1 / 20

[Per IRC Approved Proposals 3/27/01, Scenario 2.0/3.7; Plus DesTWG MPU Chip Model Proposal ]

[Per IRC Approved Proposals 3/27/01, Scenario 2.0/3.7; Plus DesTWG MPU Chip Model Proposal ]. ITRS IRC/ITWG Meeting ORTC Proposal Review ITRS/SEMICON - July, 2001 TECHNOLOGY NODE/CHIP SIZE SUMMARY Draft Rev 10 h , 07/13/01. S=0.7 [0.5x per 2 nodes]. Pitch. Gate.

norah
Download Presentation

[Per IRC Approved Proposals 3/27/01, Scenario 2.0/3.7; Plus DesTWG MPU Chip Model Proposal ]

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. [Per IRC Approved Proposals 3/27/01, Scenario 2.0/3.7; Plus DesTWG MPU Chip Model Proposal] ITRS IRC/ITWG Meeting ORTC Proposal Review ITRS/SEMICON - July, 2001 TECHNOLOGY NODE/CHIP SIZE SUMMARY Draft Rev 10h, 07/13/01

  2. S=0.7 [0.5x per 2 nodes] Pitch Gate MOS Transistor Scaling(1974 to present)

  3. 0.7x 0.7x 250 -> 180 -> 130 -> 90 -> 65 -> 45 -> 32 -> 22 -> 16 0.5x N N+1 N+2 Scaling Calculator

  4. 1994 NTRS - .7x/3yrs Log Half-Pitch Actual - .7x/2yrs 0.7x 0.7x Linear Time 250 -> 180 -> 130 -> 90 -> 65 -> 45 -> 32 -> 22 -> 16 0.5x Node Cycle Time (T yrs): *CARR(T) = [(0.5^.5)^(1/T yrs)] - 1 CARR(3 yrs) = -10.9% CARR(2 yrs) = -15.9% N N+1 N+2 * CARR(T) = Compound Annual Reduction Rate (@ cycle time period, T) Scaling Calculator + Node Cycle Time:

  5. ITRS Approved Scenario Proposal (4/26/01 Grenoble) Scenarios 2.0(DRAM), 3.7(MPU), 3.7 (ASIC/Low Power) the DRAM Half-pitch (HP) should remain on a 3-year-cycle trend after 130nm/2001 (Sc 2.0). • the MPU/ASIC HP* may be on a 2-year-cycle trend until 90nm/2004, and then remain equal to DRAM HP Sc 2.0 on a 3-year cycle (Sc 3.7). • the MPU (HP) Printed (PrGL) and Physical (PhGL) Gate Length will be on 2-year-cycle trends until 45nm and 32nm, respectively, at year 2005, and then parallel to the DRAM/MPU HP trends on a 3-year cycle (Sc 3.7). • the ASIC/Low Power Pr/PhGL is delayed 2 years behind MPU Pr/PhGL per Grenoble 4/26,27 ITRS meetings; *ASIC HP equal to MPU HP

  6. Scenario 2.0/DRAM 3.7/MPU (2-yr cycle M/A HP & G.L. <2005; 3yr >2005) ITRS Roadmap Acceleration Continues... 95 97 99 01 04 07 10 13 16 500 500 2-Year Node Cycle 1995-2001 Sc 3.7 MPU/ASIC Half-Pitch (1-year Lag Thru 2002, then equal to DRAM after 2004) 350 350 250 250 (DRAM Half Pitch) Technology Node 180 180 1998/1999 DRAM Half-Pitch MPU/ASIC 130 130 Feature Size (nm) 2000 Update, Sc 2.0 Gate Length 100 100 XX Technology Node - DRAM Half-Pitch (nm) Minimum 90 DRAM Sc 2.0 = 3-yr cycle after 2001 70 XX 70 Feature Size 65 50 XX 50 45 35 MPU/ASIC Gate XX In Resist “ ” 1999 ITRS 35 32 25 XX 25 22 16 95 97 99 01 04 07 10 13 16 ~.7x per 11 Year of Production technology 2001 Renewal Period “Most Aggressive” Sc 3.7 = 2-yr<’05; 3-yr >’05: MPU Printed (PrGL) & Physical (PhGL) Gate Length cycle; (ASIC/Lo Power Pr/PhGL 2-year delay from MPU Pr/PhGL) node (.5x 8.0 per 2 nodes)

