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: combjelly who wrote (228850)	3/24/2007 10:59:57 PM
From: Sarmad Y. Hermiz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

>> As I understand it, APM doesn't model the devices. It monitors the parameters that are used and the measured results on the test structures. It then keeps a database of tweaks and the results. That is exactly the reason that I don't expect APM to give good results at 65 nm. Again, relying on the Intel paper, the randon atomic states do not recur on reruns of the step. So whatever tweak was needed on one run is not applicapable to the next run. Nor to other samples in the same run. >> And you base this on what, exactly? Their performance at the easier (by comparison) 65 nm node. I am sure immersion brings new challenges.

To: combjelly who wrote (228850)	3/25/2007 8:52:57 AM
From: Pravin Kamdar	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

"My reading of Intel (who else!) papers is that there are not enough atoms in a 65 nm structure to be statistically modeled." It's the other way around. Random variations due to "not enough atoms" is what requires statistical modeling. In particular, statistical modeling of threshold voltage variation, due to the random doping effect (the channel areas for same size devices receive different numbers of dopant atoms) is absolutely necessary for certain types of differential circuits, or circuits whose stability depends on matching -- SRAM cells, for instance. Pravin.