# Mini-Review: Modeling and Performance Analysis of Nanocarbon Interconnects
## 6 Conclusions  
The current status of research on nanocarbon interconnects from a modeling perspective has been reviewed in this paper. Several typical nanocarbon interconnects have been evaluated and discussed. It is demonstrated that nanocarbon interconnects are theoretically superior to their Cu counterparts. However, due to the fabrication limits, the electrical performance of nanocarbon interconnects may be much worse than their theoretical estimations. Cu-nanocarbon interconnects, including Cu-graphene and Cu-CNT composite interconnects, may be a practical solution to meet the near future challenges. With the IC feature size scaling down to sub-10 nm, however, nanocarbon interconnects are the most promising schemes. This is to say, in long-term applications, Cu-nanocarbon interconnects may be used together with the ultimate nanocarbon interconnects.  
Writing--Original Draft Preparation, F.K., W.-S.Z., D.-W.W., M.L.; Writing--Review & Editing, W.-S.Z., G.W., and W.-Y.Y.  
This research was funded by the Natural Research Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grants 61874038 and 61431014.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Solution** & & **Pros** & & **Cons** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Cu [2,4]} & \(\bullet\) & \multirow{4}{*}{Mature fabrication technique} & \(\bullet\) & Cu atom diffusion into substrate \\  & \(\bullet\) & & \multirow{4}{*}{High conductivity} & \(\bullet\) & Scattering-induced \\  & & & & resistivity increases \\  & & & & Scaling of diffusion barrier layer \\ \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{MLGNR [23; 26; 29; 31; 44; 45]} & \(\bullet\) & Long MFP & & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & Very high ampacity & & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & Planar growth & & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & Electromigration resistant & & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & Chirality control & & \(\bullet\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{VGNR [13; 23; 29; 31; 44; 45]} & \(\bullet\) & Long MFP & & \\  & \(\bullet\) & Very high ampacity & & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & Electromigration resistant & & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & High thermal conductivity & & \\ \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Bundled SWCNTs [16; 17; 44; 61; 64; 96]} & \(\bullet\) & Very long MFP & & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & Very high ampacity & & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & Electromigration resistant & & \(\bullet\) \\ \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{MWCNT [44; 51; 62; 82; 85]} & \(\bullet\) & Very long MFP & & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & Very high ampacity & & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & Electromigration resistant & & \(\bullet\) \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Cu-graphene [2; 104; 105; 108; 110]} & \(\bullet\) & High conductivity & & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & Reduced surface scattering & & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & Large grain size & & resistivity increases \\ \hline \hline \multirow{4}{*}{Cu-CNT composite [2; 4; 111; 112]} & \(\bullet\) & High conductivity & & \(\bullet\) \\  & \(\bullet\) & High ampacity & & \(\bullet\) \\ \cline{1-1}  & \(\bullet\) & Electromigration resistant & & \(\bullet\) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Comparison of Cu, GNR, CNT, Cu-graphene, and Cu-CNT interconnects.