You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
It seems this formula has been around for years, but not necessarily followed (from https://www.angstronomics.com/p/the-truth-of-tsmc-5nm):
Going directly by the picture, it works out to 1.56 transistors/CPP/Cell height.
It hasn't been followed by everyone obviously. One example is Wikichip...
If the "earlier" machines are the previous EUV NA, he might be talking about ~ 20 nm pitch.
imec had just released some results for 20 nm pitch: https://www.imec-int.com/en/press/imec-demonstrates-electrical-yield-20nm-pitch-metal-lines-obtained-high-na-euv-single, still rough as expected...
Looking at some prior but recent generations' SRAM design examples, of course they were frontside but they had Vss and Vdd lines on different metal layers. This is unlike the standard logic arrangement of both Vss and Vdd on same layer. I wonder if backside routing could not support so many...
I'm not saying it couldn't have been expected, just that it was odd to put this counter-spin to PowerVia at this time. I guess it means PowerVia will only be implemented in non-SRAM sections of the chip.
Samsung to increase next-generation DRAM 'chip size'... HBM Yield Improvement Priority
Weigh in on yield stabilization instead of productivity... Earnings expected by the end of the second quarter
Semiconductor Display Input:2025/02/10 17:05 Modified: 2025/02/11 10:09
Jang Kyung-yoon
It is...
Intel started having the notorious yield issues at 14nm (before QP) so perhaps it is related to double patterning? They need to get that right, even when they have EUV.
South China Morning Post
January 30, 2025
ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT), China's leading producer of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) chips, has advanced its manufacturing technology to 16 nanometres, narrowing the gap with industry giants Samsung Electronics, SK Hynix and Micron...
This seems to be mainly from mature-node (28 nm and higher) pricing for competition? Isn't their advanced process development officially stopped at 7nm (N+2)? They shouldn't be burning money there anymore(?)
One way to frame it could be Intel licensing to TSMC. It is not Taiwan taking business away from US. Intel Foundry has its chance now. It's all the customers' choice.
