Breaking News
News & Analysis

Moore's Law threatened by lithography woes

Scaling slowed
10/5/2012 01:26 PM EDT
41 comments
NO RATINGS
< Previous Page 2 / 2
View Comments: Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
<<   <   Page 4 / 4
krisi
User Rank
Author
re: Moore's Law threatened by lithography woes
krisi   10/5/2012 10:32:07 PM
NO RATINGS
would it not be better to make a larger step and go to directed self-assembly (DSA)? multi-patterning feels very incremental with some gains due to smaller feature size and some losses due to lower throughput

PV-Geek
User Rank
Author
re: Moore's Law threatened by lithography woes
PV-Geek   10/5/2012 10:26:44 PM
NO RATINGS
The EDA enablement of multi-patterning provides a path to maintain a path along Moore's law. The only hesitation has been cost. But what most people are ignoring is the fact that by the time they get an EUV system capable of the numbers they need it will probably cost more than multi-patterning with traditional steppers, and it may even need multi-patterning itself.

Kresearch
User Rank
Author
re: Moore's Law threatened by lithography woes
Kresearch   10/5/2012 9:15:19 PM
NO RATINGS
"Without EUV, Intel believes it will have to write as many as five immersion patterns on a chip which will take more time and money but is still economical." Hope it is true. But when litho rework rate boomed with strigent process requirements in triple and above patterning, process window and yield are impaced severely. It will be hard to see economic advantages in dimension shrinking. It is happening in current 22/20nm processes(double pattern) and getting worse for 14nm and beyond. That is the reason why Intel/Samsung/TSMC(even nVidia) are urging 450mm progress in parallel to lower down process cost. Tons of hurdles ahead, Go engineers.

krisi
User Rank
Author
re: Moore's Law threatened by lithography woes
krisi   10/5/2012 3:58:28 PM
NO RATINGS
If you were starting today there will be probably no point in joining silicon industry...by the time you were to reach 40 it would had become something different ;-)

resistion
User Rank
Author
re: Moore's Law threatened by lithography woes
resistion   10/5/2012 3:51:36 PM
NO RATINGS
Indeed, the well-known much higher absorption of EUV should have been a key clue.

resistion
User Rank
Author
re: Moore's Law threatened by lithography woes
resistion   10/5/2012 3:46:10 PM
NO RATINGS
Wow, that's quite a while back, if I read those papers, maybe I would have reconsidered joining this field, who knows ;-) I guess saying scaling won't happen would be much riskier than saying a particular way of scaling won't happen.

krisi
User Rank
Author
re: Moore's Law threatened by lithography woes
krisi   10/5/2012 3:18:05 PM
NO RATINGS
This has been known for years @resistion...I attended IEDM conference 20 years ago where this issue was discussed ;-)...talks about slowing of the Murphy's law started shortly after "the law" was established...I remember limits at 1 micron level considered insurmountable ;-)...but it might be true this time around...litho is clearly a huge challenge...but not the only one...Kris

resistion
User Rank
Author
re: Moore's Law threatened by lithography woes
resistion   10/5/2012 2:43:05 PM
NO RATINGS
Something they should have known. So much more energy absorbed from a shorter wavelength photon into a smaller space, obviously higher energy density needs to be dissipated into a larger volume to avoid unwanted material changes. In one form or another, multiple patterning becomes necessary.

<<   <   Page 4 / 4
Most Recent Comments
michigan0
 
SteveHarris0
 
realjjj
 
SteveHarris0
 
SteveHarris0
 
VicVat
 
Les_Slater
 
SSDWEM
 
witeken
Most Recent Messages
9/25/2016
4:48:30 PM
michigan0 Sang Kim First, 28nm bulk is in volume manufacturing for several years by the major semiconductor companies but not 28nm FDSOI today yet. Why not? Simply because unlike 28nm bulk the LDD(Lightly Doped Drain) to minimize hot carrier generation can't be implemented in 28nm FDSOI. Furthermore, hot carrier reliability becomes worse with scaling, That is the major reason why 28nm FDSOI is not manufacturable today and will not be. Second, how can you suppress the leakage currents from such ultra short 7nm due to the short channel effects? How thin SOI thickness is required to prevent punch-through of un-dopped 7nm FDSOI? Possibly less than 4nm. Depositing such an ultra thin film less then 4nm filum uniformly and reliably over 12" wafers at the manufacturing line is extremely difficult or not even manufacturable. If not manufacturable, the 7nm FDSOI debate is over!Third, what happens when hot carriers are generated near the drain at normal operation of 7nm FDSOI? Electrons go to the positively biased drain with no harm but where the holes to go? The holes can't go to the substrate because of the thin BOX layer. Some holes may become trapped at the BOX layer causing Vt shift. However, the vast majority of holes drift through the the un-dopped SOI channel toward the N+Source,...

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed