Japan on edge of EUV lithography chip-making revolution(asiatimes.com)
asiatimes.com
Japan on edge of EUV lithography chip-making revolution
https://asiatimes.com/2024/08/japan-on-edge-of-euv-lithography-chip-making-revolution/
11 comments
It's interesting that the author's picture is with a linear accelerator. It's quite possible to use a linear accelerator to generate EUV to etch chips. It's been done as a test at SLAC.[1] But that approach was more expensive than AMSL's, since it needed a mile-long accelerator.
There was a startup in Fremont, Lyncean Technologies, that had a 10 watt EUV source based on a small synchrotron.[2][3] They supposedly got to 10 watts. But that was too weak for EUV semiconductor work. They struggled for years to find a market, and went bankrupt in 2022. Here's the video of the equipment auction.[4] If, with this new optical system, only 20 watts are needed, that technology is worth reviving.
Something YC might be interested in.
An accelerator source is much cleaner than the laser tin-zapping thing AMSL uses. It's amazing that works as a commercial product.
[1] https://euvlsymposium.lbl.gov/pdf/2014/39af88b9d637418d86614...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20220119174924/https://lynceante...
[3] https://www.euvlitho.com/2017/P17.pdf
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5eGyeNgCSY
There was a startup in Fremont, Lyncean Technologies, that had a 10 watt EUV source based on a small synchrotron.[2][3] They supposedly got to 10 watts. But that was too weak for EUV semiconductor work. They struggled for years to find a market, and went bankrupt in 2022. Here's the video of the equipment auction.[4] If, with this new optical system, only 20 watts are needed, that technology is worth reviving.
Something YC might be interested in.
An accelerator source is much cleaner than the laser tin-zapping thing AMSL uses. It's amazing that works as a commercial product.
[1] https://euvlsymposium.lbl.gov/pdf/2014/39af88b9d637418d86614...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20220119174924/https://lynceante...
[3] https://www.euvlitho.com/2017/P17.pdf
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5eGyeNgCSY
> the laser tin-zapping thing ASML uses.
The Science/Engineering to make this work is nothing short of magic! There are actually two lasers; the first one to reshape the spherical tin droplet to concave shape and the second one to vaporize it to plasma generating EUV range light.
The Extreme Engineering of ASML’s EUV Light Source by Asianometry - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ge2RcvDlgw
The Science/Engineering to make this work is nothing short of magic! There are actually two lasers; the first one to reshape the spherical tin droplet to concave shape and the second one to vaporize it to plasma generating EUV range light.
The Extreme Engineering of ASML’s EUV Light Source by Asianometry - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ge2RcvDlgw
> Question is, will they be able to actually commercialize it before ASML manages to get improved versions of their current litho machines out the door
Canon and Nikon don't need to be bleeding edge. Majority of the chip fabrication market is 20nm, 28nm, and 40nm along with analog chips (60nm+).
The sub-20nm chips will become more common as more and more fabs get turned on and EUV eventually gets commoditized, but the RoI isn't there yet for most electronics aside from high margins consumer electronics like GPUs, high end cellphones, etc.
> Chinese universities and companies are working on particle accelerator based EUV sources
Both the Chinese (SMIC) and the Japanese (OIST) attempts don't have great yield rates (the OIST project above is barely 50% of ASML's and SMIC's is reported to be similar).
Both will crack it eventually, but the order book for ASML's High NA EUV (3nm and below) is entirely Intel, Samsung, and the American fabs for TSMC for the next 3-4 years so by the time a competitor is ASML comparable, a significant subset of high end US and SK fabs will have transitioned to 3nm.
Canon and Nikon don't need to be bleeding edge. Majority of the chip fabrication market is 20nm, 28nm, and 40nm along with analog chips (60nm+).
The sub-20nm chips will become more common as more and more fabs get turned on and EUV eventually gets commoditized, but the RoI isn't there yet for most electronics aside from high margins consumer electronics like GPUs, high end cellphones, etc.
> Chinese universities and companies are working on particle accelerator based EUV sources
Both the Chinese (SMIC) and the Japanese (OIST) attempts don't have great yield rates (the OIST project above is barely 50% of ASML's and SMIC's is reported to be similar).
Both will crack it eventually, but the order book for ASML's High NA EUV (3nm and below) is entirely Intel, Samsung, and the American fabs for TSMC for the next 3-4 years so by the time a competitor is ASML comparable, a significant subset of high end US and SK fabs will have transitioned to 3nm.
But how much of the monetary value generation derives from small nodes?
Surely the vast majority of fab income derives from these small nodes, just based on the sheer pricing disparity between complex semiconductors and everything else.
Surely the vast majority of fab income derives from these small nodes, just based on the sheer pricing disparity between complex semiconductors and everything else.
Compounded by the availability of the technology.
Few leading node machines = machine manufacturer/fab can charge high margins
Multiple trailing node machines/suppliers = machine manufacturers/fabs begin to compete on price, driving down margins
Few leading node machines = machine manufacturer/fab can charge high margins
Multiple trailing node machines/suppliers = machine manufacturers/fabs begin to compete on price, driving down margins
^^^ this.
