Monolithic 3D Inc., the Next Generation 3D-IC Company
  • Home
  • Technology
    • Technology
    • Papers, Presentations and Patents
    • Overview >
      • Background
      • Why Monolithic 3D?
      • Paths to Monolithic 3D
      • Applications
    • Ion-Cut: The Building Block
    • Monolithic 3D Logic >
      • RCAT
      • HKMG
      • Laser Annealing
      • RCJLT
      • 3D Embedded RAM
      • 3D Gate Array
      • FPGA
      • Ultra Large Integration - Redundancy and Repair
    • Monolithic 3D Memory >
      • 3D DRAM
      • 3D Resistive Memories
      • 3D Flash
    • Monolithic 3D Electro-Optics >
      • 3D Image Sensors
      • 3D Micro-Displays
  • 3D-IC Edge
    • 3D-IC Edge
  • News & Events
    • News & Events
    • S3S15 Game Change 2.0 Video/P
    • Webcast
    • