DDR3 Address/Command/Clock Length Matching Clarification – Is My Understanding Correct?

Design and Layout
1

Hello everyone,

I’m currently routing DDR3 on my board, and I’ve successfully completed length matching for the data lanes (DQS, DQ). However, before starting the routing, I encountered a guideline suggesting that all address, command, and clock signals should be length-matched together. But I’m finding it more challenging to match the lengths of the address, command, and clock signals compared to the data lanes.

After some further exploration, my understanding is that only the CLK and CMD/CTRL signals require tight length matching, while the address lines (ADDR, BA, BG) only need to be matched within their respective groups — not necessarily to the clock or control lines.

Additionally, I’ve seen an approach where address lines are grouped into 4-trace serpentine blocks, and each group is length-matched internally based on their unrouted lengths. In this case, intra-group matching is required, but there’s no need to match the address lines to the clock or control lines.

Here’s my current understanding:

  • CLK/CLK#: tight differential length matching (±25–50 mils)
  • CMD/CTRL: match to CLK within ±50–100 mils
  • ADDR/BA/BG: intra-group length matching (±100–500 mils), but not to CLK/CMD

Is this approach correct, or should I be matching all address, command, and clock signals together?

I’d appreciate any clarification before finalizing the routing. Thank you in advance for your help!

image
image488×396 43.1 KB

1 Like
2

You’re definitely on the right track, and it’s great you’ve already completed the data lane matching. That’s usually the hardest part.

For DDR3, your breakdown aligns well with typical routing guidelines. The clock pair should have tight differential matching, and it’s a good rule of thumb to keep CMD/CTRL within 50–100 mils of the clock. These signals are sampled on the clock edge, so keeping them aligned helps avoid setup and hold issues.

As for the address lines (ADDR, BA, BG), you’re right that they don’t need to be matched to the clock or command signals. Instead, just make sure the address lines are length-matched within their own groups. Your approach of grouping and matching based on unrouted lengths makes sense and is pretty common.

The only other thing I’d suggest is double-checking your board’s speed and timing budget. If you’re pushing the limits, it might be worth doing a quick simulation. (I think) But overall it sounds like you’re in a good spot.

2 Likes
3

Thank you once again for all the helpful insights shared so far. I’d like to clarify that what I described earlier was my understanding of the recommended approach, rather than something I’ve already implemented:

  • Signal grouping: My understanding is that signals A0–A14 and B0–B2 should be arranged in ascending order based on their natural (unrouted) lengths and divided into four groups from shortest to longest.
  • Internal matching: Each group should then be length-matched internally using serpentine routing.

I would really appreciate your guidance on two points:

  1. Inter-group matching: In addition to internal matching within each group, is it also necessary to match the lengths between these groups?
  2. Tolerance suggestions: Would a tolerance between 100 mils (2.54 mm) and 500 mils (12.7 mm) be acceptable for inter-group skew between these serpentine-matched clusters? Or would you recommend a tighter constraint for better signal integrity?

Thank you again for your support!

1 Like
4
  1. You can length match data line & address line separately. No need to match between them.
  2. 100-500 mil tolerance for inter-group skew is likely too large. Aim for a much tighter tolerance for high-speed signals.
2 Likes