Ed’s Threads 070525
Musings by Ed Korczynski on May 25, 2007

Intel-IBM fab hype-war and truths
It has been said that the first casualty of war is the truth…even more so in a hype-war. An interview appearing on a popular electronics industry Web site is the most recent battlefield in this ongoing hype-war between the world’s semiconductor manufacturing heavyweights. As tradeoffs in fab technology become more fundamental at 45nm nodes and beyond, different companies choose to deploy similar technologies in different ways. The truth is inherently complex and thus a bit complex to describe, and can die under the assault of hype.

Among fundamental choices today we find the following: double-patterned dry or single-patterned wet lithography for critical layer patterning, and use of porous or airgap low-k dielectric for on-chip multi-level interconnects. Intel has chosen double-patterned dry lithography and non-airgap low-k dielectrics. IBM has chosen single-patterned wet-lithography and airgap dielectrics.

As shown by Hoofman, et.al, in the pages of SST last year, there are many different airgap process flows, which can produce many different airgap structures. Airgaps may be complete or partial between lines, and this is one of the more fundamental parameters to consider in integrating the structures into real chips. Thus, airgap1 is not airgap2 (General Semantics suggests the use of “indexing” to remind us of the essential distinctions between members of any conceptual set).

Using “complete airgap” flows and removing all dielectric between lines to achieve the absolute minimum capacitance does indeed create the two general problems articulated by Mark Bohr in the recorded interview: an expensive critical-lithography mask to ensure proper via landings, and copper electromigration sensitivity. However, the IBM flow uses airgaps only in the middle of line spaces while leaving dielectric material on the sidewalls of copper lines.

The IBM airgap process exposes parts of some metal sidewalls during the tricky three-stage gap etch, but the subsequent dielectric CVD process re-coats the exposed sidewall areas prior to “pinching off” the tops of gaps. With adequate sidewall dielectric in place, via landing and electromigration issues can be minimized if not avoided. Intel’s Bohr certainly understands airgap integration issues far better than I do, but because he’s not in a position to comment on how his competitor’s process might work, he accurately and properly expressed Intel’s results in the interview, and the generic disadvantages of approaches not currently taken by Intel.

However, a statement summarizing the interview reads thusly: “Mark Bohr, Intel senior fellow, says his company looked at air-gap technology like IBM recently introduced, and dismissed it as costly and inefficient.” That's a misinterpretation. The truth is that Intel never panned IBM’s airgap technology—Bohr answered a specific question about IBM’s technology with a generic answer about non-IBM technology. Of course, Bohr can very reasonably say that he has no knowledge if IBM’s technology beyond what is muddied in the official press release. Since IBM’s marketing spun the technology truth to the point of grandiose hype, it provides easy opportunity for Intel to comment on the hype instead of the truth. (Incidentally, further information on the general concept of self-assembled nanotechnology for lithographic masking applications can be found in the most recent issue of Microlithography World.)

The IBM hype was that no new lithography is needed. Intel counters that a generic process flow for airgaps requires critical-lithography steps. The truth is that the IBM flow does use an additional lithography step for each airgap level, but it’s non-critical and the mask generation has been automated as a button in the EDA deck. Critical-lithography steps for 45nm node processing can be 10X more expensive than non-critical patterning steps. If the IBM airgap process required critical lithography for each level then it might add 20%-25% to the cost of each chip, but with non-critical lithography it might add only 5%-8%.

For most people in the world who lack experience in fab processes, subtle complexities get lost in translation and details are distorted or lost. The truth about nanometer-era fab processes is that they are all tough to develop with inherent integration trade-offs. With Intel and IBM now going down divergent paths, it’s truly difficult to assess a fab technology “leader” in anything but hype.

— E.K.

Labels: airgap, fab, IBM, IC, Intel, interconnect, low-k, self-assembly, ULK

posted by [email protected]
070525: Intel-IBM fab hype-war and truths

Post a Comment

Ed’s Threads 070413
Musings by Ed Korczynski on April 13, 2007

MRS meeting specs the future
The Materials Research Society (MRS) spring meeting was in San Francisco April 9-13, and the near- and far-term possibilities for process technology in our industry were presented to a record numbers of attendees. Researchers showed results from the world’s leading labs for electronic materials development: CMOS high-k gate dielectrics, nano-imprint lithography, organic semiconductors, quantum dots, and nano-tubes. It’s like sipping from a firehose, unless you’re interested in just one of the 36 parallel sessions.

Sachin Joshi of UT-Austin showed that hybrid-orientation technology (HOT) silicon wafers based on the MEMC direct silicon bonding (DSB) approach contain inherent defect-rich junctions between orientations. Shallow-trench isolation (STI) regions 60-140nm wide may be used to eliminate these defects, though this seriously limits circuit density, he pointed out. Non-silicon channels will probably also limit density, so their use will probably be limited to RF and mixed-signal applications in small portions of chips.

Arief Budiman from Stanford analyzed the grain orientation in submicron damascene copper lines using the synchrotron x-ray beam from the ALS Berkeley Lab. This very bright x-ray source and submicron spot-size (0.8 x 0.8µm) allows for resolution of crystal bending/stress as well as the dislocation density. Starting with large single grains spanning across the width of the line (“bamboo structure”), Budiman’s group observed clear directionality of EM-induced plasticity and thus the orientation of slip-planes. They found that <112> orientations were most susceptible to plastic deformation, so any grains with such orientations that line up with the induced EM-stress will deform. Grain orientation controls plasticity, which in turn influences EM degradation mechanisms and circuit reliability.

An analysis of the influence of microstructure on void formation in failed copper interconnects, from Intel's Sadasivan Shankar, revealed that voids first nucleate at triple-boundaries caused by stress-induced de-cohesion at copper interfaces. These voids can be easily pinned by a grain boundary, which provides a fast diffusion path for the void to grow across the width of a line or via. “It almost unzips the grain-boundary,” he commented. A 2D model developed with Brown and UT-Austin accounts for current flow and stress, diffusion along surfaces and interfaces, void migration, and the interaction of voids and grain boundaries.

Duane Boning, the MIT professor who created one of the first useful pattern-density step-height CMP models in the 1990s, showed progress on new physically based models. By explicitly including pad properties—elastic response (including lateral coupling across the pad), slurry transport, and average asperities—he showed how chip-scale uniformity can now be predicted.

Roland Rzehak of Qimonda in Dresden, Germany, provided both an overview and details of inexplicable CMP removal-rate variations using ceria-slurries. A counter-intuitive “slow start phenomena” slows the removal rate for the first minute of pattern planarization to be ~2.5X lower than that for blanket films. Ceria particles may initially adsorb in trenches to take some of the pressure load. However, Qimonda observes additional non-uniformities implying influences of pattern pitch, the pad material, and possibly effects from chemical additives to the slurry.

MRS meetings also cover wilder technologies like superconductors, neuro-prosthetic interfaces, and “the nature of design using nature’s portfolio” like the self-assembly of sea-shells or the nano-hairs of gecko feet. Materials scientists and engineers continue to explore the structure-property relationships of the physical world, and confirm that there is indeed “still plenty of room at the bottom.”

— E.K.

Labels: electronics, materials research, modeling, nano, self-assembly, silicon

posted by [email protected]
070413: MRS meeting specs the future

Post a Comment