9 ms·

ASML Aims for Hyper-NA EUV, Shrinking Chip Limits

103 points by paulbaumgart 2y ago

jmyeet 2y ago
If I were a G7 leader, the state of global semiconductor production would make me very nervous. ASML is a Dutch company and is essentially a monopoly now that they first commercialized EUV lithography. They can essentially decide what companies live and die. TSMC is probably ASML's largest customer because it reportedly produces over half of the world's chips. It is a Taiwanese company (and Taiwan accounts for two-thirds of global chip production). There is Intel too but TSMC have been way more successful in commercial chip fabrication in recent years. TSMC is of course in Taiwan, which is way more politically precarious than Western Europe. A major disruption to Taiwan's production could be absolutely devastating. This is probably why the US is pursuing domestic chip fabrication (eg in Ohio with the CHIPS Act). But having two companies with this much potential market influence has to make a lot of people very nervous.
- chmod775 2y ago
  Both TSMC and ASML are just the tip of an iceberg. Each has thousands of supplier companies spread across many countries. Many of these supplier companies are peerless themselves in their respective areas. It's a lot less concentrated on those two countries than it seems, but at the same time things are even more fragile than your post would imply.
  - Edd1CC 2y ago
    Yep, when you get down to the raw materials used for these devices you get to three/four companies the supply chain relies on
    - autorizo 2y ago
      What are the materials/companies?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - sknzl 2y ago
        The lithography/EUV optics comes from Zeiss. The laser for generating the plasma from Trumpf. Both key elements that ASML would not be able to build in-house or get from a different supplier.
        varjag 2y ago
        There's a lot of expertise with lasers and precision optics around the world.
        Edd1CC 2y ago
        There’s always these weird bottlenecks in the supply chain though. My favorite example is during Covid where reduced boron quantities resulted in less Pyrex glass that makes test tubes meaning transporting vaccines was at points rate limited. I’ve read similar points in the components for lasers to ASML but can’t remember specifics. Chip shortage is the funny one, ASML require more chips that limit their turnaround times which in itself limits chips.
        chmod775 2y ago
        There's a lot of expertise with lithography around the world too (companies like Canon build lithography machines), but we're not talking the usual levels of it. The EUV lasers ASML/TRUMPF builds don't even work the same way other "conventional" lasers would[1]. You physically can't get there by incrementally improving some existing process. Now I don't know how ZEISS makes mirrors that blown up to the size of a country would have imperfections smaller than a human hair, but I'm pretty sure it's no small feat either. These companies invested decades and untold sums into this when few other companies even had incentive to attempt it themselves. Sure, other companies could eventually replace them, but you're not closing a 2-decade technology gap in an afternoon. [1] It's a bit insane, really. Vaporizing falling droplets of tin with two laser pulses 100,000 times a second to get just the right wavelength? Here's a good video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ge2RcvDlgw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ge2RcvDlgw
- smallnamespace 2y ago
  These observations while good are probably old news (about a decade old) by now. The US has viewed tech as strategic and a realm of competition with China since at least the late Obama admin (so 2015 or so). Semicon as a key strategic goal for China is regularly mentioned in their 5 year plans in an extremely public way. The US has leaned heavily on ASML to go along with export restrictions against China, along with a wide array of restrictions for e.g. leading edge GPUs and even CPUs. These restrictions have ramped up recently but they’ve been in place for years now. Not only does this situation make policymakers nervous but they’ve been taking action. It's funny that the public has finally started noticing.
  - 7thpower 2y ago
    You are making the situation sound much less precarious than it is. The reality is that the US has only really done something in the last few years, and those changes and attempts to hedge will take a very long time to materialize. Odds are the US and Europe will never enjoy the comparative advantage Taiwan has in the semiconductor supply chain. What does that mean? One of the west’s key strategic advantages is the ability to lead in frontier compute technologies. China, in addition to rapidly working its way up the value chain and nodes, can easily mitigate much of this advantage if it deems the calculus worthwhile. It need only disrupt Taiwan and basically all leading edge fab capacity is off the table. Outside of the work Intel is doing, the US does not have leading edge fabs. We do not have the skilled workforce or supply chain to take advantage of leading edge fabs. Why is this situation with Taiwan so difficult to unwind? In the West there is a fantasy that if war breaks out, we will just load all the Taiwanese onto a starship and bring them over to the US where they will happily resume their work in OUR fabs. But they don’t want that. They want their home and ideals to be defended, and they’re willing to do the work… from their soil. The reality is the fabs are bargaining chip with the West, far better than any iron dome. The question becomes, how did we get in this position? And the answer is deliberately. The US saw putting semiconductor production in Taiwan and a way to reduce cost and challenge the Japanese, but also a way to imbed incentives into our foreign policy for protection of tenuous Taiwanese democracy and independence. We have known this for a very very long time.
    - 2y ago
- bee_rider 2y ago
  I’m not sure Intel and Samsung are behind TSMC to the extent that switching to their CPUs would be, like, catastrophic. There’s a big advantage to using the newest node because people who buy iPhone want to be assured that their iPhones were made using the best, newest tech. But a 2 year old iPhone is not totally junk, it actually is still a much more powerful computer than almost anybody really needs. TSMC has huge value, their R&D is hugely important. But if they vanished overnight, your G7 nation wouldn’t start to starve or anything.
  - re-thc 2y ago
    > I’m not sure Intel and Samsung are behind TSMC Intel is trying to catch up but Samsung just has no idea. Samsung spent years poaching, merging and sniffing trade secrets to survive. Problem with Intel is that most of it is Intel specific (still)
    - wkat4242 2y ago
      Also, Samsung's fab is genuinely behind. Exynos and Samsung-built tensor chips are consistently hotter and more power-hungry than Snapdragons. It's pretty sad for us in Europe because we pay the same for our phones but get a worse product. We also miss out on features like 5G mmWave and MST (though I believe that's now gone from the US too)
      - The_Colonel 2y ago
        Samsung is consistently behind in the sense it's difficult to compete for them in the high end mobile chips. But this difference is virtually meaningless in the strategic sense. Samsung can produce any capability TSMC can. The loss of TSMC would be strategically important only in the lost capacity.
      - Iulioh 2y ago
        Thank got at least the new Ultras have only snapdragon I had a exynoss s22 and my experience was miserable, in and out the repair center.
maxglute 2y ago
https://www.eetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/ASML-slide-one.png https://www.eetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/ASML-slide-one.pn... This is a very fun subsystem diagram.
- gravescale 2y ago
  What's nuts to me is the time scale on the bottom. That is not a lot of time for something so complex. Then again, if they do an Intel 10nm+++++ and fail to maintain velocity even for a couple of years, their competition will close that gap very quickly.
  - Edd1CC 2y ago
    Who are their real competitors? They’ve been buying parts of the supply chain recently - they seem to have a real moat unless regulation gets involved (Serious question: I am just getting into the semiconductor world and haven’t found any competitors yet)
    - throwaway4good 2y ago
      There are none in the sense that all high volume production of high-end chips uses ASML. With the possible exception of what Huawei is doing.
      - Edd1CC 2y ago
        I’ve been buying shares in ASML and below, such as TSCM and Applied Materials, but it’s a brittle plan if anything revolutionary pops up!
        throwaway4good 2y ago
