Next Article in Journal
Enhanced Henry Gas Solubility Optimization for Solving Data and Engineering Design Problems
Previous Article in Journal
In-Depth Exergy Analysis of the Thermochemical Conversion of Flax Straw via Pyrolysis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
This is an early access version, the complete PDF, HTML, and XML versions will be available soon.
Review

Thermal Management Challenges in 2.5D and 3D Chiplet Integration: A Review on Architecture–Cooling Co-Design

by
Darpan Virmani
* and
Baibhab Chatterjee
*
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Eng 2025, 6(12), 373; https://doi.org/10.3390/eng6120373
Submission received: 25 October 2025 / Revised: 1 December 2025 / Accepted: 8 December 2025 / Published: 17 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Topic Advanced Integrated Circuit Design and Application)

Abstract

The increasing power density of 2.5D and 3D chiplets imposes severe thermal constraints that have a direct impact on the performance and long-term reliability of high-performance computing systems. Stacked and laterally integrated dies, which generate hundreds of watts per package, create localized hotspots and inconsistent temperature fields, major obstacles to scalable heterogeneous integration. Research efforts have addressed these challenges by finite element and compact heat modeling, thermal interface material optimization (TIM), and advanced cooling solutions such as micro-channel liquid cooling and cold racks. While these approaches provide valuable insights, most remain case-specific, focusing on isolated packages or single design variables, and lack a general methodology for assessing thermal feasibility at an early stage. This review consolidates and critically analyzes contributions to thermal modeling at the package level, interposer thermal spreading, thermal characterization of TIMs, and the development of cooling technologies. A comparative review of published studies indicates a consistent threshold: 2.5D stacks are viable under air cooling at approximately 300 W, whereas 3D stacks require liquid or hybrid cooling in conjunction with high-performance thermal interface materials at about 350 W. The investigations identify interposer conductivity, thermal interface material thickness, and hotspot power distribution as the primary sensitivity elements. This study explores Thermal Feasibility Maps (TFMs), defined as multidimensional charts parameterized by architecture, cooling regime, and material stack. TFMs provide a systematic framework for comparing design trade-offs and support architecture cooling co-design in advanced chiplet systems.
Keywords: 2.5D and 3D heterogeneous integration; chiplet architectures; thermal management; thermal interface materials; interposer thermal spreading; liquid and microfluidic cooling; thermal feasibility maps 2.5D and 3D heterogeneous integration; chiplet architectures; thermal management; thermal interface materials; interposer thermal spreading; liquid and microfluidic cooling; thermal feasibility maps

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Virmani, D.; Chatterjee, B. Thermal Management Challenges in 2.5D and 3D Chiplet Integration: A Review on Architecture–Cooling Co-Design. Eng 2025, 6, 373. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng6120373

AMA Style

Virmani D, Chatterjee B. Thermal Management Challenges in 2.5D and 3D Chiplet Integration: A Review on Architecture–Cooling Co-Design. Eng. 2025; 6(12):373. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng6120373

Chicago/Turabian Style

Virmani, Darpan, and Baibhab Chatterjee. 2025. "Thermal Management Challenges in 2.5D and 3D Chiplet Integration: A Review on Architecture–Cooling Co-Design" Eng 6, no. 12: 373. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng6120373

APA Style

Virmani, D., & Chatterjee, B. (2025). Thermal Management Challenges in 2.5D and 3D Chiplet Integration: A Review on Architecture–Cooling Co-Design. Eng, 6(12), 373. https://doi.org/10.3390/eng6120373

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop