1 / 29

12/04/02 Alan Allan / Intel Corporation

The International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors 2002 Update Summary Overall Roadmap Technology Characteristics (ORTC) Overview. 12/04/02 Alan Allan / Intel Corporation. Key Messages.

morton
Download Presentation

12/04/02 Alan Allan / Intel Corporation

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. The International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors 2002 Update SummaryOverall Roadmap Technology Characteristics (ORTC) Overview 12/04/02 Alan Allan / Intel Corporation

  2. Key Messages • The Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors has guided the R&D activities for the last 10 years! • 2003 marks the year of 100nm or below: Welcome to the challenges of the Nanotechnology Era! • NO CHANGES from the 2001 Scaling targets and Chip Size models– First Time Since 1994! • Economics (Chip Size) consistent with historical trends through 2004 • Performance (Frequency) consistent with historical trends through 2005 • Density (Functionality) consistent with historical trends through 2004 • …..but need “breakthroughs” after 2005! • We will continue to look for evidence of Industry Trend Acceleration/Deceleration in 2003

  3. Production Ramp-up Model and Technology Node 2002 ITRS Update – (No Changes from 2001 ITRS) 100M 200K Development Production 10M 20K 1M 2K Volume (Parts/Month) Alpha Tool Beta Tool Production Tool 100K Volume (Wafers/Month) 200 10K First Two Companies Reaching Production 20 First Conf. Papers 1K 2 0 12 24 -24 -12 Months Source: 2001 ITRS - Exec. Summary

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

  5. 2002 ITRS Update – (No Changes from 2001 ITRS)SCALING Timing Highlights • Technology Node and Industry Pace: The DRAM Half-Pitch (HP) on a 3-year-cycle trend after 130nm/2001 • The MPU/ASIC HP remains on a 2-year-cycle trend until 90nm/2004, and then remains equal to DRAM HP (3-year cycle) • The MPU Printed Gate Length (Pr GL ) and Physical Gate Length (Ph GL) will be on a 2-year-cycle until 45nm and 32nm, respectively, until the year 2005 • The MPU Pr GL and Ph GL will proceed parallel to the DRAM/MPU HP trends on a 3-year cycle beyond the year 2005 • The ASIC/Low Power Pr/Ph GL is delayed 2 years behind MPU Pr/Ph GL • ASIC HP equal to MPU HP

  6. 2002 ITRS Update – (No Changes from 2001 ITRS) Source: 2001 ITRS - Exec. Summary, ORTC

  7. 2002 ITRS Update – (No Changes from 2001 ITRS) Source: 2001 ITRS - Exec. Summary, ORTC

  8. MPU Clock Frequency Actual vs ITRS 2002 ITRS Update – (No Changes from 2001 ITRS) Historical <- > 1999 ITRS 2001 ITRS 100,000 2X / 4 Years 10,000 Actual Scaling Acceleration, Or Equivalent Scaling InnovationNeeded to maintain historical trend 1,000 Frequency (MHz) 2X / 2½ Years 100 MPU Clock Frequency Historical Trend: Gate Scaling, Transistor Design contributed ~ 17-19%/year Architectural Design innovation contributed additional ~ 21-13%/year 2X / 2 - 2½ Years 10 1 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 28 Sources: Sematech, 2001 ITRS ORTC

  9. 2001 ITRS DRAM Model Trend Analysis (cont.) 2002 ITRS Update – (No Changes from 2001 ITRS) 1.26/yr 1.41/yr 0.71/yr 1.34/yr 1.59/yr 1.47/yr 0.74/yr

  10. MPU Chip size (mm2) – Historical Trends vs 2001 ITRS Model* 2002 ITRS Update – (No Changes from 2001 ITRS) 1000 800mm2 Litho Field Size 286mm2 2 per Field Size 572mm2 Litho Field Size HP MPU 310mm2 CP MPU 140mm2 100 CP Shrink 70mm2 *1999 Leading-Edge .18u CP MPU: 512KB (28Mt [58.3%] x 1.18u2/t = 34mm2) + 20Mt Logic x 5.19u2/t = 104mm2 + 2mm2 OH= 106mm2 = Total 48Mt x ave 2.92u2/t = 140mm2 *1999 Leading- Edge .18u HP MPU: 2MB (113Mt [81.9%] x 1.18u2/t = 135mm2) + 25Mt Logic x 5.19u2/t = 130mm2 + 45mm2 OH= 310mm2 = Total 138Mt x ave 2.25u2/t = 310mm2 * ITRS Design TWG MPU Transistors/Chip Model: ~2x/Node = 2x/2yrs from 1999 - 2001; then 2x/3yrs from 2001- 2016 10 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

