The proposed new and costly 450-mm fabs are a huge gamble and could indeed make or break the industry. In any event, Japan's S.E.S. Co. Ltd. has reportedly just shipped the world's first 450-mm tool--a next-generation wafer cleaning system, according to sources. The first 450-mm tool, which is said to be a R&D prototype, is reportedly going to South Korea's Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., according to sources.

The event is a major milestone in the possible shift towards 450-mm fabs. And if Samsung gains an edge in 450-mm fabs, it could be bad news for rival memory houses, many of which cannot afford to make the shift to the new wafer size.

Others are also quietly working on 450-mm technologies. Last year, Japan's Nippon Mining & Metals Co. Ltd. claimed to have developed a 450-mm polycrystalline silicon wafer.

''Both Brooks and Asyst have at least one robot," said Dean Freeman, an analyst with Gartner Inc., in an e-mail newsletter, referring to factory automation equipment in fabs.

''Factory automation has been explored, and at least one equipment vendor has a 450-mm tool,'' he said. "There could be more vendors with test beds in a back room. Wafer ingots have been pulled, and sawing and polishing techniques are being developed. So some progress was made since last year."

Indeed, after some resistance, some (but not all) fab-tool vendors are jumping on the 450-mm bandwagon--and for good reason: the biggest buyers of equipment are pushing hard for it.

Last month, Intel, Samsung and TSMC reached an agreement on the need for industry collaboration for 450-mm wafers starting in 2012. Intel, Samsung and TSMC indicate that the semiconductor industry can improve its return on investment and reduce 450-mm research and development costs by applying aligned standards, rationalizing changes from 300-mm infrastructure and automation, and working toward a common timeline.

The three companies will continue to work with International Sematech (ISMI), which is coordinating industry efforts on 450-mm wafer supply, standards and developing equipment test bed capabilities.

As reported, ISMI has outlined a program in the arena. But most equipment makers are not pushing for 450-mm, saying it is too expensive. Some believe 450-mm is not required and will bankrupt the industry. Most equipment makers are small-to-midsized companies with limited R&D budgets. 450-mm, they say, is too expensive and 300-mm is more than sufficient for future chip-making needs.

The big question is whether the industry will see a prototype 450-mm fab by 2012. "Probably not,'' Freeman said. "For real progress to be made, the industry needs to determine how to move forward. A realistic cost model, agreed to by both sides, is needed first--just to get close enough to determine if the economics are reasonable.''

There are two sides to the story. ''One side believes that it is a requirement as a method to reduce manufacturing costs; the other side believes the economics don't warrant the transition and that the industry will never recover the cost of development. The reality is most likely somewhere in between,'' he said.

On one hand, the transition to larger wafers will enable continued growth of the semiconductor industry and helps maintain a reasonable cost structure for future integrated circuit manufacturing and applications, according to Intel, Samsung and TSMC.

''The equipment makers argued that the economics of moving to a larger wafer size [do] not make sense,'' Freeman said. ''While historically, the industry has quoted a 30 percent cost improvement with a move to the next wafer size, at 450-mm, this probably would not happen because wafer throughput at 450-mm would likely be lower than at 300-mm, and equipment costs could prove to be higher than the 1.3x agreed to at the 300-mm transition.''

Economics is the big factor. ''It might be possible to obtain the 30 percent improvement over time as equipment throughput improve, but initially, this level of cost improvement is unlikely,'' he said.

''The economics of 450-mm will be a big barrier to overcome,'' he added. ''Undoubtedly, some costs could be reduced by collaboration or the use of flat-panel technology; however, the ROI at this time looks very poor for equipment vendors, and a realistic cost model needs to be jointly developed to clearly estimate the potential cost of 450-mm and the possible profit returns.''