  7. 107 28 MPU/ ASIC 2001 Renewal ORTC DRAM and MPU Technology Node Tables 1a,b [ITRS Typical Table Header Format ]

  8. MPU/ ASIC 107 28 *ASIC GL = 2-year delay from MPU GL 130 107 90 75 65 53 45 32 22 16 90 75 65 53 45 37 32 22 16 11 MPU/ ASIC * * 2001 Renewal ORTC ASIC Technology Node Tables 1aa,ba [ITRS ASIC/Low Power Chapter Table Header Format ]

  9. Samsung @ ISSCC/Feb2001: 4Gb DRAM, 645mm2, [0.15u2 ave cell area] (ITRS: 0.13u2/2001) 2000 Update [Sc. 2.0/3.7] [Approved for use in 2001 Renewal w/MPU Sc. 3.7] DRAM Chip size - 2000 ITRS ORTC Update Proposal [Sc. 2.0]

  10. 800mm2 Litho Field Size 572mm2 Litho Field Size 286mm2 2 per Field Size 310mm2 340mm2 170mm2 Sc 3.7: Flat Thru 2004 85mm2 42mm2 MPU Chip size - 2000 ITRS ORTC Update Proposal [ Sc. 2.0 vs 3.7 vsDesign TWG 3.7 ] HP MPU 310mm2 1999 Typical .18u HP MPU: 2MB (113Mt x 1.18u2/t = 135mm2) + 25Mt Logic x 5.19u2/t = 130mm2 + 45mm2 OH= 310mm2 = Total 138Mt x ave 2.25u2/t = 310mm2 CP MPU 140mm2 1999 Typical .18u CP MPU: 512KB (28Mt x 1.18u2/t = 34mm2) + 20Mt Logic x 5.19u2/t = 104mm2 + 2mm2 OH= 106mm2 = Total 48Mt x ave 2.92u2/t = 140mm2 Design TWG MPU Transistors/Chip Proposal: ~2x/Node = 2x/2yrs from 1999-2001; then 2x/3yrs from 2001-2016

  11. SRAM A-Factors for Simple 6T SRAM Cell using Microprocessor Logic CMOS Process Technology ‘94-’00 Historical A-factor Reduction Rate Ave = 0.967x = -3.3% CAGR [1999 ITRS Target: -7% CAGR**] Average A-Factor = 161.67 ‘98-’00 Historical A-factor Reduction Rate Ave = 0.913x = -8.7% CAGR Cell Size (u2) 2.43 u2 2.48 u2 5.59 u2 10.3 u2 20.5 u2 15.8 u2 ** 1.2x/4yrs “affordable” MPU chip size growth; @ 2x/2yrs Transistors/chip Function Growth; @ 0.5x/3yrs Technology Node (f) Reduction

  12. Design TWG MPU Chip Size Model Proposal 137f2 x1.6 ITRS Chip Size Model Proposal: Sc 2.0/DRAM [no change]; Sc 3.7/MPU Proposal: Li = MPU 4t Gate; Ai = ASIC 4t Gate; Si = 6t SRAM cell; St = SRAM transistor L 97f2 x1.6 S L Li L Li Li L 320f2 x2 320f2 x2 S Li Ai Ai 320f2 x2 Si Li Si St 137f2 x1.6 Ai S St Li Si St Ai S Si St Li Ai 23f2 x1.6 St Si Ai Li St Si Ai 320f2 x2 Li St Si Ai St Si 97f2 x1.6 Ai Si St 13f2 x1.6 = ASIC Gate (4t) , eSRAM (6t) (Design TWG) Chip Function Density Trend Chart - ITRS Proposal 3.7

  13. Design TWG MPU Frequency Proposal: ~2x/3yrs from 2001-2010; then 2x/5yrs from 2010-2016 Sc 3.7 - w/Innovation* : 2x/2yrs Non-Gate-Length Performance Innovation* 1999 ITRS 9.6Ghz/11nm 25Ghz/4.2nm 4.8Ghz/22nm 2.4Ghz/45nm 1.2Ghz/90nm 3.4Ghz/32nm .6 Ghz/180nm 1.7Ghz/65nm 2023 2011 .3 Ghz/350nm 2001 2005 Sc 3.7 w/o Innov.*:1999- 2005 Freq = 2x/4yrs ; GL = .71x/2yr 2005- 2016 Freq = 2x/6yrs ; GL = .71x/3yr Historical: Freq = 2x/2yrs ; GL = .71x/yr 1995 1999 1997 2003 2008 2014 Log Frequency MPU Max Chip Frequency - ITRS GL Proposal Sc 3.7