        ASML is going to remain a monopoly and whatever Chinese alternative that there may be is going to stay in China for the foreseeable future. However because the Chinese electronics industry is so big and they rely so much on imports, when they are building alternatives to the US-controlled semiconductor supply chain (ASML, Applied Materials, TSMC etc.), it will matter at one point for ASML even if the Chinese tools and final products are never exported.
cornstalks 2y ago
Simple question, but the article doesn’t define this: what does “NA” mean here, and what do the does increasing NA from 0.33 to 0.55 mean? The gist I got from the article was “bigger number better” but I have no idea what these actually mean.
- Pet_Ant 2y ago
  NA is Numerical Aperture https://www.asml.com/en/technology/lithography-principles/lenses-and-mirrors#:~:text=Numerical%20aperture,optics%20can%20collect%20and%20focus https://www.asml.com/en/technology/lithography-principles/le....
- addaon 2y ago
  Numerical aperture. Have a breadcrumb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture
- MengerSponge 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture
throwaway4good 2y ago
Could if been interesting if the article included price in some manner; as I understand it the total cost pr. transistor is still lower at 28 nm lithography and will be so in the foreseeable future.
rramadass 2y ago
Coincidentally, i have been recently watching/reading a bunch of videos/articles on ASML and their technology. Can some experts/knowledgeable folks here actually explain the technology in ELI5 (and above) terms? As i understand, a laser (what are its characteristics?) is fired at Tin droplets in a vaccuum chamber causing it to emit light in "Extreme UV" wavelength range which is then focused using a set of Zeiss mirrors to do the actual photolithography. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_ultraviolet_lithography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_ultraviolet_lithograph...) is well over my head. What i am unable to bridge is how this EUV wavelength maps to transistor sizes (in nanometers) via High-NA/Hyper-NA technology. From https://www.laserfocusworld.com/blogs/article/14039015/how-does-the-laser-technology-in-euv-lithography-work https://www.laserfocusworld.com/blogs/article/14039015/how-d... A major limitation comes from the laws of optics. German physicist Ernst Abbe found that the resolution of a microscope d is (roughly) limited to the wavelength λ of the light used in illumination: d = λ/(nsin(α)) ...(1) where n is the refractive index of the medium between the lens and the object and α is the half-angle of the objective's cone of light. For lithography, substituting numerical aperture (NA) for n sin(α) and adding a factor k to the formula (because lithographic resolution can be strongly tweaked with illumination tricks), the minimum feasible structure, or critical dimension (CD), is: CD = kλ/NA ...(2) This formula, which governs all lithographic imaging processes, makes obvious why the wavelength is such a crucial parameter. As a result, engineers have been looking for light sources with ever-shorter wavelengths to produce ever-smaller features. Explain the above?
- mk_stjames 2y ago
  Diffraction sets a limit on how small the features can be patterned using photolith. When the wavelength is larger than the feature size, diffraction causes the light to spread out and blur the edges of what you're trying to pattern. The Rayleigh criterion shows how the ability to separate features depends on the numerical aperture of the system and the wavelength used. The explanation under 'Resolution in projection systems' on the wikipedia for photolithography is a better explanation than what is talked about under the EUV article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photolithography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photolithography Going further and further into the UV makes the wavelength smaller and smaller and thus the feature size smaller and smaller. But making light that is controllable in a way for photolithography techniques to work that far into the UV is the difficult part.
huppeldepup 2y ago
“There are new materials which have a higher mobility for electrons,” [than silicium] Anyone know what these materials are?
- deff 2y ago
  Dichalcogenides in a 2D layer like WS2 or MoS2 for example. These can already be grown on silicon wafers but are hard to integrate with other materials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_metal_dichalcogenide_monolayers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_metal_dichalcogenid...

