Breaking News
News & Analysis

IEDM Set to Stage FinFET vs. FDSOI

9/27/2013 11:50 AM EDT
28 comments
NO RATINGS
2 saves
More Related Links
View Comments: Threaded | Newest First | Oldest First
rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Nice job...
rick merritt   9/27/2013 12:49:31 PM
NO RATINGS
...sorting through a ton of deeply technical material to find a core competitive ground.

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: Nice job...
krisi   9/27/2013 1:20:41 PM
NO RATINGS
Yes, this is increasing complex field with smaller number of increasing larger players being involved...finFET vs FDSOI...any best who is going to win? Kris

wilber_xbox
User Rank
Manager
Re: Nice job...
wilber_xbox   9/27/2013 1:33:20 PM
NO RATINGS
I wonder why Intel is holding back its progress on 14nm FinFET. Looks like its TSMC vs rest in IEDM.

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: Nice job...
krisi   9/27/2013 2:35:48 PM
NO RATINGS
I think Intel is still doing finFET

Peter Clarke
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Nice job...
Peter Clarke   9/29/2013 7:29:09 AM
NO RATINGS
I think the issue with Intel is that the 14nm production is imminent and Intel does not need to share this information -- and so it does not.


In the case of TSMC 16nm FinFET and ST/GloFo 14nm FDSOI then these are foundry offerings that the companies have to SELL to customers as being reliable.

They are motivated to get the research out there.

 

Peter Clarke
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Nice job...
Peter Clarke   9/29/2013 7:30:20 AM
NO RATINGS
I think the issue with Intel is that the 14nm production is imminent and Intel does not need to share this information -- and so it does not.


In the case of TSMC 16nm FinFET and ST/GloFo 14nm FDSOI then these are foundry offerings that the companies have to SELL to customers as being reliable.

They are motivated to get the research out there.

 

KB3001
User Rank
CEO
Re: Nice job...
KB3001   9/28/2013 6:39:01 AM
NO RATINGS
I heard conflicting messages about this Kris (finFET vs FDSOI). Some say FDSOI controls leakage better than fitFET and is much easier to design. As such it will be the technology to succeed. Others say finFET is already the winner. I guess the proof of the pudding is in the eating....

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: Nice job...
krisi   9/28/2013 10:25:04 AM
NO RATINGS
Yes, they are very different technologies...finFET exploits silicon surface in a third dimension so you would expect every good Ion current but probably some difficulties in controlling Ioff...FDSoi takes advantage of thin silicon body so Ioff leakage is-likely easier to control but Ion values are not as good....so I think finFET will be better for high speed and FDSOI better for very low power...Kris

KB3001
User Rank
CEO
Re: Nice job...
KB3001   9/28/2013 10:31:28 AM
NO RATINGS
That's what I think too, Kris, finFET for high performance and FDSOI for low power, or may be a combination of the two??

Peter Clarke
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Nice job...
Peter Clarke   9/29/2013 7:34:16 AM
NO RATINGS
Yes, it is possible the two could meet in FinFET-over-insulator at atound 10nm.

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: Nice job...
krisi   9/29/2013 11:52:45 AM
NO RATINGS
I guess it is possible that at some point finFET would be build on Soi substrate, personally I don,t think that would happen...looks too complicated...there is no reasons why the two consortiums would not continue developing what they put massive r&d investments already in

pa11
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Nice job...
pa11   9/30/2013 6:56:19 AM
NO RATINGS
SOI FinFET is something IBM has been pushing for some time (search SOI FinFET in the IEDM program, there are at least 2 papers).

http://www.his.com/~iedm/program/13advprg.pdf

Adele.Hars
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Nice job...
Adele.Hars   10/17/2013 10:10:21 AM
NO RATINGS
Kris, as of course as you know, FinFETs were originally developed on SOI - because it was easier! And there's that great animation on the SOI Consortium website that shows why that's still the case. But is easier necessarily in the interests of the foundries? If bulk FinFETs are more complicated but they get higher margins on them, it seems logical that's what they'll push...?  Whereas for IDMs, they reap the savings  (cheaper and easier) themselves. Not sure how good this trend would be for the industry, tho. On the other hand, we're starting to see some complaints from designers re: pain points in bulk FinFETS. Either way, looking forward to this IEDM for sure!

