TY - JOUR
T1 - Device Design Guidelines to Boost Up AC Performance of CFET (Complementary Field-Effect-Transistor)-Based Inverter
AU - Lim, Jaehyuk
AU - Han, Donghwan
AU - Sung, Juho
AU - Yoon, Seokchan
AU - Kang, Sanghyun
AU - Kim, Gwon
AU - Baac, Hyoung Won
AU - Shin, Changhwan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 1982-2012 IEEE.
PY - 2025
Y1 - 2025
N2 - Complementary field-effect transistors (CFETs) have emerged as promising candidates for next-generation semiconductor devices. CFETs feature a structure with an nMOS (or pMOS) transistor at the bottom and a transistor of the opposite type at the top. CFETs can be classified into Fin-CFETs or GAA-CFETs based on their channel structure. In this study, we compare and analyze these two devices to determine which structure is more favorable for device scaling and which device exhibits better performance per unit area. For a reliable analysis, the threshold voltage was adjusted to be the same for all devices. Initially, to compare the DC performance, the on-state drive currents in both linear mode and saturation mode operations were extracted and compared from the IDS-versus- VGS input-transfer characteristics. Subsequently, complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor inverters were constructed to compare their AC performance. Six parameters were extracted and compared: high-to-low propagation delay (tpLH), falling time (tf), low-to-high propagation delay (tpLH), rising time (tr), overshoot voltage (Vov), and undershoot voltage (Vund). Based on the results, we suggest which CFET structure is more suitable for device scaling.
AB - Complementary field-effect transistors (CFETs) have emerged as promising candidates for next-generation semiconductor devices. CFETs feature a structure with an nMOS (or pMOS) transistor at the bottom and a transistor of the opposite type at the top. CFETs can be classified into Fin-CFETs or GAA-CFETs based on their channel structure. In this study, we compare and analyze these two devices to determine which structure is more favorable for device scaling and which device exhibits better performance per unit area. For a reliable analysis, the threshold voltage was adjusted to be the same for all devices. Initially, to compare the DC performance, the on-state drive currents in both linear mode and saturation mode operations were extracted and compared from the IDS-versus- VGS input-transfer characteristics. Subsequently, complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor inverters were constructed to compare their AC performance. Six parameters were extracted and compared: high-to-low propagation delay (tpLH), falling time (tf), low-to-high propagation delay (tpLH), rising time (tr), overshoot voltage (Vov), and undershoot voltage (Vund). Based on the results, we suggest which CFET structure is more suitable for device scaling.
KW - CMOS
KW - complementary field-effect transistor (CFET)
KW - gate-all-around
KW - inverter
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85217576461
U2 - 10.1109/TCAD.2025.3539599
DO - 10.1109/TCAD.2025.3539599
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85217576461
SN - 0278-0070
VL - 44
SP - 3189
EP - 3196
JO - IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems
JF - IEEE Transactions on Computer-Aided Design of Integrated Circuits and Systems
IS - 8
ER -