  14. Backup: • DRAM Chip Size Model (Sc. 2.0) • Including Corrections to 2003/6x Cell Factor, and Kawamura Bit Growth model • MPU Chip Size Model (Sc. 3.7) • Including Updated SRAM Density Model, and MPU flat chip size to 2004 • FI TWG Fab Ramp, Wafer Generation Model Proposals • Including Alpha, Beta Tool Timing, and wafer ramp for first fabs • ORTC Other Table Index/Owners • Roadmap Definitions/Guidelines

  15. 28 28 14 107 New Design TWG MPU Model

  16. 20Kwspm 5000 4.5Kwspw (19.5Kwspm) 4500 4000 3500 3000 2500 Beta - Tools, P.O. for Production Capacity 2000 1500 1000 500 0 1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 12 months 12 months Weeks From Ramp Start 6 months Alpha - Tools 12 months 100 wafers/week = 10K-25K Die/week (@170mm2 die size) Time to Reach 100% Capacity Proposed ITRS Fab Ramp Model • High volume = 4500 wafer starts per week or 20k wspm • Ramp from 100 to 4500 wafers per week takes 6 to 12 months • 6 month ramps are used when fewer process changes are introduced or higher risk is acceptable • 12 month ramps are used when more process changes are introduced or lower risk is desired • This is for the leading edge IC maker’s first high volume factory for a major technology node [ex: 180nm to 130nm transition] • Time to ramp minor technology shrinks [ex: 130nm to 115nm] is 6 to 9 months

  17. IBM Driven Intel Driven Consortia Driven (I300I/J300/etc) Consortia Driven (??I450I/J450??) Alan Allan IRC Slide FI TWG Wafer Generation Timing Proposal: Make 450mm Wafer Intercept at 2013 • Background • Wafer size changes are driven by productivity curve to continue Moore’s law. Need to move to 450mm may be accelerate or slow based on economic needs. • Historically, wafer size changes are done every 9 years • Logic for 2013 • 1999 roadmap placed 450mm change at 2014. Data to predict the intercept is no better now so use the same approximate timing -> use 2013 node since 2014 node does not exist.

  18. Other ORTC Table TWG Line Items - Table 2a,b Litho Field Size Litho Wafer Size FEP, FI - Table 3a,b # of Chip I/O’s Test, Design # of Package Pins/Balls Test, A&P - Table 4a,b Chip Pad Pitch A&P Cost-Per-Pin A&P Chip Frequency Design Chip-to-Board Frequency A&P Max # Wire Levels Interconnect - Table 5a,b Electrical Defects Def. Reduct. - Table 6a,b P.Supply Volt. PIDs Max. Power Design, PIDs - Table 7a,b Affordable Cost Economic (AA actg) Test Cost Test

  19. ITRS Table Definitions/Guidelines - 2001Proposal Rev0, 10/02/00 [As Presented in IRC/Taiwan 12/06/01] • Technology Requirements Perspective - Near-Term Years : First Yr. Ref.+ 6 yrs F’cast (ex. 2001 through 2007), annually - Long-Term Years : Following 9 years (ex.: 2010, 2013, and 2016), every 3 years • Technology Node : - General indices of technology development. - Approximately 70% of the preceding node, 50% of 2 preceding nodes. - Each step represents the creation of significant technology progress - Example: DRAM half pitches: 130, 90, 65, 45, 32, 22, 16 nm -Smallest 1/2 pitch among DRAM, ASIC, MPU, etc • Year of Production: - The volume = 10K units (devices)/month. ASICs manufactured by same process technology are granted as same devices - Beginning of manufacturing by a company and another company starts production within 3 months　　 • Technology Requirements Color: - : Manufacturable Solutions are NOT known - : Manufacturable Solutions are known - : Manufacturable Solutions exist, and they are being optimized - Red cannot exist in the next three years (2002, 2003, 2004) ** - Yellow cannot exist the next year (2002) ** White Red Yellow ** Exception [By Review/Approval of IRC]: Solution NOT known, but does not prevent Production manufacturing

More Related