A good example of this principle is the diffusion of analog chip and memory chip fabrication in the 1990s to early 2010s (US/TW/JP/SK in 1980s-90s to MY/SG/PH in the 90s to CN in the 2000s).
The ongoing diffusion of specialized DUVL processes like 20nm, 28nm, and 40nm is another great example (US in the 2000s to TW/SK in the 2010s to CN in the late 2010s/early 2020s).
Nowadays companies like PSMC are selling the entire end-to-end Fab IP for 28nm/40nm processes to companies in JP, IN, ID, US, etc, further diffusing the know how.
A good example of this principle is the diffusion of analog chip and memory chip fabrication in the 1990s to early 2010s (US/TW/JP/SK in 1980s-90s to MY/SG/PH in the 90s to CN in the 2000s).
The ongoing diffusion of specialized DUVL processes like 20nm, 28nm, and 40nm is another great example (US in the 2000s to TW/SK in the 2010s to CN in the late 2010s/early 2020s).
Nowadays companies like PSMC are selling the entire end-to-end Fab IP for 28nm/40nm processes to companies in JP, IN, ID, US, etc, further diffusing the know how.
Canon and Nikon have these already, and yet their market share is pretty small
If you consider that China is unable to get ASML equipment, they have strong incentive to improve on this technology immediately. If Chinese companies start this path, then the issue is not if ASML will have improved, but if they will be able to withstand the competition.
Regardless of the immediate ban on ASML, China has made a geopolitical and strategic decision to obtain advanced chip manufacturing capabilities be it in 5, 10 or 20 years. Would be timely if Western politicians showed same concern for national manufacturing capabilities instead of continuously relying on outsourcing.
> Would be timely if Western politicians showed same concern for national manufacturing capabilities instead of continuously relying on outsourcing.
You mean like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
You mean like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
The CHIPS act is a big mistake, they decided to give billions of dollars to companies like Intel that decided to layoff thousands of people a few months later. Like always, the US decided to give more money to unaccountable companies that will put this money into their management and shareholder's pockets.
It’s remarkable that China even manages to do subsidies better than us. Blanket incentives to an industry would be far better than the regulatory capture we get here… Same story for EVs.
Chinese also have their fare share of subsidy fraud.[0][1][2][3] The most notable of these is probably Wuhan Hongxin Semiconductor Manufacturing, which essentially wasted billions of dollars, a lot of which was funded by the local government.[1][3] FWIW, I suspect China will create EUV machines anyway. While there has been a lot of fraud, there is also a lot of talent in China. And solving an already solved problem is much easier than solving it the first time.
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65022389
[1] https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/36Kr-KrASIA/Semiconductor-f...
[2] https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3206470/greates...
[3] https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-trends/article/3126124/chinas...
(A lot of these sources mention the same incidents, they are not all separate, just wanted to give more than one source)
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/business-65022389
[1] https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/36Kr-KrASIA/Semiconductor-f...
[2] https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3206470/greates...
[3] https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-trends/article/3126124/chinas...
(A lot of these sources mention the same incidents, they are not all separate, just wanted to give more than one source)
The money has not gotten paid out yet. Do you think they should cancel Intel’s grants and give the money to proven foundries like Samsung and TSMC?
It also gave a lot of money to TSMC and to the DoD to study and support chipmaking directly, though.
the money was not pro bono, right? Intel has to perform something otherwise they need to pay it back, no?
No, like all schemes created by the US, companies will only accept the money if they know they won't have to repay it back. They just need to show "intention" of investing that money; for example, trying to start a new factory, even if knowing that it will never be operational.
So, which fab in your opinion will never be operational? Ohio?
I’m actually excited to see these projects come into fruition. If USA can pull it off, and become competitive in global markets, it’ll a proof that we can still build big projects when we want to. If things go sideways with nothing coming online by the end of 2020s, it won’t look good especially knowing how China just keeps outbuilding us.
Same. I'm pretty confident we can, though. Not to take too much away from ASML who has done a good job in the time since, but don't forget that the US invented EUV with taxpayer money and basically only allowed ASML(and a company they bought) access. And the rest, as they say, is history.
EUV the concept is obvious. You want higher resolution, you need shorter wavelengths. But there are many devils in many details, and the relatively tiny US EUV program didn't do a whole lot about them. So no, EUV is not mainly a US development.
I'm not sure how true that is. The EUV concept was drawn up in the 90s, and the program was designed specifically to do further research to overcome technical hurdles. Multiple companies were interested in licensing this research, but all but ASML were blocked. Is it no coincidence that they are the only ones who achieved it?
In fairness, I don't know all the inner workings of what was already in place and how much more they had to do initially, it just feels peculiar that the denied interested parties(large Japanese companies) never achieved it.
In fairness, I don't know all the inner workings of what was already in place and how much more they had to do initially, it just feels peculiar that the denied interested parties(large Japanese companies) never achieved it.
You mean , like Asml , Zeiss and Jenoptics aren't national manufacturing capabilities?
Or ist just your head national = American, western = American and not German , Dutch, European not Western?
