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 : Cymer (CYMI) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jess Beltz who wrote (9989)	11/18/1997 12:47:00 PM
From: Bookdon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25960

0.25 micron production is a fact for most of the big players. At 248nm, Cymer is the solid winner. Production will continue to ramp up for the next year, or so. At 0.18 micron Cymer will continue its hold on the DUV choice of customers. At the next generation (0.15) 190 nm tools will be needed. The same holds for the 0.13 devices. Cymer may still be the strongest player. This brings them well into the year 2000. After that, EUV or x-ray will be needed.

To: Jess Beltz who wrote (9989)	11/18/1997 1:30:00 PM
From: Bookdon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 25960

Oops, I got interrupted. Here is my reading: 248 nm lasers will be used on the 0.25 micron devices (currently in production or ramping into production. That will continue for the next (0.18 micron) generation, so the 248 nm tools will continue to grow until about the year 2000. After that, it looks like 193 nm tools (and lasers) will be needed for the next two generations (0.15 and 0.13). Cymer is in a good position to maintain leadership until 2002 or 2003. Beyond that, it will be DUV or x-ray. I hate to bet against Intel, so my money is on DUV. Cymer could still be a strong supplier in the DUV market. Please understand: x-ray works, but the mask costs are enormous. With 1X (rather than 4 or 5 time reductions possible with focusing lithography systems) masks, the costs are an order of magnitude greater than reduction reticles. That can translate to mask costs of more than $50,000 EACH. IBM is using x-ray (for "early access" work) because it already owns both the lithography equipment and the mask-making equipment. Why not use it? For Intel or Motorola, it would require buying a large amount of equipment, which could not be justified for a limited production facility.