
IBM’s world-first 5nm chip indicates EUV lithography is ready for primetime - rbii
https://arstechnica.co.uk/gadgets/2017/06/ibm-5nm-chip/
======
whazor
> EUV has been waiting in the wings for about 10 years now, always just a few
> months away from commercial viability. This is the best sign yet that ASML's
> EUV tech is finally ready for primetime.

This is the real message, because creating 5nm chips was already possible[1].
However, creating them massively on scale with the ASML EUV machines is the
real challenge.

[1] [https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/5080-imec-cadence-
dis...](https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/5080-imec-cadence-disclose-5nm-
test-chip.html)

~~~
davidf18
It is possible/probable that these processes are used by NSA/DARPA, military
applications. In many of these situations performance well trumps volume/cost
issues.

~~~
Nokinside
Not really. NSA/DARPA have no need for small batches of very expensive
circuits manufactured with 5 nm.

They need large volumes of cost effective processors as well. Manufacturing
their own special purpose asics with older technology is more likely.

------
kurthr
I wish this wasn't so laughable. What this really shows is that IBM has high
margins for their chips, and a long standing tolerance for absurdly low yields
and long wafer turn times. That they announce "production" before any of the
other fabs is more likely do to PR needs than real technical advancement.
[https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/ibm-unveils-
industry...](https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/07/ibm-unveils-industrys-
first-7nm-chip-moving-beyond-silicon/)

EUV has been available for years and no doubt TSMC and SS have their own EUV
test chips at 7nm (comparable to Intel 10nm), but the EUV equipment business
will be validated by large orders and $ spent, not on prototype silicon. We
aren't there yet (but probably will be in a year or so- they've gone from 100W
to 150W in the last 9months and need to hit 200-250W).

Will we have 1-3nm transistors? Yes. Will they be commercially viable?
Probably No.

Moore's law ends when the CFOs decide it's not worth building another multi-$B
factory on schedule based on net expected return... which already happened
over the last 4 years. Sorry, downvote at will.

~~~
undersuit
>Will we have 1-3nm transistors? Yes. Will they be commercially viable?
Probably No.

Why not? We can only stack our layers so much, eventually the 1-3nm range of
transistors will become useful to give technology another squeeze before
having to learn how to layer a bizarre number of layers.

~~~
kurthr
Although there is hope that EUV will help control design rules, the current
expectation for developing a 10nm design is in the $200M range. It's expected
to double at 7nm and again at 5nm. Try amortizing that over anything but an
iPhone, Samsung, or PC volumes.

~~~
undersuit
I'm just arguing that lacking an alternative to silicon transistors, we'll hit
limits in die stacking and architecture optimizations that will make < 3nm
lucrative for some applications.

------
elorant
So, what happens when we reach 1nm? Can we go even lower or we'd need a
paradigm shift?

~~~
igravious
1nm isn't a special number just because it is 1. A nm is one billionth of a
metre which itself is an arbitrary length so 1nm is a purely arbitrary cut-
off.

What you should be asking is how many molecules of silicon and silicon-
germanium can be packed into the spaces being talked about at the different
fabrication levels of 14nm, 10nm, 7nm, 5nm, and so on.

Once you have that information then you can ask what is the smallest number of
molecules that these processes can scale down to. Only then we can start
asking about physical limits and more exotic processes. Are we talking about
features of 50 or 40 molecules across or what?

All I know is that 1nm is not a magic number and that predictions about the
demise of transistor scaling have always turned out to be wrong. My prediction
is that, as unimaginable as it seems, we'll be able to scale down to the
physical limits of the materials.

~~~
davidiach
>All I know is that 1nm is not a magic number and that predictions about the
demise of transistor scaling have always turned out to be wrong. My prediction
is that, as unimaginable as it seems, we'll be able to scale down to the
physical limits of the materials.

This is very important to be pointed out. The burden of proof should be on the
people who suggest that "this time it is different", not on those who
correctly assumed that technology tends to progress in time.

~~~
tdb7893
Isn't a silicon atom only like .2 nm wide? My guess is that a gate needs to be
at least a few atoms wide so 1nm would seem to be decently close to the
literal limit for silicon.