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: Nice job...
krisi   10/17/2013 12:16:00 PM
NO RATINGS
thank you Adele...no, I didn't realize that finFET was built on SOI substrate first!...since doing my research on SiGe devices while with U of Toronto in early 90-ties I have not been following basic transistor technology that closely...looking to hear from you on how finFET vs FDSOI debate continues at IEDM!...Kris

wilber_xbox
User Rank
Manager
Re: Nice job...
wilber_xbox   9/29/2013 12:53:51 PM
NO RATINGS
Changing technology at 10nm will be too late. FinFET introduction has not given the advantage the companies thought it would due to complexity and litho limitation among many other things but i guess until someone else prove that FDSOI is better then companies will reconsider.

resistion
User Rank
CEO
Re: Nice job...
resistion   9/29/2013 6:26:05 AM
NO RATINGS
So much renewed confidence in FD-SOI..so is the self-heating issue now resolved?

KB3001
User Rank
CEO
Re: Nice job...
KB3001   9/29/2013 6:37:46 AM
NO RATINGS
The fact finFET has not exactly delivered on the low power figures promised by Intel is giving FDSOI renewed momentum.

Chipguy1
User Rank
CEO
Re: Nice job...
Chipguy1   9/30/2013 1:12:39 PM
I think your correct. FinFET sounded good but all the 3D process variation and high gate capacitance means many design blocks on the SOC have worse PPA. I think this is one of the reasons Apples 28nm A7 is much better than Intel's FinFET Bay Trail

Peter Clarke
User Rank
Blogger
Re: Nice job...
Peter Clarke   9/29/2013 7:26:28 AM
NO RATINGS
There is a paper within the IEDM program that takes another look at the self-heating problem. It definitely seems that it has not gone away.

In fact the FDSOI process is very well represented at IEDM suggesting that ST and partners are pushing hard.

 

Adele.Hars
User Rank
Rookie
Re: Nice job...
Adele.Hars   10/17/2013 9:53:43 AM
NO RATINGS
re: self-heating -- the paper summary indicates that they're looking at 6nm (!!) FD-SOI, and finding self-heating "comparable" to bulk FinFETs. So maybe not going away, but certainly not a show stopper!

michigan0
User Rank
Manager
FinFET vs.FDSOI
michigan0   9/28/2013 5:44:33 PM
NO RATINGS
Here are some important facts about FDSOI technology. FDSOI was invented by IBM over a decade ago, but still not manufacturable at any technology node yet despite of enormous efforts and resouces were spent by IBM research and its International SOI consortium mainly because Soitec, the largest SOI wafer supplier can't deliver 7 nm thin SOI that is required for manufacturing of 28 nm FDSOI. AT 2011 SOI Conference at Phoenix, AZ Soitec announced that what it could deliver is 12 nm thin SOI wafer, not 7 nm SOI. For FDSOI at 20/22 nm an extremely thin 5 nm SOI is required to overcome the short channel effects or transistor leakage current. That is why FDSOI still not manufacturable even at 28nm today, and will not be manufacturable at 20/22 nm and beyond. FinFET is only technology in volume manufacturing for a couple of years at 22 nm by Intel, and 14 nm in late this year. TSMC appears to introduce its FinFET manufacturing in 2014. Beauty of FinFET is that it is extendable to the end of scaling according to FinFET physics. FDSOI can't contest with FinFET. There is alternative to FinFET today. Skim 