  11. 2002 ITRS Update – (No Changes from 2001 ITRS) ITRS 2001 “Moores Law” Targets: DRAM: 2x/2.5yrs; 1.05x/yr Chip Size MPU: 2x/node = 2x/3years; FLAT Chip Size Density Trends (bits/cm2, t/cm2) – ITRS / ORTC

  12. Key Messages • The Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors has guided the R&D activities for the last 10 years! • 2003 marks the year of 100nm or below: Welcome to the challenges of the Nanotechnology Era! • NO CHANGES from the 2001 Scaling targets and Chip Size models– First Time Since 1994! • Economics (Chip Size) consistent with historical trends through 2004 • Performance (Frequency) consistent with historical trends through 2005 • Density (Functionality) consistent with historical trends through 2004 • …..but need “breakthroughs” after 2005! • We will continue to look for evidence of Industry Trend Acceleration/Deceleration in 2003

  13. Backup

  14. Production Definition

  15. 2002 ITRS Update – (No Changes from 2001 ITRS) 10 10 For 1995-1999 W.P.C.= Total Worldwide Wafer Production Capacity (Relative Value) W.P.C. W.P.C. W.P.C. W.P.C. W.P.C. W.P.C. W.P.C. W.P.C. W.P.C. W.P.C. W.P.C. W.P.C. >0.7 mm 0.4-0.7 mm <0.4mm Sources: 1995 to 1999: SICAS 2000: Yano Research Institute& SIRIJ 1 1 For 2000 Feature Size of Technology Feature Size (Half Pitch) (mm) >0.8 mm 0.5-0.8 mm 0.35-0.5 mm 0.25- 0.35 mm 0.2 - 0.25 mm 0.18 - 0.2 mm <0.18 mm 0.1 0.1 ITRS Technology Node 0.01 0.01 1995 1995 2005 2005 1996 1996 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002 2003 2003 2004 2004 Year Year Source: 2001 ITRS - Exec. Summary Technology Node vs Actual Wafer Production Capacity

  16. Scaling – Technology Nodes

  17. 2002 ITRS Update – (No Changes from 2001 ITRS) Half Pitch (= Pitch/2) Definition • Poly • Pitch • Metal • Pitch (Typical MPU/ASIC) (Typical DRAM) Source: 2001 ITRS - Exec. Summary

  18. 2002 ITRS Update – (No Changes from 2001 ITRS) 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 Node Cycle Time (T yrs): *CARR(T) = [(0.5)^(1/2T yrs)] - 1 CARR(3 yrs) = -10.9% CARR(2 yrs) = -15.9% 0.5x N N+1 N+2 * CARR(T) = Compound Annual Reduction Rate (@ cycle time period, T) Source: 2001 ITRS - Exec. Summary Scaling Calculator + Node Cycle Time:

  19. [3-Year Node Cycle] [Node = DRAM Half-Pitch (HP)] [MPU Gate Length Cycle (GL)]: [2-year cycle] [3-year cycle] 2002 ITRS Update – (No Changes from 2001 ITRS) [MPU HP/GL Cycle]: [3-year cycle] 2001 ITRS ORTC Node Tables – w/Node Cycles

  20. Table 4c Performance and Package Ch ips: Frequency On - Chip Wiring Levels — Near - Term Years 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Y P EAR OF RODUCTION 130 115 100 90 80 70 65 DRAM ½ Pitch (nm) 150 130 107 90 80 70 65 MPU/ASIC ½ Pitch (nm) 90 75 65 53 45 40 35 MPU Printed Gate Length (nm) Chip Frequency (MHz) 65 53 45 37 32 28 25 MPU Physical Gate Length (nm) 1,684 2,317 3,088 3,990 5,173 5,631 6,739 On chip local clock - - Chip to - board (off - chip) speed 1,684 2,317 3,088 3,990 5,173 5,631 6,739 (high - performance, for peripheral buses)[1] 7 8 8 8 9 9 9 Max imum number wiring levels — maximum 7 7 8 8 Maximum number wiring levels — minimum [MPU Gate Length Cycle (GL)]: 8 9 9 [2-Yr GL Cycle; then 3-Yr] 2002 ITRS Update – (No Changes from 2001 ITRS) Table 4d Performance and Package Chips: Frequency, On - Chip Wiring Levels — Long - term Years 2010 2013 2016 Y P EAR OF RODUCTION 45 32 22 DRAM ½ Pitch ( nm) 45 32 22 MPU/ASIC ½ Pitch (nm) 25 18 13 MPU Printed Gate Length (nm) 18 13 9 MPU Physical Gate Length (nm) Sources: 2001 ITRS ORTC Chip Frequency (MHz) 11,511 19,348 28,751 On chip local clock - Chip - to - board (off - chip) speed 11,511 19,348 28,751 (high - performance, for peripheral buses)[1] 10 10 10 Maximum number wiring levels — maximum [3-year cycle] 9 9 10 Maximum number wiring levels — minimum 2001 ITRS ORTC MPU Frequency Tables – w/Node Cycles

