How can design teams employ new tools and develop response methodologies yet still stay within design budgets? How much effort does it require to be an early adopter and what kind of measurable results compensate for this effort? Panelists discuss how their design-for-manufacture (DFM) tools fit into a fixed design methodology, budget and timeline, and give examples of expected ROI (monetary, quality, reduced time-to-market, and comprehensive yield).The aim of this panel is to provide a serious comparison of related DFM technologies on the market and some idea of the cost and difficulty of integrating the tools into a fixed design budget and timeline. Specific results will be cited, along with examples of expected ROI (monetary, quality, reduced time-to-market, and comprehensive yield enhancement).The audience should walk away with enough information to make an informed decision on which companies would make sense for their DFM challenges, to reach their own yield and throughput goals.

For sub-100nm processes, predictions are putting initial process yields in the single digits. At the same time, at 130nm, we saw that two chips designed with the same methodology and same design rules could deliver completely different manufacturing yields.This panel will discuss the reasons for these phenomena and talk about future trends in DFM that will need to be addressed for success below 100nm.