I thought you are not so familiar with Hi NA EUV scanner and the challenges. Hope I am wrong. If it is smaller labor in HNA EUV comparing to low NA EUV, then there will be no stupid user to pay 2x more price for the new tools. If you think ASML is monopoly to control the adoption, it is not that easy without demonstration of cost advantages which can not be validated now due to HVM tool is not ready yet. Besides, the HiNA EUV infrastructure is still under developing and takes time. If we retrospect the low NA EUV history, intel used to be the leading company in the early development stage. Hope the history will not repeat it again.Valid input. But for what’s worth intel said 14A was 2 years after 18A so intel has 2 years rather than 1. It is also is worth baring in mind this is a far smaller labor from ASML than EUV was. As a result I have to assume there is comparatively little uncertainty around the tool’s capabilities.
Bingo. If A14 was lacking high-NA I think there would be a stronger argument that intel wants to jump the gun too early. But as you pointed out N2 family is just coming out too soon for this to make sense, with a retrofit making even less sense. But in the meantime I have no reason to believe that they won’t since TSMC stated that they think it would be more economical. I would never claim to be a litho expert, but I would bet on 2 major logic houses and Scotten over the uncertainties we might have.
Agreed. I just don’t make assumptions around others failing. So it is just perplexing that I see all the talk of how intel is destined to have made the “wrong call”, but TSMC making the same claim is somehow a rejection of intel’s theory and is objectivity the “correct” move. My personal philosophy is that assuming competitors can’t do what they say they will is a great way to fall behind. This is especially true when all three of the logic houses are as fearsome as they are.
Why would that constitute a hint? Wouldn’t intel always want to move to larger reticles if they have made the choice to go to high-NA? Even if high-NA was 50% the cost of EUV SALELE instead of the 90% that Scotten projected in his article, you would always want to go to that larger reticle to get costs even lower. If someone doing a reticle sized die is using IF then they would also no longer need to worry about stitching which is a cost improvement for the foundry and the customer who now needs less work/fewer masks. If I was to pick any evidence of intel leaping before looking it would be announcing the intent to use high-NA before even having their first development scanner up. Either way it is incomprehensible that from mid level lithographers/intergrators, to Mark, Ann, and then Pat didn’t do their due diligence before deciding that high-NA would be valuable to the 14A program. If a decision that big can go through the whole chain without good feasibility studies I have genuinely no clue how intel lucked into figuring out how to fix 10nm or how to ship intel 4/3.
I can understand why Pat G made decision of adopting Hi NA EUV early. If intel wanted to take the technology leadership back by 2030, there are not many moves to take and Hi NA EUV is just few one of them. Super Via, BSPDN, advanced package technologies and STCO are some of them. The situation is the road ahead is bumpy but intel chooses to speed up now.
For reticle size argument, you might need to spend sometimes to know more technical requirements and limits.