You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!




Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: On 50th Anniversary of Shockley Semiconductor question on 7nm problems.

  1. #1
    Influencer
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    92
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 30
    Given: 2

    On 50th Anniversary of Shockley Semiconductor question on 7nm problems.

    I studied physics as a Stanford undergraduate back in
    the late 1960s. I knew William Shockley from taking his Freshman
    seminar. I noticed various recent commemorations of the founding
    of Shockley Semiconductor. I knew a different Shockley than the
    current mythology and think the book "Broken Genius: The Rise and
    Fall of William Shockley" is factually inaccurate and unfair to the
    real physicist William Shockley.

    I do not understand semiconductor physics or process technology.
    I wonder why there seem to be so many problems moving to 7nm
    semiconductor fabrication. I even read things like "7nm transistor
    drives are too weak." I wonder what the problem is. Is it related
    to understanding of semiconductor physics or is it related to
    materials science?

    There is an interesting recent controversy in physics that
    Shockley anticipated in the late 1960s involving hidden momentum.
    The controversy is related to interpretation of quantum physics and
    also to the properties a quantum computer will have if such computers
    can be built. A materials engineer named M. Mansuripur claimed the
    electrodynamics of hidden momentum contradicts special relativity.
    A story appeared in Science ("Textbook Electrodynamics May
    Contradict Relativity", News&Analysis section, Science Vol. 336(2012),
    404, 2012). The claim was incorrect. There were numerous following
    articles and papers showing Mansuripur was wrong. The interesting
    part is that in the late 1960s Shockley anticipated the problem
    (Shockley, W. and James, R. "Try Simple Cases" Discovery of "Hidden
    Momentum" Forces on "Magnetic Currents." Phys. Rev. Lett. 18,
    876, 1967). It is related to quantum physics because it is not
    clear how to measure using a point magnetic dipole.

    2 Not allowed!
     

  2. #2
    Top Influencer
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Posts
    109
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 86
    Given: 29
    "I wonder why there seem to be so many problems moving to 7nm
    semiconductor fabrication."

    Maybe you should be wondering about why certain individuals keep insisting that there are GENERIC problems moving to 7nm? What is their agenda?

    Some companies have made the transition just fine, some have not made the transition at all gracefully.
    And those companies that have not performed well have a vested interest in creating a story that the transition is "impossibly difficult" rather than admitting that they did a terrible job of performing their version of the transition...

    5 Not allowed!
     

  3. #3
    Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    582
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 205
    Given: 181
    Quote Originally Posted by smeyer0028 View Post
    I wonder why there seem to be so many problems moving to 7nm
    semiconductor fabrication. I even read things like "7nm transistor
    drives are too weak." I wonder what the problem is. Is it related
    to understanding of semiconductor physics or is it related to
    materials science?
    It may not be so much a technical barrier as one of development costs.

    With rising development costs, there are fewer players moving on the next node (7nm at present). This has the effect of raising the barrier higher for the next node in development costs for those remaining players.

    Actually with GF out, there is only one player left (TSMC) without negligible foundry market share (actually it has more than 55%). The other remaining player in advancing foundry nodes (Samsung) had less than 8% foundry market share in 2017.

    Intel is in a unique position and seems to have most explicitly shown the symptoms of advancing node difficulties, since 14nm node. It may be argued from the Intel camp that their going from 22nm to 14nm is equivalent to foundry 28nm to 10nm, without going through a 16/14nm intermediate node. Likewise Intel's 10nm is a little more aggressive than foundry's 7nm. So it would seem they had self-imposed development difficulties.

    One aggravating factor is the increased number of patterning steps, which has gotten worse since 16/14nm node. At the same time, EUV technology which provided hope for reducing those steps still has gaps for high volume manufacturing.

    4 Not allowed!
     

  4. #4
    Admin Daniel Nenni's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Silicon Valley
    Posts
    4,461
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 949
    Given: 2,409
    Interesting question.

    It is difficult to compare nodes now that the naming has changed and what I call the Apple Effect. Back in the day nodes would be delayed if they did not meet performance or yield targets. With the yearly Apple cadence that is no longer the case and with FinFETs it seems we can name nodes whatever we want. Cost is a significant barrier for sure (see GF announcement) and you can blame that on Apple as well because they can write some VERY big checks that keep TSMC on a very aggressive process delivery schedule.

    TSMC/Apple do what we used to call half nodes which used to be a node shrink. It can be expensive because only high volume customers will use it but TSMC has certainly mastered half nodes with Apple's help. Fabs and equipment are reused and the half node yield learning is critical if you are chasing Moore's Law.

    TSMC and Apple did a 10nm node for the iPhone 8/X which was optimized for 7nm. TSMC will also "introduce" EUV at 7nm in preparation for 5nm EUV. Again, without Apple this would not be possible.

