editor's blog
Subscribe Now

Comparing Oscillator Temp Compensation

MEMS oscillators are making a serious challenge to quartz these days. We looked at Sand 9’s approach recently, but as I thumbed back through other recent announcements, I came back across one that, in retrospect, had some relevant bits to discuss.

Silicon Labs’ earlier announcement focused on the CMOS+MEMS aspect of their work. At the time, I didn’t see anything I could add to the discussion, so I let the announcement stand on its own. But in light of some of the issues I covered in Sand 9’s release, I thought there were some things to come back to on the Silicon Labs story – some of which weren’t immediately apparent in their release.

This relates to temperature compensation, which seems to be the number one concern with these devices. Yes, everyone tries to compensate with circuitry, but if you can minimize the raw temperature effects, then the compensation is easier.

We looked at the stack that Sand 9 built to do this – silicon and oxide having opposing temperature coefficients and therefore physically compensating for each other. Well, Silicon Labs does something similar but not identical.

They use SiGe as the active material for the resonator, but they back it with SiO2, which again opposes the temperature characteristics of the SiGe.

The other subtlety here relates to the CMOS processing aspect, although again, it seems to be two different ways of accomplishing the same thing. Sand 9 discussed how having the compensation ASIC in the same package was important so that the ASIC was experiencing the same temperature as the sensor it was compensating.

With the Silicon Labs approach, this happens as a direct result of combining MEMS and CMOS on the same die: The compensation circuitry isn’t just next to the sensor; it’s on the same die as the sensor. So again, it experiences the same temperatures as the sensor. It’s probably even closer, although at some point, if you start arguing about hot spots on the actual die, you could question whether mere monolithic integration guarantees better compensation. It depends on where things are on the die and how “hot” the circuits are. So it remains to be proven whether monolithic compensation is practically any more effective than a well-engineered die-by-die solution.

You can find more on Silicon Labs’ process here.

Leave a Reply

featured blogs
Mar 21, 2023
Let's catch you up on what's been going on here at Cadence Fidelity CFD. Events You can find these at any time by going to the Events page on cadence.com and selecting CFD from the Technology menu. NVIDIA GTC, 20-23 Mar Join us virtually at the NVIDIA GTC Developers...
Mar 21, 2023
We explain computational lithography and explore how our partnership with NVIDIA accelerates semiconductor scaling and the chip design flow in the AI age. The post How Synopsys and NVIDIA Are Accelerating Semiconductor Scaling in the AI Age appeared first on New Horizons for...
Mar 10, 2023
A proven guide to enable project managers to successfully take over ongoing projects and get the work done!...

featured video

Level Up Your Knowledge!

Sponsored by Mouser Electronics

Feeling behind in the game? Mouser's newsletter and technical resource subscriptions will ensure that your skills are next level! Set your preferences and customize your subscription to power up your knowledge today!

Click here for more information

featured chalk talk

TE APL: Flexibility for Any Use
Connectors can make a big difference when it comes to reducing system complexity and ease of use but did you know they can also help with automation and sustainability as well? In this episode of Chalk Talk, Amelia Dalton and Anita Costamagna from TE discuss TE’s APL Connectivity solutions. They dig into the details of these connector solutions and how you can get started using these connector solutions in your next design.
Sep 22, 2022