For an American, national means built in the US. Unless you believe that Germany and other Europeans are just colonies of the US.
Western countries lack the talented and hardworking manufacturing workforce necessary to stay competitive.
ASML having competition is good for everyone. Seems tariffs are a win/win/win
I haven't seen any success on the Trump/Biden tariffs. They only managed to weaken US companies by cutting access to Asian markets. China is doing just fine.
The Hang Seng stock index begs to differ.
tariffs/sanctions are meant to be long term, 15-30 years before showing effectiveness. they are meant to not stop progress but stop 'compounding' progress. if they show effectiveness sooner even better! but effects are better seen after 10 years.
if A has $500 and B has $500 (and each put money away at the end of the year), tariffs on A are meant to 'eliminate' the compounding interest of the market. so over long horizons B ends up ahead. A still makes progress (but substantially further behind from where it could have been).
my example is more true of sanctions than tariffs. i've noticed many misguided tariffs from countries with less noble aims recently.
if A has $500 and B has $500 (and each put money away at the end of the year), tariffs on A are meant to 'eliminate' the compounding interest of the market. so over long horizons B ends up ahead. A still makes progress (but substantially further behind from where it could have been).
my example is more true of sanctions than tariffs. i've noticed many misguided tariffs from countries with less noble aims recently.
That's laughable, China will spend 15-30 expanding on all kinds of technologies while cut from the US by design. I cannot see any long term benefit for the US when it lost access to the largest foreign market and suffers from fierce competition across the world. See the debacle of EV, where Chinese companies are already dominating sales on 3rd world countries and inside China.
Reducing sales of BYD in the US is a realpolitik win if the goal is to slightly increase war machine production capability in the US.
It's kind of obvious isn't it? High-tech is human-made and humans are not in short in China and elsewhere. Tech embargoes are a huge favor for the receiving side, enforcing a creation of a market for competitors where your companies can't compete and tariffs make sure that your companies don't have to innovate much when your people are suffering.
Yes, tariffs may work for small countries, Cuba being the classical example (even though it only worked in the sense of keeping Cuba poor). But using tariffs against a country the size of China is a complete non-sense that could only come from the minds of stupid US politicians. The fact that it didn't work at all for Russia, which has an economy many times smaller, should be an early warning.
If China wants lower tariffs, all they have to do is purchase more to reduce the trade imbalance.
How would they buy more if the US gov is making this illegal? The Trump/Biden policies are only increasing the US trade deficit.
Eh, we've got time. When NATO allies stopped selling China engines for their fighter jets, it took China more than 15 years to bootstrap an aerospace industry that could design engines on-par with Russia. There are a lot of things that China has every incentive to invest in, but literally cannot as a result of sanctions.
On top of that - an underappreciated aspect of lithography is yield. It's likely China can already beat ASML in a lab setting with <5% yield rates, but that's not a competitive process. What makes TSMC so valuable is their relatively high yield on cutting-edge node technology, alongside their fairly large capacity to supply multiple businesses at once. China has to design a scalable EUV alternative, bring it up to acceptable/profitable yield and quality control, and then scale it to replace the demand for most of the domestic chip clients. It's a lot of work, and it would not surprise me if we saw a lot of China's chip efforts echo their confident-but-slowed progress in engine design.
On top of that - an underappreciated aspect of lithography is yield. It's likely China can already beat ASML in a lab setting with <5% yield rates, but that's not a competitive process. What makes TSMC so valuable is their relatively high yield on cutting-edge node technology, alongside their fairly large capacity to supply multiple businesses at once. China has to design a scalable EUV alternative, bring it up to acceptable/profitable yield and quality control, and then scale it to replace the demand for most of the domestic chip clients. It's a lot of work, and it would not surprise me if we saw a lot of China's chip efforts echo their confident-but-slowed progress in engine design.
Enormous PRC indigenous turbo jet efforts progress exploded in last 10-15 years coincides with results of tertiary education reforms producing roughly OECD STEM talent combined. The problem post sanctions was there was a lot of work with not a lot of talent, it took time to build up talent generation engines, now PRC on trend to becoming the only country with enough semi talent for entire domestic semi supply chain - every other semi player projected to have 10k-100k+ talent shortage in short/medium term in the segments they specialize in. The real competition is whether a fragmented "western" semi ecosystem can ultimately compete with an integrated PRC one.
Competitiveness is an economic concern one can ignore while the government is willing to pour billions on a decade+ timeframe
Sure, China said that about their engines too. When Pakistan came to them looking to buy an F-16 replacement under contract, China couldn't provide competitive designs without using Russian powerplants. They would build the JF-17 for export, and that jet (built in 2003) wouldn't receive domestic engines until a 2019 overhaul. By that time they were competing with a ~45 year old USSR-designed engine, the Klimov RD-33.
I full well expect that China is interested in producing silicon at-cost for the defense industry. It remains to be seen if they even have competitive designs though. Their premier domestic ISA, LoongArch, is based on 40-year-old MIPS architecture design. Cut off from international designs, it's not really clear how strong China's engineering chops are.