103 points by paulbaumgart 2y ago

If I were a G7 leader, the state of global semiconductor production would make me very nervous. ASML is a Dutch company and is essentially a monopoly now that they first commercialized EUV lithography. They can essentially decide what companies live and die. TSMC is probably ASML's largest customer because it reportedly produces over half of the world's chips. It is a Taiwanese company (and Taiwan accounts for two-thirds of global chip production). There is Intel too but TSMC have been way more successful in commercial chip fabrication in recent years. TSMC is of course in Taiwan, which is way more politically precarious than Western Europe. A major disruption to Taiwan's production could be absolutely devastating. This is probably why the US is pursuing domestic chip fabrication (eg in Ohio with the CHIPS Act). But having two companies with this much potential market influence has to make a lot of people very nervous.

chmod775 2y ago
Both TSMC and ASML are just the tip of an iceberg. Each has thousands of supplier companies spread across many countries. Many of these supplier companies are peerless themselves in their respective areas. It's a lot less concentrated on those two countries than it seems, but at the same time things are even more fragile than your post would imply.
- Edd1CC 2y ago
  Yep, when you get down to the raw materials used for these devices you get to three/four companies the supply chain relies on
  - autorizo 2y ago
    What are the materials/companies?
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - sknzl 2y ago
      The lithography/EUV optics comes from Zeiss. The laser for generating the plasma from Trumpf. Both key elements that ASML would not be able to build in-house or get from a different supplier.
      - varjag 2y ago
        There's a lot of expertise with lasers and precision optics around the world.
        Edd1CC 2y ago
        There’s always these weird bottlenecks in the supply chain though. My favorite example is during Covid where reduced boron quantities resulted in less Pyrex glass that makes test tubes meaning transporting vaccines was at points rate limited. I’ve read similar points in the components for lasers to ASML but can’t remember specifics. Chip shortage is the funny one, ASML require more chips that limit their turnaround times which in itself limits chips.
        chmod775 2y ago
        There's a lot of expertise with lithography around the world too (companies like Canon build lithography machines), but we're not talking the usual levels of it. The EUV lasers ASML/TRUMPF builds don't even work the same way other "conventional" lasers would[1]. You physically can't get there by incrementally improving some existing process. Now I don't know how ZEISS makes mirrors that blown up to the size of a country would have imperfections smaller than a human hair, but I'm pretty sure it's no small feat either. These companies invested decades and untold sums into this when few other companies even had incentive to attempt it themselves. Sure, other companies could eventually replace them, but you're not closing a 2-decade technology gap in an afternoon. [1] It's a bit insane, really. Vaporizing falling droplets of tin with two laser pulses 100,000 times a second to get just the right wavelength? Here's a good video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ge2RcvDlgw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ge2RcvDlgw
smallnamespace 2y ago
These observations while good are probably old news (about a decade old) by now. The US has viewed tech as strategic and a realm of competition with China since at least the late Obama admin (so 2015 or so). Semicon as a key strategic goal for China is regularly mentioned in their 5 year plans in an extremely public way. The US has leaned heavily on ASML to go along with export restrictions against China, along with a wide array of restrictions for e.g. leading edge GPUs and even CPUs. These restrictions have ramped up recently but they’ve been in place for years now. Not only does this situation make policymakers nervous but they’ve been taking action. It's funny that the public has finally started noticing.
- 7thpower 2y ago
  You are making the situation sound much less precarious than it is. The reality is that the US has only really done something in the last few years, and those changes and attempts to hedge will take a very long time to materialize. Odds are the US and Europe will never enjoy the comparative advantage Taiwan has in the semiconductor supply chain. What does that mean? One of the west’s key strategic advantages is the ability to lead in frontier compute technologies. China, in addition to rapidly working its way up the value chain and nodes, can easily mitigate much of this advantage if it deems the calculus worthwhile. It need only disrupt Taiwan and basically all leading edge fab capacity is off the table. Outside of the work Intel is doing, the US does not have leading edge fabs. We do not have the skilled workforce or supply chain to take advantage of leading edge fabs. Why is this situation with Taiwan so difficult to unwind? In the West there is a fantasy that if war breaks out, we will just load all the Taiwanese onto a starship and bring them over to the US where they will happily resume their work in OUR fabs. But they don’t want that. They want their home and ideals to be defended, and they’re willing to do the work… from their soil. The reality is the fabs are bargaining chip with the West, far better than any iron dome. The question becomes, how did we get in this position? And the answer is deliberately. The US saw putting semiconductor production in Taiwan and a way to reduce cost and challenge the Japanese, but also a way to imbed incentives into our foreign policy for protection of tenuous Taiwanese democracy and independence. We have known this for a very very long time.
  - 2y ago
bee_rider 2y ago
I’m not sure Intel and Samsung are behind TSMC to the extent that switching to their CPUs would be, like, catastrophic. There’s a big advantage to using the newest node because people who buy iPhone want to be assured that their iPhones were made using the best, newest tech. But a 2 year old iPhone is not totally junk, it actually is still a much more powerful computer than almost anybody really needs. TSMC has huge value, their R&D is hugely important. But if they vanished overnight, your G7 nation wouldn’t start to starve or anything.
- re-thc 2y ago
  > I’m not sure Intel and Samsung are behind TSMC Intel is trying to catch up but Samsung just has no idea. Samsung spent years poaching, merging and sniffing trade secrets to survive. Problem with Intel is that most of it is Intel specific (still)
  - wkat4242 2y ago
    Also, Samsung's fab is genuinely behind. Exynos and Samsung-built tensor chips are consistently hotter and more power-hungry than Snapdragons. It's pretty sad for us in Europe because we pay the same for our phones but get a worse product. We also miss out on features like 5G mmWave and MST (though I believe that's now gone from the US too)
    - The_Colonel 2y ago
      Samsung is consistently behind in the sense it's difficult to compete for them in the high end mobile chips. But this difference is virtually meaningless in the strategic sense. Samsung can produce any capability TSMC can. The loss of TSMC would be strategically important only in the lost capacity.
    - Iulioh 2y ago
      Thank got at least the new Ultras have only snapdragon I had a exynoss s22 and my experience was miserable, in and out the repair center.

maxglute 2y ago

https://www.eetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/ASML-slide-one.png https://www.eetimes.com/wp-content/uploads/ASML-slide-one.pn... This is a very fun subsystem diagram.

