder joints. Results of our industry survey will be presented. Conclusions from this survey led us to investigate various ceramic grid array technologies. Conventional Ceramic Ball Grid Array can not meet the increased reliability requirements; especially at high pin counts and high number of on/off cycles. In this paper we discuss the technologies that allow solutions to increase the fatigue life to meet the ACPI requirements. The solutions are based on matching the TCE of the ceramic to board and a novel column grid array called solder column Interposer. We have compared this to the conventional ceramic ball and column grid array. We will describe the manufacturing process for these technologies and results of board level reliability testing. We will show that both high TCE ceramic and solder column interposer are capable of meeting the ACPI needs of increased cycling and resulting fatigue. Solder Column Interposer is in high volume production at AMD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".