I full well expect that China is interested in producing silicon at-cost for the defense industry. It remains to be seen if they even have competitive designs though. Their premier domestic ISA, LoongArch, is based on 40-year-old MIPS architecture design. Cut off from international designs, it's not really clear how strong China's engineering chops are.
> Cut off from international designs, it's not really clear how strong China's engineering chops are.
CATL, DJI, Douyin & post-grad engineering programs all over the US suggest the answer is "very strong." Underestimating China is not good for anyone wishing to remain competitive
CATL, DJI, Douyin & post-grad engineering programs all over the US suggest the answer is "very strong." Underestimating China is not good for anyone wishing to remain competitive
I don't underestimate China, but I also don't take them at their word. They have a vested interest in appearing competitive even if they're not, same as the US does. I've acknowledged that both are nearly equals in terms of being importer-states reliant on foreign trade for competitive silicon.
To my knowledge, China's most advanced domestic lithography is a dubious 7nm chip with unknown yields made entirely with DUV, not EUV. This is really quite poor and I invite you to share more updated sources if you think that I'm underestimating them here.
To my knowledge, China's most advanced domestic lithography is a dubious 7nm chip with unknown yields made entirely with DUV, not EUV. This is really quite poor and I invite you to share more updated sources if you think that I'm underestimating them here.
You don't need to take their word, just look at the products they're releasing, especially in the EV segment. It is now above everybody else, even with the head start western companies had. They're at the top of telecom tech as well, and Huawei had to be cancelled in the West to stop its total dominance. Even in chips, where they have closed the gap in many ways in a matter of a few years.
> just look at the products they're releasing, especially in the EV segment.
Since when have EVs required high-density silicon? China's EVs are impressive, but it's 100% more of an endorsement of their lithium supply chain than their silicon one.
> They're at the top of telecom tech as well
That's a funny rendering of events. Didn't Huawei get forcibly removed from the market after they refused to let governments audit their security? I don't think that's an industry-leading attitude compared to Cisco. The only thing Huawei can win on is low prices, which really isn't a priority of telecoms when you're trying to sell backdoored hardware.
Additionally - telecom tech doesn't require advanced silicon either. Most WiFi routers and Ethernet switches are made with the same silicon the US already manufactures in GlobalFoundries and Intel fabs. The fact that China has 24nm DUV is not at all impressive when half the world was already exporting similar density silicon for cars and routers.
So... yeah, I do need to look at better examples if I want to trust their word. From both the examples you've given me it seems like China is focusing on cheap low-density hardware that anyone can make, but China can make cheaper thanks to their political prisoners and labor camps. Not only is it unimpressive, it's not even a slight example of how China can put modern silicon nodes into mass-production.
You are describing 2010-era fab technology, when talking about EV and telecom chips. I just hope you know that's what you're bragging about here.
Since when have EVs required high-density silicon? China's EVs are impressive, but it's 100% more of an endorsement of their lithium supply chain than their silicon one.
> They're at the top of telecom tech as well
That's a funny rendering of events. Didn't Huawei get forcibly removed from the market after they refused to let governments audit their security? I don't think that's an industry-leading attitude compared to Cisco. The only thing Huawei can win on is low prices, which really isn't a priority of telecoms when you're trying to sell backdoored hardware.
Additionally - telecom tech doesn't require advanced silicon either. Most WiFi routers and Ethernet switches are made with the same silicon the US already manufactures in GlobalFoundries and Intel fabs. The fact that China has 24nm DUV is not at all impressive when half the world was already exporting similar density silicon for cars and routers.
So... yeah, I do need to look at better examples if I want to trust their word. From both the examples you've given me it seems like China is focusing on cheap low-density hardware that anyone can make, but China can make cheaper thanks to their political prisoners and labor camps. Not only is it unimpressive, it's not even a slight example of how China can put modern silicon nodes into mass-production.
You are describing 2010-era fab technology, when talking about EV and telecom chips. I just hope you know that's what you're bragging about here.
If I am not wrong cost is a big factor currently not the tech advantage. It's one of the reasons we got the meme Moore's law is dead. So if someone is able to get even a generation or so older node compared to previous at cheaper price it will be a huge shift in the industry.
A few points in terms of context.
1. The original paper in Japanese claim to use only 4 mirrors to achieve the same results. Although this story only mentions >the EUV equipment’s optical system is greatly simplified
1. Japan isn't new to lithography. Both Canon and Nikon are in the market as well and eventually gave on EUV research and focuses on DUV.
2. Power consumption is reduced by a factor of ten is extremely important as modern EUV, and future High-NA EUV are insanely power hungry, with 30%+ of the raw cost of chip manufacturing goes to energy usage alone. And this isn't just TSMC but also NAND and DRAM maker as well.
3. ASML has something similar in the work as well. Although not to any extreme as factor of 10. But then they also dont need these sort of claim to get funding as the one here does.
1. The original paper in Japanese claim to use only 4 mirrors to achieve the same results. Although this story only mentions >the EUV equipment’s optical system is greatly simplified
1. Japan isn't new to lithography. Both Canon and Nikon are in the market as well and eventually gave on EUV research and focuses on DUV.
