Beyond 193i and Sub-22nm: Tackling the Cost and Technical Drivers – Part 1
by Debra Vogler, Instant Insight Inc.
The semiconductor industry being driven by opportunities in mobility and cloud computing, but the road to providing cost-effective solutions for consumer electronics and high-end servers is s slow one right now. The economic realities are as daunting as the technological challenges associated with addressing new transistor architectures, new materials, the introduction of extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUVL), 3D ICs, and the transition to 450mm manufacturing – all occurring, more or less, in parallel.
Keeping in mind the serious R&D spending needed to develop these advances, the SEMICON West 2012 TechXPOTs on Enabling Sub-22nm with New Materials and Processes (Tuesday, 7/10/12, 10:30AM-12:30PM), and Lithography: Extending Double-patterning, Industrializing EUV, and Complementary Technologies (Wednesday, 7/11/12, 10:30AM-12:30PM) offer an opportunity to discuss how suppliers and semiconductor manufacturers can together tackle the multiple imperatives facing the industry. These are just some of the pressing technical and cost drivers that will be discussed.
Lithography choice is cost-driven
As with most new technologies in the semiconductor industry, cost of implementation in high-volume manufacturing (HVM) is the main driver – and lithography below 22/20nm is no different. Although much work has gone into EUVL, there are still those who are not entirely certain it will be ready in the most cost-effective manner for HVM. Some are banking on using 193 immersion (193i) lithography until it completely runs out of gas, and others are putting efforts into e-beam direct write (EBDW) lithography as well as into the new kid on the block, directed self-assembly (DSA). Each of these technologies has advantages and disadvantages. Many experts agree on one point that is probably best summarized byStefan Wurm, director of lithography, at SEMATECH. “Everything is cost driven and the cost structure is different for different players,” Wurm told SEMI. “People will try to push existing technologies as far as they can go as long as they are cost-effective.”
According to Yan Borodovsky, Intel Senior Fellow and director of advanced lithography, the company is using 193i to pattern critical layers, aided with pitch division as well as new materials and computational lithography, and will continue to do so until additional solutions become available that are commensurate with the CoO to sustain HVM. “If these other technologies (EUV and EBDW) do not materialize, Intel will continue to use 193i,” said Borodovsky. While the company is able to use 193i down to the 10nm node if it must, it is also working on possible lithography solutions below 10nm, though potential solutions at 7nm cannot be disclosed at this time.
EUVL: it works
With six NXE:3100 EUVL systems out in the field (being used for development work at end users’ sites), ASML’s Hans Meiling, senior director, product management EUV, is clear about one thing: on overlay and imaging – two key drivers for end users – the technology is in good shape. “There are no showstoppers in these areas,” noted Meiling. “The productivity is the cost issue – it’s not a blocker of the technology.”
Later in 2012 the company will be shipping the NXE:3300B. This newest version will have improved resolution (0.33NA, 22nm hp; 18nm hp with off-axis illumination [OAI]), increased transmission for higher productivity at higher dose, and the capability for OAI without energy loss, as well as a reduced footprint. The overlay will be 3.0nm/dedicated chuck overlay (DCO) and 5.0nm/matched machine overlay (MMO), respectively. The throughput for the 3300 will be 125wph at 15mJ/cm².
In terms of cost, ASML’s data comparing various lithography options indicates that EUVL provides a more cost-effective alternative (Fig. 1).
For one, by using a single-exposure system, the design restrictions necessary when using immersion and double-patterning together are avoided. Also eliminated are the many extra process steps required when using double-patterning ( strip/clean, etch, and so on).
Maskless lithography: a more cost-effective choice?
Not everyone has been waiting for the promise of EUVL to become cost-effective, however. The IMAGINE Program headed by CEA-Leti is charged with developing and industrializing electron beam high-throughput maskless lithography (ML2) developed by MAPPER Lithography. Leti recently announced that the program achieved 22nm dense lines and spaces and 22nm dense contact holes in positive chemically amplified resist. These results meet the industry requirements for the next-generation 14nm and 10nm logic nodes according to the consortium. Serge Tedesco, Leti’s lithography program manager, explained that even if EUVL reaches its anticipated levels of productivity, he doesn’t see how it will be cost-effective for low-volume production, particularly for those foundries that have a large number of different designs with a low number of wafers per mask. “E-beam will cost less and foundry people will have an ever more difficult choice based on cost,” he said. When you add the costs of prototyping and device development, there are more reasons for the interest in a maskless solution on the part of foundries such as TSMC and STMicroelectronics. Even some logic device manufacturers are interested in the maskless e-beam technology, said Tedesco.
While there has been discussion in the industry about the possibility of companies that have the large volumes associated with memories – and that also run logic and have a foundry business (e.g., Samsung) – running both EUVL and e-beam lithography, Tedesco acknowledged that it won’t be easy running two different lithography technologies in the same fab. “But people think more and more that, depending on the application, it could be possible,” said Tedesco.
IMAGINE Program members come from 13 different companies including TSMC, STMicroelectronics, TEL, Sokudo, TOK, JSR, Dow EM, Nissan Chemical, Synopsys, Aselta Nanographics, and Mentor Graphics. With many of the participants also active in EUVL development, it stands to reason that the competition for funding and human resources is a juggling act. Still, Tedesco is hopeful that discussion about e-beam lithography will convince the industry to continue funding. “We really need to raise the interest,” he said.
Next on the agenda for the IMAGINE Program is building a full-field pre-production tool with a 1wph throughput with stitching capability. Tedesco reports that all of the system modules are under development at MAPPER; the exact timing of when the 1wph tool will be completed and delivered to Leti is not yet available, though Tedesco says it will be delivered in the first half of 2013. Integration of the modules will start by the end of 2012. The tool will have 13,000 beams – though in the beginning, only 10% of the beams will be used while beam uniformity issues are addressed. The next step is to go to a 10wph tool in which all 13,000 beams will be used. After that, a 100wph tool is planned; it will be accomplished by clustering 10 systems (each system having 13,000 beams) together. It is intended that the 100wph tool will be the production version said Tedesco.
A different view of cost issues
Donis Flagello, NRCA Fellow at Nikon Research Corporation of America, is of the belief that EUVL is here to stay: “there’s been too much invested and too many people bought machines,” he told SEMI. “I think some of the bigger players out there will accept running EUV machines slower because the options don’t look that good.” But he also believes that because the industry has come up against the costs of EUVL and the realities, it’s prompted a push to pursue parallel paths and backup plans. One example is DSA. Flagello calls the move of DSA out of academia and into development houses at chip fabs amazing. “I’ve never seen that happen so fast,” he said. “I don’t know at what point people will make a decision…I think people will keep working in parallel at least for the next couple of years.”
Regarding e-beam lithography, Flagello notes that it may not be necessary for the MAPPER team to try and push for a 100wph tool to compete directly with EUVL. “If you can build a machine that gets 5wph, you will have your foot in the door and you can make lots of wafers.” He suggests that e-beam lithography will be more of a complementary technology.
Click Here to go to Part 2 of this Article
Debra Vogler is president of Instant Insight Inc., 370 Altair Way, PMB #234, Sunnyvale, CA 94086; email [email protected]