  21. Chip Size Trends

  22. (Cell Array Area / Chip Size) x 100 = Cell Array Efficiency (%): Chip Size = (A x f 2 x Nbits)/CAE Cell Array Area = Cell Area x number of bits (2 n) f 2 Cell Area = Cell Area Factor (A) x f 2 ; f = technology node (half-pitch) feature size; Example: Cell Area = 2x4 x f 2 = 8 f 2 Chip Size Model Calculation Illustration - DRAM

  23. 2001 ITRS DRAM Model Trend Analysis 2002 ITRS Update – (No Changes from 2001 ITRS) 3-yr Node Cycle vs 2-yr 0.89/yr 0.95/yr 0.71/yr [Cell Design Improvement Factor] 0.74/yr

  24. DRAM Cell Area History / 2001 ITRS Model 2002 ITRS Update – (No Changes from 2001 ITRS) DRAM Cell Area Historical Actual <- > 2001 ITRS History <-- 2000 --> F'cast 10 1 Mb 0.35x / 3 Years –29%/yr Actual Scaling Acceleration, Or Equivalent Scaling InnovationNeeded to maintain historical trend (est.) CAF (A) = 31 = 31/1.0^2 29 (per 1 FEP) 4 Mb 16 Mb CAF (A) CAF (A) 64 Mb = 22 = = 16 = CAF (A) 11/.71^2 4.0/.5^2 = 11 = 26 (per 21 (per 1.3/.35^2; FEP) FEP) .71/.25^2 Cell Area (u2) 0.1 16->10 (per FEP) 128/256Mb 512Mb CAF (A) = 8.0 = DRAM Cell Size Historical Trend: Half-Pitch Scaling, contributed ~ .5x / 3 years [(.7x)^2] Cell Design innovation contributed additional ~ .7x / 3 years .35/.21^2; .26/.18^2 1Gb / 2Gb 10 -> 8 (per FEP) CAF (A) = 6 0.01 4Gb / 8Gb CAF (A) = 6 16Gb / 32Gb CAF (A) = 4 0.001 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 64 Gb/128Gb Sources: Sematech, 2001 ITRS ORTC Year CAF (A) = 4

  25. ORTC Table TWG Line Item Ownership Chk's by L. Wilson/A.Allan ORTC Table TWG Owner TWG Table ORTC Table Line Item(s) - Table 1a-d DRAM Model FEP [DRAM Model] -no change - Table 1f-j MPU Model Design [MPU Model] -no change - Table 2a,b Litho Field Size Table unchgd Litho 57a,b Table not changed Wafer Size line item unchgd FEP, FI 50a,b AA to review-done-no change - Table 3a,b # of Chip I/O’s Table unchgd Test, Design 24a,b Table not changed # of Package Pins Table unchgd Test, A&P 25a,b Table not changed # of Package BallsHP updtd-NOchg to# A&P, Test 75a,b AA to confirm-done-no change - Table 4a,b Chip Pad Pitch Flip chip area array updtd A&P 77 AA to confirm -done/updated Cost-Per-Pin Low Cost updtd A&P 75a,b AA to confirm -done/updated - Table4c,d Chip Frequency Design, PIDs [MPU Model] -no change Chip-to-Board Frequency Design, A&P [MPU Model] -no change Max # Wire Levels line item unchgd Interconnect 62a,b AA to review- done/corrections 90, 91 only notes AA to review –done -no change - Table 5a,b Electrical Defects Yield Enhance. - Table 6a,b P.Supply Volt. line item unchgd PIDs 35a,b AA to review-done-no change Max. Power CP & HP updtd -NOchg to# A&P, Design, PIDs 75a,b AA to confirm -done-no change - Table 7a,b Affordable Cost Economic (AA actg) n/a -no change Test Cost Table unchgd Test 24a,b Table not changed

  26. 2002 Update vs 2001 ITRS Example: ORTC Line Item Update: A&P Chip-to-Next-Level (ORTC Table 4a,b; A&P Table 77)

  27. Assembly and Packaging – 2002 Update vs. 2001

More Related