2. Power consumption is reduced by a factor of ten is extremely important as modern EUV, and future High-NA EUV are insanely power hungry, with 30%+ of the raw cost of chip manufacturing goes to energy usage alone. And this isn't just TSMC but also NAND and DRAM maker as well.
3. ASML has something similar in the work as well. Although not to any extreme as factor of 10. But then they also dont need these sort of claim to get funding as the one here does.
with 30%+ of the raw cost of chip manufacturing goes to energy usage alone
Is the marginal cost of production at all relevant compared to the upfront capital outlay?
Is the marginal cost of production at all relevant compared to the upfront capital outlay?
You can get a loan to spread out payments, reducing operating costs would be similar to reducing those payments. It also impacts viability and resale in second hand markets.
Sure, but the question is the scale. Is debt service 10x operating costs? 2x? 50x? .5x?
Those imply very different sorts of business.
Those imply very different sorts of business.
The graphic from the OIST in the link makes reference to both the reduced power needed and reduced capital costs, less mirrors & cheaper EUV light source. Also, less power -> less heat -> less cooling.
I scoured for some other info as well: A single chip would go through a photo-lithography tool about 80 times. A photo-lithography tool can work on approx. 125 wafers per hour (5 FOUPS). A wafer contains ~230 chips. Current EUV light source requires a 20kw carbon laser.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX9CGRZwD-w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ge2RcvDlgw
I scoured for some other info as well: A single chip would go through a photo-lithography tool about 80 times. A photo-lithography tool can work on approx. 125 wafers per hour (5 FOUPS). A wafer contains ~230 chips. Current EUV light source requires a 20kw carbon laser.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dX9CGRZwD-w
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ge2RcvDlgw
One is OpeX and the other is CapeX. I would argue they are both important.
Don’t confuse the map for the territory. Dollars are fungible.
I tried to explain this to our finance team, but they just gawked at me with a stunned look of disbelief.
To be fair, I did notice were busy colouring in money with different felt tip pens.
“This is ‘blue’ money and it can’t be mixed with the ‘red’ or ‘green’ money. That would be silly!”
To be fair, I did notice were busy colouring in money with different felt tip pens.
“This is ‘blue’ money and it can’t be mixed with the ‘red’ or ‘green’ money. That would be silly!”
Later on the article says
> To eliminate this problem, Professor Shintake aligned two axis-symmetric mirrors in a straight line and used a total of only four mirrors instead of ten.
> To eliminate this problem, Professor Shintake aligned two axis-symmetric mirrors in a straight line and used a total of only four mirrors instead of ten.
> 30%+ of the raw cost of chip manufacturing goes to energy usage
Are there any links to this data? Curious to read more about it, thanks.
Are there any links to this data? Curious to read more about it, thanks.
They mention validation in software which suggests a hardware implementation is a way off with a lot of practical issues that might crop up on the way. So best of luck to them but i wouldn’t expect to see hit the market for quite a while - saying they are “on the edge of euv chip making” is very optimistic.
By far the easiest path for this technology to be used in practice would be to license it to ASML.
The older and cheaper models of the ASML EUV sources would be good enough for this system that needs a much smaller power for the EUV sources.
The European partners of ASML are the only companies that could manufacture at this time the optical system.
Nevertheless, it is likely that the patent owners would prefer to license it to Nikon, to create competition for ASML.
Nikon should be able to make the optical system, but this could need a few years of development, unless Nikon already has a secret internal research project for making EUV mirrors.
The most difficult problem remains the EUV source, even if a much simpler source than the current sources is good enough.
It seems very unlikely that ASML would be willing to sell EUV sources separately to Nikon, providing components for competing systems.
The only deal that seems possible would be if ASML accepted to sell some of their older models of EUV sources to Nikon, in exchange for receiving licenses for this new improved kind of EUV optical system, which will then be incorporated in all new EUV systems, regardless if they are made by ASML or Nikon.
This would reduce the dependence on ASML and its partners, but ASML would still completely control the market of EUV sources, even if not also the market of complete lithography systems, like it does now.
The older and cheaper models of the ASML EUV sources would be good enough for this system that needs a much smaller power for the EUV sources.
The European partners of ASML are the only companies that could manufacture at this time the optical system.
Nevertheless, it is likely that the patent owners would prefer to license it to Nikon, to create competition for ASML.
Nikon should be able to make the optical system, but this could need a few years of development, unless Nikon already has a secret internal research project for making EUV mirrors.
The most difficult problem remains the EUV source, even if a much simpler source than the current sources is good enough.
It seems very unlikely that ASML would be willing to sell EUV sources separately to Nikon, providing components for competing systems.
The only deal that seems possible would be if ASML accepted to sell some of their older models of EUV sources to Nikon, in exchange for receiving licenses for this new improved kind of EUV optical system, which will then be incorporated in all new EUV systems, regardless if they are made by ASML or Nikon.
This would reduce the dependence on ASML and its partners, but ASML would still completely control the market of EUV sources, even if not also the market of complete lithography systems, like it does now.
