Design Con 2015
Breaking News
News & Analysis

Moore’s Law seen hitting big bump at 14 nm

12/11/2012 05:01 AM EST
16 comments
NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 3 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Threaded | Newest First | Oldest First
seaEE
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore’s Law seen hitting big bump at 14 nm
seaEE   12/11/2012 6:23:11 AM
NO RATINGS
Murphy is always two steps behind Moore.

elPresidente
User Rank
Freelancer
re: Moore’s Law seen hitting big bump at 14 nm
elPresidente   12/11/2012 6:38:34 AM
NO RATINGS
Moore's law has been predicted to hit a major bump in the road since 500nm. IMEC's R&D funding levels are based on the level of panic that is instilled in the industry. "According to experts", then exclusively citing Chicken Littles from the same outfit, is a journalism joke EE Times (not aimed at you Rick - this is UBM's broad spectrum destruction of what was EET and EDN). If it were Intel or IBM freaking out with a slideshow pitch, or even having one of their people cited in addition to IMEC, we might be justified in taking this R&D panhandling nonsense seriously.

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
re: Moore’s Law seen hitting big bump at 14 nm
rick merritt   12/11/2012 3:19:45 PM
NO RATINGS
Indeed, Intel's Mark Bohr whom I met and talked with briefly later in the day remains bullish. See http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4403075/IBM--Intel-face-off-in-22-nm-process-at-IEDM

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore’s Law seen hitting big bump at 14 nm
resistion   12/11/2012 9:49:39 AM
NO RATINGS
Imec bought EUV tools quite aggressively to get the member interest. But members beginning to understand not worth it.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore’s Law seen hitting big bump at 14 nm
resistion   12/11/2012 9:54:47 AM
NO RATINGS
Upper metal layers should never require EUV or double patterning, so cost increase is exaggerated, obviously by EUV supporters.

sprite0022
User Rank
Manager
re: Moore’s Law seen hitting big bump at 14 nm
sprite0022   12/12/2012 3:37:44 AM
NO RATINGS
stop argument, time to place your bet now. life is full of gambling, ultrabook, android, who knows what ll happen just jump...

unknown multiplier
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore’s Law seen hitting big bump at 14 nm
unknown multiplier   12/12/2012 2:55:16 PM
NO RATINGS
GlobalFoundries already gave up on EUV it seems: http://semimd.com/blog/2012/12/11/globalfoundries-accelerates-10nm-process/ “10nm will be optical,” he said. “We have evidence that we can do 7nm with immersion.”

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore’s Law seen hitting big bump at 14 nm
resistion   12/12/2012 2:56:44 PM
NO RATINGS
Remember to heed the warning of node renaming.

jeremybirch
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore’s Law seen hitting big bump at 14 nm
jeremybirch   12/14/2012 12:08:09 PM
NO RATINGS
surely EUV is optical just a shorter wavelength source?! Perhaps they mean optical vs ebeam?

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore’s Law seen hitting big bump at 14 nm
resistion   12/14/2012 2:21:48 PM
NO RATINGS
He also mentioned immersion (193 nm not EUV) for 7 nm, though that did surprise me somewhat.

green_is_now
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore’s Law seen hitting big bump at 14 nm
green_is_now   12/13/2012 12:03:43 AM
NO RATINGS
once upon a time...UV lithography impossible...

green_is_now
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore’s Law seen hitting big bump at 14 nm
green_is_now   12/13/2012 12:09:48 AM
NO RATINGS
The facts are in process shrink below 1/10th of wavelength will require multiple patterning. where increased cost of EUV equipment break even with double, triple patterning costs still being played out with rapid development in the EUV space. If they would just hire me it could go much faster. :)

green_is_now
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore’s Law seen hitting big bump at 14 nm
green_is_now   12/13/2012 12:36:34 AM
NO RATINGS
What is the performance/leakage penalty at a given feature size for a given available wavelength? 193nm? 13.5nm? If EUV allows feature shrink without performance/leakage penalty compared to UV used now for comperable cost EUV wins hands down. Chasing moores law min feature size only and not performance/leakage metrics is not a solution

resistion
User Rank
CEO
re: Moore’s Law seen hitting big bump at 14 nm
resistion   12/13/2012 12:54:10 AM
NO RATINGS
The problem for EUV is it has only one application space and that window is shrinking. In addition, the higher energy associated with its higher resolution wavelength produced some fundamental new effects, e.g., ionization, shot noise, etc., which will require more time to be grasped. On the other hand, 193 nm is more familiar, and the temptation to merely increase patterning steps is there. Although such increases will be more complex and costly, a detailed calculation, factoring in number of layers, volume, performance, power, etc. is needed to determine the overall cost impact to the particular product. There won't be a unique "right" answer unfortunately. But as you implied, leakage gets worse, and interconnect performance will also get worse. So a breakout from this trend is needed, soon.

Or_Bach
User Rank
Rookie
re: Moore’s Law seen hitting big bump at 14 nm
Or_Bach   12/15/2012 4:04:14 AM
NO RATINGS
Yes, As we been saying - Monolithic 3D is finally practical, so lets start to scale up, as scale down is no longer easy and full of benefits. And it looks that the first vendors to reach this conclusion are the NAND NV vendors, as had been presented across this IEDM.

Flash Poll
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Top Comments of the Week