Design Con 2015
Breaking News
News & Analysis

EUV Results Bogus, Says Analyst

IBM responds to criticism of test
8/1/2014 03:00 PM EDT
29 comments
More Related Links
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 3 / 3
resistion
User Rank
CEO
Re: Follow up
resistion   8/1/2014 6:43:24 PM
NO RATINGS
The correct expectation is source power must be inversely proportional to feature size, i.e., half-pitch. Just to get at least 5000 photons per feature.

docdivakar
User Rank
CEO
Re: Follow up
docdivakar   8/1/2014 6:25:39 PM
NO RATINGS
@Rick: You may have been to Nikon's Lithovision (held adjacent to SPIE's Lithography conference) in the past on this EUV topic. As far back as 5 years (I have not been there in the last two years), attendees were told EUV is almost here and migrating to the next tech node is guaranteed to work! I am sure you heard about this proclamation for 28nm onward to what is now 7/9nm nodes. Yet EUV still remains a mirage!

MP Divakar

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Follow up
rick merritt   8/1/2014 5:46:23 PM
NO RATINGS
My take:

IBM did indeed have a minor breakthrough exposing 637 wafers at 20mJ/cm2 in 24 hours with a machine running at 77% uptime. IBM admited from the outset this was NOT enough to make EUV viable for the 10nm node. Everyone, IBM included, is still HOPING EUV will be ready for 7nm node at the earliest.


The real breakthoughs will be getting 100+ wafers/HOUR out at something more like 50mJ/cm2 with good, useable wafers patterned at the dimensions needed for10-7nm node work.

Let's cross our fingers some brilliant engineers can make that happen in the next 12 months!

 

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: IBM misleading
krisi   8/1/2014 5:23:40 PM
NO RATINGS
$6B on a speculative technology announcement...impressive ;-)

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Re: IBM misleading
rick merritt   8/1/2014 5:19:18 PM
NO RATINGS
They did move the stock as Maire noted above. "To the tune of $6 billion," Maire just told me.

krisi
User Rank
CEO
Re: IBM misleading
krisi   8/1/2014 4:24:02 PM
NO RATINGS
Do you think announcement like this would move the stock?

docdivakar
User Rank
CEO
Re: IBM misleading
docdivakar   8/1/2014 4:16:04 PM
NO RATINGS
In the absence of published data, I would have to concur with Mr. Robert Maire's observations, including his point on using wafers with resists. But I wouldn't go as far as saying "All that happened was that wafers were moved from the input FOUP to the output FOUP!" I think there was more accomplished here than that!

IBM did admit that the testing scope was limited to "power level and reliability" studies of the EUV source. How ever, I disagree with the statement "Putting resist on the wafers would have had no value whatsoever", the EUV study would have gone much further using wafers with resists.

I am not sure if the announcement warranted the run up in stock prices!

MP Divakar

resistion
User Rank
CEO
Resist-less is not realistic
resistion   8/1/2014 4:06:30 PM
NO RATINGS
With resist, the tool would have to stop every now and then to cool everything down, maybe do some cleaning..

krisi
User Rank
CEO
IBM misleading
krisi   8/1/2014 3:31:06 PM
NO RATINGS
"the results were deliberately misleading" pretty shocking considering who did the tests

<<   <   Page 3 / 3
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