AKH0
User Rank
Freelancer
Re: FinFET vs.FDSOI
AKH0   9/29/2013 3:47:47 AM
Michigan0, the reason SOITEC delivers 12nm SOI wafer is not because they cannot deliver thinner wafers. It is simply because they are asked to do so. Any person familar with CMOS technology recongnizes that you need to consume a few nanometer to form STI (pad oxide needed before deposited pad nitride), then you need a few nanometer oxide for your I/O devices. Once you do the math, you realize that for a taget channel thickness of 6-7 nanometer you have to start somewhat thicker and this is exactly what has been asked from SOITEC and SEH. Unless you want to use deposited oxide for pad-ox and I/O devices (which is of course inferior to thermal oxide) this is what you'd need. Again, anybody that processed CMOS wafers knows that thermal oxidation is precisely controlled -- for our reference gate oxide was about 1nm thick with less than 5% variation before people switched to high-k.


As far as thickness control goes, in fact FDSOI has significant advantage over FinFET. The device is planar, which means you have a variety of well established methods to monitor thickness on as-received wafer and during processing, including ellipsometry and AFM. Metrology is a big problem with FinFET. Let alone the loading effects in depositing the spacer in SIT process and in etching the fins. Yes, FinFET is in mass production but I can say with enough confidence that it did NOT deliver the promissed 50% reduction in power that was claimed back in 2011 even after supposedly toc of Haswell.

 

michigan0
User Rank
Manager
FinFET vs.FDSOI
michigan0   9/28/2013 6:19:51 PM
NO RATINGS
one correction posted below by michigan: The last sentence should be read,  no alternative to FinFET today instead of alternative to FinFET today.

michigan0
User Rank
Manager
paper selection
michigan0   9/29/2013 4:46:38 PM
NO RATINGS

In order to stage FinFET vs. FDSOI successfully the device

electrical transfer characteristics such as dId/dVd with Vg 

as parameters, dId/dVg at both linear and saturation modes, 

DIBL, and subthreshold slope must be measured and 

presented as minimum requirements because IEDM stand 

for international electron device meeting. Recently, a 

number of papers presented at IEDM do not meet the 

minimum requirements.





wilber_xbox
User Rank
Manager
Re: paper selection
wilber_xbox   9/30/2013 3:09:09 PM
NO RATINGS
michigan, so are you saying that despite much time there has not been enough progress in FinFET and this has led to lower number of papers in IEDM? But no other company apart from TSMC is presenting paper which means more companies are developing FDSOI. Don't u think.

michigan0
User Rank
Manager
Re: paper selection
michigan0   10/1/2013 12:29:46 AM
NO RATINGS
Thanks for ypur comments.

My primary purpose was not to lower or higher number of FinFET or FDSOI papers in IEDM. FinFET is at high volume manufacturing now over 2 years at 22nm by Intel while FDSOI is not manufacturable at any technology node yet. Therefore, when FDSOI test chips become available, I propose the minimum requirements for measurement of the transistor electrical transfer characteristcs for both FinFET and FDSOI for fair comprison. The minimum requirements are posted in detail. SKim

resistion
User Rank
CEO
The key debate topic
resistion   10/9/2013 10:33:45 PM
NO RATINGS
Looks like FinFET vs. FDSOI will be the main debate topic to year end. Even other threads on other topics somehow eventually wind up on this topic.

n47
User Rank
Rookie
finfet intel 14
n47   10/16/2013 3:30:30 PM
NO RATINGS
note intel 14 Finfet now delayed.   delay is more like a year for the volumn Broadwell release not the 3 months CEO stated.    Broadwell will not be in volumn in market until end of 2014 and there is even talk Broadwell will be cancelled due to it being so late or a limited volumn release.   my contact a copy manufacturing engineer says they are still not even involved in the manufacturing and he should of been involved 5 quarters ago.

August Cartoon Caption Winner!
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
"All the King's horses and all the KIng's men gave up on Humpty, so they handed the problem off to Engineering."
5 comments
Top Comments of the Week
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
Flash Poll
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.