> It seems very unlikely that ASML would be willing to sell EUV sources separately to Nikon
Nikon's out of the EUVL game and doesn't plan on returning. They're reiterated this in just about every quarterly prospectus for years now.
They're migrating to licensing whatever EUVL IP they had to other players.
They've pivoted heavily to FPD Lithography (LCD, OLED, and potentially PV fabrication) - better margins, less political headache.
Nikon's out of the EUVL game and doesn't plan on returning. They're reiterated this in just about every quarterly prospectus for years now.
They're migrating to licensing whatever EUVL IP they had to other players.
They've pivoted heavily to FPD Lithography (LCD, OLED, and potentially PV fabrication) - better margins, less political headache.
This has already been debunked.
"As it turns out, however, EUV monopolist ASML and its optics suppliers Zeiss have already considered similar setups. “Zeiss has several designs available with similar/better performance than the Shintake design,” an ASML spokesperson told Bits&Chips. So far, these haven’t generated chipmakers’ interest due to the reduced resolution and smaller field size of the design. Should this change in the future, “we will explore whether one of Zeiss’ systems makes sense.”"
https://bits-chips.nl/article/despite-superior-efficiency-ja...
"As it turns out, however, EUV monopolist ASML and its optics suppliers Zeiss have already considered similar setups. “Zeiss has several designs available with similar/better performance than the Shintake design,” an ASML spokesperson told Bits&Chips. So far, these haven’t generated chipmakers’ interest due to the reduced resolution and smaller field size of the design. Should this change in the future, “we will explore whether one of Zeiss’ systems makes sense.”"
https://bits-chips.nl/article/despite-superior-efficiency-ja...
Anyone that wants to short ASML out the door on Monday, please reconsider. It will take 10-15 years to make a machine like ASMLs from end to end.
Also consider that this article is from 7 Aug, with Canon in particular showing good post-crisis recovery.
>7nm and smaller
Ugh. The process naming which has nothing to do with size anymore still confuses people.
Ugh. The process naming which has nothing to do with size anymore still confuses people.
Will this attempt work out commercially? Maybe, maybe not. But more interesting here is the strategic situation beyond the currently understood tech.
The US has made it clear that it sees semiconductors as a vector to attack power centres in Asia. Today it is China. Democracies are notoriously fickle, tomorrow it could be India, Japan, Korea or anyone really. There is a strategic need here to break the remaining European monopolies on equipment supply. For China the need is urgent but for all the Asian powers the need is real.
Given the manufacturing powerhouse that the collective Asia represents, I expect they'll figure all these details out and become technologically independent at least on paper. They've had more than a century of experience in dealing with the west, the risks of the status quo are too obvious once the US is overtly exploiting it.
The US has made it clear that it sees semiconductors as a vector to attack power centres in Asia. Today it is China. Democracies are notoriously fickle, tomorrow it could be India, Japan, Korea or anyone really. There is a strategic need here to break the remaining European monopolies on equipment supply. For China the need is urgent but for all the Asian powers the need is real.
Given the manufacturing powerhouse that the collective Asia represents, I expect they'll figure all these details out and become technologically independent at least on paper. They've had more than a century of experience in dealing with the west, the risks of the status quo are too obvious once the US is overtly exploiting it.
> Democracies are notoriously fickle,
are they really though? At least in democracies things require oversight, debates and people are being held responsible.
It's exactly authoritarian regimes that can turn on a dime, if the supreme leader feels like it.
are they really though? At least in democracies things require oversight, debates and people are being held responsible.
It's exactly authoritarian regimes that can turn on a dime, if the supreme leader feels like it.
Are you really suggesting that we have oversight and people being held responsible? Not in the Netherlands in any case, where did you think this was happening?
> At least in democracies things require oversight, debates and people are being held responsible.
I'm scratching my head at this one. Why do you think they are doing those things if not because they are constantly re-evaluating their direction? If you're just going to keep doing the same thing over and over again there isn't much need for debate. The oversight and accountability mechanisms are all-weather good ideas, but typically the US is using them to constantly adjust and change policy responses.
Compare that to somewhere more authoritarian where they can't change policies precisely because those 3 aspects are quite weak. They find their groove once and stick to it for decades, and anyone trying to shake things up gets mired in institutional inertia. Sure a supreme leader could force sudden change in theory, but why are they going to do that? He's got everything set up how he likes it and his view of the world fossilised maybe 10, 20 years ago.
Democracies are absolute monsters. The moment they detect that their interests have changed they'll vote out the old mob, bring in a new one and do things differently. The US went Obama to Trump in one election cycle, which was probably a shock for anyone trying to negotiate with them.
I'm scratching my head at this one. Why do you think they are doing those things if not because they are constantly re-evaluating their direction? If you're just going to keep doing the same thing over and over again there isn't much need for debate. The oversight and accountability mechanisms are all-weather good ideas, but typically the US is using them to constantly adjust and change policy responses.
