Although double patterning is certainly a signficant barrier, a more aggressive shrinking (<0.7x) could bring back some more returns. Actually, the greater concern for me is the self-heating that could be aggravated in these thin silicon devices (FDSOI and FinFET). It's harder for heat to move away from hot spots in thin silicon. Even in the Intel trigate case, it has to move down from the narrowest point (the apex).
Yes, the industry has moved to Finfets to solve the problems with bulk. It's going to be difficult for FDSOI to become mainstream now. A few points:
(1) Yes, Finfets when executed properly give significantly lower wafer costs than FDSOI. That's what I heard from both Intel and TSMC people who made the decision in their respective companies.
(2) SOITEC is known to have significant yield problems getting 5nm or 8nm thin SOI uniformly across the wafer. I heard some bad yield numbers from their employees. The $500 wafer cost assumption is optimistic.
(3) With AMD moving away from SOI and the industry choosing Finfets over FDSOI, SOITEC is in trouble. It's been funding various marketing pushes by hiring consultants and third parties who push SOI... They also fund the SOI consortium. Some of the recent stuff about SOI in the press comes from those efforts. If you speak with decision makers in companies, they say Finfets WHEN EXECUTED WELL, are better, cheaper and more scalable.
(4) SOITEC was formed to commercialize the French Govt's (CEA/LETI's) SOI invention. So, ST Micro, which gets a lot of funding from the French govt, is pushing the technology.
"All the industry is going to FinFet, following Intel that has a three years lead and experience"...
Oh sure, I mean Intel has a PERFECT record on process selection, they've NEVER jumped on a technology before it was "ready for prime time" and regretted the consequences, have they? Oh and by the way has anybody seen my bubble memory USB key, I think I must have misplaced it somewhere...hmm!?
The same situation of 2002/2003, when AMD chose the SOI process for ClawHammer. The problems were numerous, but this decision revealed itself good for AMD, if we see at the recent past. http://www.geek.com/chips/amd-paid-ibm-46-million-to-solve-some-soi-problems-552954/
Today AMD has to do a gamble, and FD-SOI could be a good pick (like Altera and Intel alliance).
I think no one has disagreed that 28 nm bulk planar is the cheap(est) starting point. Going to FDSOI or FinFET adds cost, and going to 20 nm adds cost. With the added cost of FDSOI or FinFET, the shrink should be beyond 20 nm to make up, but is 14 nm even enough? Especially with increased lithography costs at 14 nm only adding to the costs?
Rick, try the FD-SOI Design Community on LinkedIn for more (not just ST) insight. The FDSOI crowd jumps from 28 to 14nm - not bothering w/20nm --altho Handel is a purist w/respect to nomenclature, it seems ;-) -- anyway, when he says 20nm, the FDSOI folks call it 14nm (that's what they're going head-to-head with, after all). Soitec also has good info - see latest ASN on Gen2FDSOI (28nm performance beats 20nm bulk (and costs 50% less); 14nm matches FinFET (at 20% lower cost). http://www.advancedsubstratenews.com/2014/03/fd-soi-back-to-basics-for-best-cost-energy-efficiency-and-performance/. Also CMP has a been seeing good results in their MPW runs - they've got 140+ users of the 28nm FDSOI PDK (which granted, is provided by ST/Leti) -- hear they're pretty pleased with the results they're seeing.
And be patient... STMicroelectronics will soon be announcing a "major foundry player" that will be both a dual FD-SOI manufacturing source for ST, plus an open source for the industry. This important piece of news came out of the company's Q4 and FY13 presentation in Paris on January 28th....
I am not sure where you get the 3.5nm thickness from. Although it is a great improvement over 6nm vs 12nm argument you were making not long ago. As publicly stated multiple times and will be shown at VLSI symp in a few months, 14nm FDSOI is using 6nm channel thickness. It uses Si channel for NFET and SiGe for PFET. NONE of the FinFET devices published so far have a strain knob for PFET despite all the performance claim and continue to normalize the current per footprint which I consider cheating as a device engineer - this is exactly how TSMC claimed performance parity or even advantage over Intel 22nm. And by the way there is no 16nm or 14nm gate length in 16nm FinFET technology. The shortest gate length in FinFET is 30nm and low leakage devices go all the way to 50nm. Please see TSMC's paper. Those rule of thumb thickness versus gate length don't come into play when you design technology relevant devices. And believe me I did this for both FinFET and FDSOI for more than 6 years.
Dear Sang Kim. You are making the assumption that 14nm technology needs a 14nm gate length, which is not true. This is know across all companies. The technology node number is just a label, without any direct connection to any dimension on the device.
I agree embedded SiGe is not doable on FDSOI, and that's why I used SiGe in the channel, with performance competing with anything that is out there. However, I do not agree FinFET does not need a strain knob. It does and as far as I have seen (experimentally and by analyzing data from Intel and TSMC so far) eSiGe does NOT work the way it used to. The explanation you provided as only the top of the channel conducting the current actually makes things worse. You are paying the capacitance penalty for the entire gated portion of the fin, so if only the top portion really conducts it's less current for a given capacitance.
TSMC's 16nm technology has a gate length of 30nm or more. Same is Intel's 22nm. The cross sections have been clearly shown in conferences. 10nm platform that you quote also has a gate length of more than 20 nm as will be shown in June.
This is the first time I hear FinFET does not need strain and strain is bad. Please talk to people that run wafers.
Whether it's most of the current in the top or all of it, at the end of the day what matters is current per capacitance or gm divided by capacitance. If you do that math FinFET comes shy. Please see broadcom's invited paper at iedm 2013. FinFET ft - even intrinsic , which is simply 1/2pi gm/Cgs comes worse than 20nm planar.
We can talk all day how beautiful a PowerPoint FinFET is. But the fact is that one by one people are seeing its problems.
IBM uses SOI for its Power processors. Your point is valid: Freescale stopped using SOI because of gaps in the design IP, and AMD also retreated. It is hard to gain back the cost of the wafer for $20 chips, I was told.
A Book For All Reasons Bernard Cole1 Comment Robert Oshana's recent book "Software Engineering for Embedded Systems (Newnes/Elsevier)," written and edited with Mark Kraeling, is a 'book for all reasons.' At almost 1,200 pages, it ...