Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (18101)	11/7/2000 4:26:19 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Bill, <At what point do we reach the limits in feature size, with regards to stray alphas, electron channel wear etc? At 0.07 we must be getting close to some limts?> Good question. With Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) Lithography scheduled to appear in 2005 for 0.07u processes and beyond, this question will have to be answered in one way or another. Tenchusatsu

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (18101)	11/7/2000 4:33:19 PM
From: Pravin Kamdar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Bill, At what point do we reach the limits in feature size, with regards to stray alphas, electron channel wear etc? At 0.07 we must be getting close to some limts? At this rate the channel will soon represent a penetrable potential barrier where conduction occurs through tunneling. How to gate this device is the trick. Not sure on the minimum gate length for conventional devices (been out of the loop too long), but I suspect it is an order of magnitude below where we are at now. Pravin.

To: Bill Jackson who wrote (18101)	11/7/2000 7:25:47 PM
From: fyodor_	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

<Bill: ...leaving AMD with the phase shift method for .13. Possibly phase shift with 193NM will give even smaller feature sizes?> phase shift (which is not really a very good name) and optical proximity correction (generally just called OPC) are optical enhancement techniques that can be applied at any level. However, it is by no means trivial to do so and you still need a lot of other equipment (e.g. steppers) that can handle the resolution. What I'm trying to say is that Intel cannot just apply these techniques to their 193nm equipment and get say .1mu. Right now, I consider AMD's choice to be an advantage. Sometime in 2002 the advantage will switch, as Intel will be able to use these techniques along with their 193nm equipment to improve their resolution while AMD has to get 193nm installed first. Of course, one could argue that AMD can move the 193nm equipment in at a more leisurely rate, as it becomes available. Then again, if Intel has booked it all through most of 2002, things don't look good for AMD (for a few quarters). -fyo