Compare that to somewhere more authoritarian where they can't change policies precisely because those 3 aspects are quite weak. They find their groove once and stick to it for decades, and anyone trying to shake things up gets mired in institutional inertia. Sure a supreme leader could force sudden change in theory, but why are they going to do that? He's got everything set up how he likes it and his view of the world fossilised maybe 10, 20 years ago.
Democracies are absolute monsters. The moment they detect that their interests have changed they'll vote out the old mob, bring in a new one and do things differently. The US went Obama to Trump in one election cycle, which was probably a shock for anyone trying to negotiate with them.
obama and trump are more similar than people realize is the blackpill. 'median voter theorem' and such
Your description of democracy doesn't match with existing capitalism. In capitalism, what matters is the individual capitalist desire to achieve profits. The economic decisions are made by a few oligarchs on top, not by the population.
yeah whatever, you go live in your social media-induced paranoid little world.
I have faith in the institutions of our democracy, no matter how much you what-aboutists try to erode it.
I have faith in the institutions of our democracy, no matter how much you what-aboutists try to erode it.
>The US has made it clear that it sees semiconductors as a vector to attack power centres in Asia. Today it is China. Democracies are notoriously fickle, tomorrow it could be India, Japan, Korea or anyone really.
Sorry but this sounds more like propaganda. China also sees supply chains "as a vector to attack power centres in Asia", that's applicable to anyone and anywhere. I'm not sure why Asia is a singled out here, sounds like one to trying to construe a racist motive when there is none.
The aformentioned India, Japan & Korea aren't worried about USA, their primary concerns are China and their neighbours. China's explicit objective to control the entire supply chain places them at a direct conflict of interest with those countries. They've already tried sanctioning Korea and Japan over petty issues like Fukushima water waste. Trying to appeal to some vague "Asian" solidarity as opposed to the existing OECD and actual shared norms sounds more like an attempt to divide allies rather than actually caring about those countries' interests.
Sorry but this sounds more like propaganda. China also sees supply chains "as a vector to attack power centres in Asia", that's applicable to anyone and anywhere. I'm not sure why Asia is a singled out here, sounds like one to trying to construe a racist motive when there is none.
The aformentioned India, Japan & Korea aren't worried about USA, their primary concerns are China and their neighbours. China's explicit objective to control the entire supply chain places them at a direct conflict of interest with those countries. They've already tried sanctioning Korea and Japan over petty issues like Fukushima water waste. Trying to appeal to some vague "Asian" solidarity as opposed to the existing OECD and actual shared norms sounds more like an attempt to divide allies rather than actually caring about those countries' interests.
> They've already tried sanctioning Korea and Japan over petty issues like Fukushima water waste.
Well China wasn't the only one with concerns, but probably the only one with the balls to sanction: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/21/world/asia/korea-japan-fu... - and why shouldn't they?
Well China wasn't the only one with concerns, but probably the only one with the balls to sanction: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/21/world/asia/korea-japan-fu... - and why shouldn't they?
The radiation can't be detected even a couple of kilometers away from the discharge. China is >1000km away, so there's 6+ orders of magnitude more dilution by then.
If I pee in the lake you're swimming in, that's kind of gross... but it ends up being an incomprehensibly tiny fraction of the contaminants and gross stuff you're swimming in.
If I pee in the lake you're swimming in, that's kind of gross... but it ends up being an incomprehensibly tiny fraction of the contaminants and gross stuff you're swimming in.
Because it's filtered radioactive water, released over 30 years?
The main thing that won't be filtered is tritium, which already exists in the ocean, and has an ~12 year half life.
People get irrational where radiation is concerned, though.
The main thing that won't be filtered is tritium, which already exists in the ocean, and has an ~12 year half life.
People get irrational where radiation is concerned, though.
> I'm not sure why Asia is a singled out here, sounds like one to trying to construe a racist motive when there is none.
How long has Asia been a race? The continent contains 60% of all humans.
How long has Asia been a race? The continent contains 60% of all humans.
"This was made possible by carefully rethinking the aberration correction theory of optics."
Can someone explain how they carefully rethought the theory to reduce the number of mirrors from more than 6 to just 2 (or 4)?
Can someone explain how they carefully rethought the theory to reduce the number of mirrors from more than 6 to just 2 (or 4)?
The new design design uses on axis mirrors to image the photomask onto the wafer, and on axis mirror systems are far easier to design and fabricate compared to zig zag (off axis) systems. I've never designed an EUV system, and I guess that Shintake's team had to solve some materials or optical coating technology issues that allowed them to consider the simpler on axis design. Having worked on zig zag and on axis designs in the IR and VIS range, I can say that Shintake's design will be much (orders of magnitude?) easier to align and assemble.
Recall that early on in such chip making IBM skipped blue, UV, EUV and built a cyclotron to generate X-rays.
The actual paper [0]
The yield rate is unimpressive (100 wafers/hr) compared to existing ASML EUV lithography machines (170-200/hr) or even DUV lithography (300/hr).
[0] - https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.11717
The yield rate is unimpressive (100 wafers/hr) compared to existing ASML EUV lithography machines (170-200/hr) or even DUV lithography (300/hr).
[0] - https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.11717
The yield rate by itself is not very relevant.
It also matters which are the energy and materials consumption, the occupied floor area and the acquisition and maintenance prices associated with that yield.
When all those are small enough, it may be worthwhile to replace a big and expensive fast machine with many smaller and cheaper slow machines.
It also matters which are the energy and materials consumption, the occupied floor area and the acquisition and maintenance prices associated with that yield.
When all those are small enough, it may be worthwhile to replace a big and expensive fast machine with many smaller and cheaper slow machines.
Fair point!
That said, 10% reduction in power is decent along with the reduction in mirrors, but it would still take some effort for an attempt like this to be cost competitive compared to licensing from ASML.
That said, 10% reduction in power is decent along with the reduction in mirrors, but it would still take some effort for an attempt like this to be cost competitive compared to licensing from ASML.
As another poster has already said, the power is reduced 10 times, not by 10%.
At such a power reduction, it should be possible to use a much smaller and cheaper EUV source, allowing the use of multiple lithography systems, or increase a lot the throughput achievable with the current EUV sources.
I hope that they have modeled correctly the losses in the mirrors. Here the incidence angle of the EUV light on the mirrors is much closer to a right angle than in the ASML system. It is likely that this increases the absorption in the mirror in comparison with a mirror on which the light falls at an angle far from perpendicular, as used by ASML.
EDIT:
Unfortunately this paper might be a hoax.
I have read the 2013 paper that they give as reference [2] and as the basis of the claim for the 10 times reduction in power losses.
There the losses in the mirror are given only for incidence angles no greater than 21 degrees, very far from a perpendicular incidence. Moreover the data imply that at higher incidence angles the losses increase a lot.
Therefore the system with 4 mirrors at high incidence angles will have much higher losses than a system with 10 mirrors at low incidence angles, unless better mirror materials were discovered in the future.
So ASML must have analyzed this simple system and dismissed it as impossible to make with the known materials.
At such a power reduction, it should be possible to use a much smaller and cheaper EUV source, allowing the use of multiple lithography systems, or increase a lot the throughput achievable with the current EUV sources.
I hope that they have modeled correctly the losses in the mirrors. Here the incidence angle of the EUV light on the mirrors is much closer to a right angle than in the ASML system. It is likely that this increases the absorption in the mirror in comparison with a mirror on which the light falls at an angle far from perpendicular, as used by ASML.
EDIT:
Unfortunately this paper might be a hoax.
I have read the 2013 paper that they give as reference [2] and as the basis of the claim for the 10 times reduction in power losses.
There the losses in the mirror are given only for incidence angles no greater than 21 degrees, very far from a perpendicular incidence. Moreover the data imply that at higher incidence angles the losses increase a lot.
Therefore the system with 4 mirrors at high incidence angles will have much higher losses than a system with 10 mirrors at low incidence angles, unless better mirror materials were discovered in the future.
So ASML must have analyzed this simple system and dismissed it as impossible to make with the known materials.
> Unfortunately this paper might be a hoax
Not necessarily. It might just have performed at this peak capacity in ideal lab conditions.
This would need to be reproduced, but like you pointed out ASML and Zeiss most likely tested this configuration out at some point in the last 25 years.
That said, the English is very off on this paper - I did a re-read and it looks like they're proposing that they were able to cut the power down to 20W from 200W
Not necessarily. It might just have performed at this peak capacity in ideal lab conditions.
This would need to be reproduced, but like you pointed out ASML and Zeiss most likely tested this configuration out at some point in the last 25 years.
That said, the English is very off on this paper - I did a re-read and it looks like they're proposing that they were able to cut the power down to 20W from 200W
Their reference numbered [1] is a more recent book from 2020.
In this book it is said even if EUV mirrors have typically very poor reflectance at high incidence angles, it has become possible to make mirrors with a 60% to 70% reflectance even for high incidence angles (without specifying how high).
They have computed their power advantage using the 65% value which is a middle value between those from the book, so it is OK.
However they have used the same value for the ASML mirrors, which use low incidence angles, so they may have a higher reflectance.
So according to the book, their system should be feasible nowadays, but the actual improvement in light losses is unknown, because the losses in each mirror depend heavily on both the mirror construction and the light incidence angle, which are not taken into consideration in the paper.
In this book it is said even if EUV mirrors have typically very poor reflectance at high incidence angles, it has become possible to make mirrors with a 60% to 70% reflectance even for high incidence angles (without specifying how high).
They have computed their power advantage using the 65% value which is a middle value between those from the book, so it is OK.
However they have used the same value for the ASML mirrors, which use low incidence angles, so they may have a higher reflectance.
So according to the book, their system should be feasible nowadays, but the actual improvement in light losses is unknown, because the losses in each mirror depend heavily on both the mirror construction and the light incidence angle, which are not taken into consideration in the paper.
[deleted]
[deleted]
For a new technology, that is not important. Yield rate will improve as more engineering is applied by these companies.
[1] https://semiengineering.com/nanoimprint-finds-its-footing-in...
[2] https://www.electronicsweekly.com/news/business/china-to-bui...