gravescale 2y ago
What's nuts to me is the time scale on the bottom. That is not a lot of time for something so complex. Then again, if they do an Intel 10nm+++++ and fail to maintain velocity even for a couple of years, their competition will close that gap very quickly.
- Edd1CC 2y ago
  Who are their real competitors? They’ve been buying parts of the supply chain recently - they seem to have a real moat unless regulation gets involved (Serious question: I am just getting into the semiconductor world and haven’t found any competitors yet)
  - throwaway4good 2y ago
    There are none in the sense that all high volume production of high-end chips uses ASML. With the possible exception of what Huawei is doing.
    - Edd1CC 2y ago
      I’ve been buying shares in ASML and below, such as TSCM and Applied Materials, but it’s a brittle plan if anything revolutionary pops up!
      - throwaway4good 2y ago
        ASML is going to remain a monopoly and whatever Chinese alternative that there may be is going to stay in China for the foreseeable future. However because the Chinese electronics industry is so big and they rely so much on imports, when they are building alternatives to the US-controlled semiconductor supply chain (ASML, Applied Materials, TSMC etc.), it will matter at one point for ASML even if the Chinese tools and final products are never exported.

cornstalks 2y ago

Simple question, but the article doesn’t define this: what does “NA” mean here, and what do the does increasing NA from 0.33 to 0.55 mean? The gist I got from the article was “bigger number better” but I have no idea what these actually mean.

Pet_Ant 2y ago
NA is Numerical Aperture https://www.asml.com/en/technology/lithography-principles/lenses-and-mirrors#:~:text=Numerical%20aperture,optics%20can%20collect%20and%20focus https://www.asml.com/en/technology/lithography-principles/le....
addaon 2y ago
Numerical aperture. Have a breadcrumb: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture
MengerSponge 2y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numerical_aperture

throwaway4good 2y ago

Could if been interesting if the article included price in some manner; as I understand it the total cost pr. transistor is still lower at 28 nm lithography and will be so in the foreseeable future.

rramadass 2y ago

Coincidentally, i have been recently watching/reading a bunch of videos/articles on ASML and their technology. Can some experts/knowledgeable folks here actually explain the technology in ELI5 (and above) terms? As i understand, a laser (what are its characteristics?) is fired at Tin droplets in a vaccuum chamber causing it to emit light in "Extreme UV" wavelength range which is then focused using a set of Zeiss mirrors to do the actual photolithography. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_ultraviolet_lithography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_ultraviolet_lithograph...) is well over my head. What i am unable to bridge is how this EUV wavelength maps to transistor sizes (in nanometers) via High-NA/Hyper-NA technology. From https://www.laserfocusworld.com/blogs/article/14039015/how-does-the-laser-technology-in-euv-lithography-work https://www.laserfocusworld.com/blogs/article/14039015/how-d... A major limitation comes from the laws of optics. German physicist Ernst Abbe found that the resolution of a microscope d is (roughly) limited to the wavelength λ of the light used in illumination: d = λ/(nsin(α)) ...(1) where n is the refractive index of the medium between the lens and the object and α is the half-angle of the objective's cone of light. For lithography, substituting numerical aperture (NA) for n sin(α) and adding a factor k to the formula (because lithographic resolution can be strongly tweaked with illumination tricks), the minimum feasible structure, or critical dimension (CD), is: CD = kλ/NA ...(2) This formula, which governs all lithographic imaging processes, makes obvious why the wavelength is such a crucial parameter. As a result, engineers have been looking for light sources with ever-shorter wavelengths to produce ever-smaller features. Explain the above?

mk_stjames 2y ago
Diffraction sets a limit on how small the features can be patterned using photolith. When the wavelength is larger than the feature size, diffraction causes the light to spread out and blur the edges of what you're trying to pattern. The Rayleigh criterion shows how the ability to separate features depends on the numerical aperture of the system and the wavelength used. The explanation under 'Resolution in projection systems' on the wikipedia for photolithography is a better explanation than what is talked about under the EUV article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photolithography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photolithography Going further and further into the UV makes the wavelength smaller and smaller and thus the feature size smaller and smaller. But making light that is controllable in a way for photolithography techniques to work that far into the UV is the difficult part.

huppeldepup 2y ago

“There are new materials which have a higher mobility for electrons,” [than silicium] Anyone know what these materials are?

deff 2y ago
Dichalcogenides in a 2D layer like WS2 or MoS2 for example. These can already be grown on silicon wafers but are hard to integrate with other materials. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_metal_dichalcogenide_monolayers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transition_metal_dichalcogenid...