    Samsung of course can keep up, remember they are the #1 semiconductor company. Intel could certainly keep pace if they had better management. GF, UMC, SMIC really never had a chance unfortunately.

    So today it is TSMC and Samsung leading the way. Maybe the new Intel CEO will make a difference, but then again the last new Intel CEO made it worse so it could go either way.

    Just my opinion of course.

    3 Not allowed!
    Last edited by Daniel Nenni; 2 Weeks Ago at 05:28 AM.
    Now available in print or Kindle: "Mobile Unleashed: The Origin and Evolution of ARM Processors In Our Devices"

  5. #5
    Blogger Daniel Payne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tualatin, OR
    Posts
    3,225
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 370
    Given: 444
    Quote Originally Posted by smeyer0028 View Post
    I studied physics as a Stanford undergraduate back in
    the late 1960s. I knew William Shockley from taking his Freshman
    seminar. I noticed various recent commemorations of the founding
    of Shockley Semiconductor. I knew a different Shockley than the
    current mythology and think the book "Broken Genius: The Rise and
    Fall of William Shockley" is factually inaccurate and unfair to the
    real physicist William Shockley.

    I do not understand semiconductor physics or process technology.
    I wonder why there seem to be so many problems moving to 7nm
    semiconductor fabrication. I even read things like "7nm transistor
    drives are too weak." I wonder what the problem is. Is it related
    to understanding of semiconductor physics or is it related to
    materials science?

    There is an interesting recent controversy in physics that
    Shockley anticipated in the late 1960s involving hidden momentum.
    The controversy is related to interpretation of quantum physics and
    also to the properties a quantum computer will have if such computers
    can be built. A materials engineer named M. Mansuripur claimed the
    electrodynamics of hidden momentum contradicts special relativity.
    A story appeared in Science ("Textbook Electrodynamics May
    Contradict Relativity", News&Analysis section, Science Vol. 336(2012),
    404, 2012). The claim was incorrect. There were numerous following
    articles and papers showing Mansuripur was wrong. The interesting
    part is that in the late 1960s Shockley anticipated the problem
    (Shockley, W. and James, R. "Try Simple Cases" Discovery of "Hidden
    Momentum" Forces on "Magnetic Currents." Phys. Rev. Lett. 18,
    876, 1967). It is related to quantum physics because it is not
    clear how to measure using a point magnetic dipole.
    smeyer,

    In physics it is also possible for an object to approach the speed of light, however we are well aware of the barriers to do that at a macro level. Likewise, for semiconductors as your try and reduce the feature size towards 0.0nm you run into quantum and atomic-scale barriers. We do not know how to fabricate single Atom semiconductor structures. In my lifetime there has been an incredible explosion in transistor complexity from one transistor per chip all of the way up to billions of transistors per chip, so now that progress is slowing way down because it simply isn't cost effective unless you are producing millions or billions of chips for a single application.

    1 Not allowed!
    Daniel Payne, EDA Consultant
    www.MarketingEDA.com
    503.806.1662

  6. #6
    Influencer U235's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    90
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 38
    Given: 69
    Quote Originally Posted by smeyer0028 View Post

    I do not understand semiconductor physics or process technology.
    I wonder why there seem to be so many problems moving to 7nm
    semiconductor fabrication... I wonder what the problem is. Is it related
    to understanding of semiconductor physics or is it related to
    materials science?
    Ignoring the lithography issues for a minute: Our transistors are not as good as they "should" have been if you'd extrapolated the 1970-2006 trend.

    For device physics reasons, since 130 nm, we haven't been able to reduce the supply voltage sufficiently, while being able to strongly switch the transistors on -- this is basically the "weak drive current" bit -- and off (we desire a low leakage current).

    The strained-silicon mobility boost, FinFETs, SiGe channel materials etc. have been brought in to try and improve the MOSFET performance, but add complexity and cost.

    The materials science challenge accompanies this. e.g. you have to be able to maintain desired strain during processing, and manage defects at Si SiGe interfaces.

    Furthermore, variability generally gets worse moving to a new node, as a consequence of the atomic granularity of dopants.

    (Then you have the materials challenges of trying to introduce Cobalt interconnect, and the required barrier layers etc.)

    Moving to a new node is very technologically and economically demanding.

    4 Not allowed!
    EDA Application Engineer
    Interests: TCAD/ MEMS/ Silicon Photonic Circuits/ EM Simulation

  7. #7
    Expert
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    582
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 205
    Given: 181
    Quote Originally Posted by name99 View Post


    Some companies have made the transition just fine, some have not made the transition at all gracefully.
    Why TSMC 7nm is the one that made it with customers Huawei, AMD, Apple, etc. this year, we'll know for sure in hindsight.

    0 Not allowed!
     

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •