4 ms·
Intel has a 1.4nm process in the pipeline for ~2027. They just took delivery on their first high NA EUV machine in order to start working on it. Their gamble h
by Workaccount2 3y ago
Intel has a 1.4nm process in the pipeline for ~2027. They just took delivery on their first high NA EUV machine in order to start working on it.
Their gamble however is that they need to figure out DSA, a long storied technology that uses self-forming polymers to allow less light to sharply etch smaller features.
If they figure out DSA, they will likely be ahead of TSMC. If not, it will just be more very expensive languishing.
- saganus 3y agoDo you know the name of the company that produces the EUV machine? is it ASML? It is my understanding that only ASML had cracked the EUV litography, but if there's another company out there, that would be an interesting development to watch.
- singhrac 3y agoIt’s ASML.
- Rinzler89 3y ago>It is my understanding that only ASML had cracked the EUV litography Ackshually, EUV was cracked by Sandia Labs research in the US, with EUV light sources built by Cymer in the US. ASML was the only one allowed to license the tech and integrate it into their steppers after they bough Cymer in 2013. Hence why US has veto rights to whom Dutch based ASML can sell their EUV steppers to, as in not to China, despite ow much ASML shareholders would like that extra Chinese money.
- ano-ther 3y agoMore on the history here: https://www.asml.com/en/news/stories/2022/making-euv-lab-to-fab https://www.asml.com/en/news/stories/2022/making-euv-lab-to-...
- EMCymatics 3y agoThanks for the source. I'm glad Bell labs pounced on the opportunity.
- oivey 3y agoPretty cool story of the National Lab system and the closest thing the US has to “government scientists” massively shaping the future.
- s3p 3y agoThey don't need anyone else's money. Intel has bought all of TSMC's EUV and High-NA EUV machines for the next several years.
- Rinzler89 3y ago>They don't need anyone else's money There's no such thing in capitalism. Limited supply semi is(was) a bidding war, where China had a blank cheque and was willing to outbid everyone else to secure semi manufacturing supremacy. Do you think Intel or TSMC could have scored all that ASML supply at that price if China would have been allowed to bid as well? ASML would have been able to score way higher market prices per EUV stepper had China been allowed in the game, and therefore higher profits. You think ASML shareholders hate higher profits or what? Nvidia sure didn't during the pandemic. You wanted a GPU? Great, it would cost you now 2x-3x the original MSRP because free market capitalism and the laws of supply and demand.
- saganus 3y agoDid not know that. Thanks
- ahartmetz 3y ago>EUV was cracked More like it was started. There were a ton of gnarly problems left that took over ten years and billions of € to solve. Producing a few flashes of EUV and getting a few photons on the target is relatively easy. Producing a lot of EUV for a long time and getting a significant fraction (...like 1%) of the photons on the target is very hard.
- hajile 3y agoEUV was supposed to ship in the early 2000s and the work on it started in earnest the 90s. It turned out that EUV is way harder than anyone imagined. The only reason we did stuff like immersion DUV was because we couldn’t get EUV to work.
- nabla9 3y agoYes, and Intel was the first to install the first High-NA EUV machine from ASML, TWINSCAN EXE:5000 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PCtf1ONYMU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PCtf1ONYMU ps. Intel used to own 15% of ASML in 2012, now they own less than 2%.
- hackernudes 3y agoDSA = Directed Self-Assembly
- dev1ycan 3y agoIntel says a lot of things but until they put them out in the field I don't believe a word they say
- Sysreq2 3y agoThe nomenclature for microchip manufacturing left reality a couple generations ago. Intel’s 14A process is not a true 14A half-pitch. It’s kind of like how they started naming CPUs off “performance equivalents” instead of using raw clock speed. And this isn’t just Intel. TSMC, Samsung, everyone is doing half-pitch equivalent naming now a days. This is the industry roadmap from 2022: https://irds.ieee.org/images/files/pdf/2022/2022IRDS_Litho.pdf https://irds.ieee.org/images/files/pdf/2022/2022IRDS_Litho.p... If you look at page 6 there is a nice table that kind of explains it. Certain feature sizes have hit a point of diminishing returns, so they are finding new ways to increase performance. Each generation is better than the last but we have moved beyond simple shrinkage. Comparing Intel’s 14A label to TSMCs 16A is meaningless without performance benchmarks. They are both just marketing terms. Like the Intel/AMD CPU wars. You can’t say one is better because the label says it’s faster. There’s so much other stuff to consider.
- confused_boner 3y agowould performance per watt be the right way to benchmark?
- futureshock 3y agoBenchmarks are tricky because it all depends on workload and use case. If you are in a VR headset for example, it’s all about power envelope and GPU flops. If you are in a Desktop used for productivity it might be all about peak CPU performance.
- wtallis 3y agoWhen comparing fab processes, you wouldn't want performance of a whole processor but rather the voltage vs frequency curves for the different transistor libraries offered by each fab process.
- Workaccount2 3y ago"Likely better" doesn't come from 14A vs 16A. It comes from Intel using High NA-EUV vs TSMC using double pattern Low NA-EUV. If Intel pulls off DSA, they will be using a newer generation of technology compared to TSMC using an optimized older generation. Could TSMC still make better chips? Maybe. But Intel will likely be better.