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: Starlight who wrote (17293)	5/1/1998 5:20:00 PM
From: Si Eng.	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 25960

The masks may cost more but the 193nm DUV steppers cost much less than the X-RAY steppers. This is a big positive for the 193nm generation steppers and Cymer.

To: Starlight who wrote (17293)	5/2/1998 12:55:00 PM
From: TI2, TechInvestorToo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25960

I believe that the basis for pricing 193nm masks is based on extension of existing business models which is well understood. The business experience for building x ray masks is rather limited, particularly by the merchant maskmakers ( DPMI, PLAB, MASK ) so I am skeptical in the ability to forecast the xray mask price. I would not be surprised to find that xray mask prices are more than optical mask prices. The infrastructure to build xray masks is substantial even with the recent advances to simplify the fabrication process ( switch from gold to some refractory metal- tungsten ? that IBM, Motorola announced last fall). TI2 PS- I believe that the extension of optical techniques to the so called "sub-resolution" domains ( The UT work at 193nm exposure wavelengths printing <100nm linewidths, the PLAB work at 248nm exposure wavelengths printing linewidths <130nm) will require mask linewidth specs that will make the 100k$ price conservative. Its rumored those prices are already being paid for 250nm masks needed for state of the art fabs. The prices are paid because of productivity improvements in the 3B$ fabs. (and the availability of masks).

To: Starlight who wrote (17293)	5/3/1998 8:14:00 PM
From: jeffbas	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 25960

Elizabeth, some info please. Who will produce X-Ray masks, still DPMI? Who will produce the equipment to make X-Ray masks, still ETEC? I see the risk to CYMI from your comment but what about these other two in the "food chain"? I gather that Proximity XRL would eventually put all three out of business?

To: Starlight who wrote (17293)	5/4/1998 9:57:00 AM
From: Katherine Derbyshire	Respond to of 25960

Caveat emptor. SAL is a dedicated x-ray lithography company. I don't have the numbers behind this specific projection, but my experience with other x-ray promoters is that they tend to make the most pessimistic possible assumptions about 193 nm, and the most optimistic possible assumptions about x-ray. For example, note that the newsletter projection assumes a 193 nm entry point at the 180 nm design rule. Most sources will tell you that it is far more likely that 248 nm exposure will be used at 180 nm. While 248 nm masks with OPC and PSM features are also likely to be quite expensive, the rest of the 248 nm lithography infrastructure is far more mature, and far less expensive, than x-ray. Furthermore, 248 nm achieves far greater economies of scale. Katherine