Every chip to the market must pass a stringent checkpoint before shipment known as ATE testing. Serving as the physical “neural hub” that connects test equipment worth millions of dollars with the device under test, the performance of the ATE test board directly determines the accuracy, efficiency, and final yield of chip testing. Amid the rapid rise of high-compute chips, what extreme challenges is this seemingly small circuit board facing? How is EDADOC addressing industry pain points through its one-stop “design + manufacturing” model? Recently, at HKPCA, ECIO (Electronic Chief Intelligence Officer) conducted an exclusive interview with Wang Huidong, DFM technology expert at EDADOC, taking readers deep into the technical core of high-complexity PCBs.
ECIO: Mr. Wang, it’s a pleasure to speak with you. First, in the context of the semiconductor industry’s move toward higher computing power and greater integration, what role do ATE test boards play across the overall value chain?
Wang Huidong: We can define ATE test boards as the “core foundation” of the semiconductor industry. Their value lies in spanning the entire lifecycle of a chip and being truly irreplaceable.
Simply put, it serves as the “validation bridge” for chip performance and the “assurance hub” for industry efficiency. Throughout the entire journey from chip design to mass production, it plays three critical roles: During the design verification stage, it acts as a “calibration instrument,” validating chip functionality by simulating real-world operating conditions; during the production ramp-up phase, it functions as a “filter,” efficiently screening out defective units to avoid unnecessary cost waste; and during the quality control stage, it becomes a “monitoring station,” continuously tracking product consistency.
Every chip that embodies cutting-edge innovation depends on high-performance ATE test boards for verification and quality assurance. Without them, design value cannot be validated, nor can mass production quality be guaranteed. ATE test boards have long since transcended the single-function nature of traditional PCBs, evolving into a high-performance passive system that integrates high-frequency signal transmission, precision power distribution, and efficient thermal management.
ECIO: It’s clear that this board carries a tremendous responsibility. As chip data rates push beyond 112 Gbps and even higher, what specific challenges do we face in R&D and production?
Wang Huidong: The challenges are systemic and scale exponentially. Among them, the most critical bottleneck is signal integrity.
Once chip speeds exceed the 100 Gbps threshold, issues such as crosstalk, latency, and signal attenuation become extremely difficult to manage. Traditional layout and routing approaches can no longer meet the requirements for “lossless transmission.” This means that signal paths must be precisely controlled from the very early stages of design.
Beyond signal integrity, there is also significant pressure from the coordination of materials and processes. Higher levels of integration require designs with more layers and thicker copper, yet special materials such as high-speed and high-frequency substrates are extremely challenging in terms of process compatibility and thermal stability. In addition, the diversification of chip functions has introduced challenges in multi-parameter coordinated control. Optimizing a single parameter is no longer sufficient to meet system-level testing requirements. At their core, these challenges stem from the mismatch between traditional test board technologies and the industry trends of “higher computing power, smaller form factors, and optimized power consumption.” Breaking through these barriers requires cross-disciplinary technological collaboration.
ECIO: Indeed, technology is evolving at a very rapid pace. However, in practice, we find that many customers experience significant difficulties when developing ATE test boards. In your view, what are the core pain points in the industry today?
Wang Huidong: The biggest pain points, in my opinion, are the disconnect between design and manufacturing, and the lack of data collaboration.
Front-end design teams often focus primarily on achieving performance targets, while giving insufficient consideration to manufacturing feasibility and cost control. As a result, many designs look excellent on paper but are difficult to realize in practice or suffer from extremely low yields in mass production. Conversely, if the manufacturing side lacks a deep understanding of the design intent, it is unable to optimize process parameters in a targeted way.
At the same time, in traditional supply chains, data such as design requirements, process parameters, and test results are fragmented, creating “information silos.” When customers request changes, response times are slow, and troubleshooting cycles are lengthy. This misalignment between traditional industry collaboration models and the demand of the digital era further exacerbates the development burden on customers.
Page 1 of 2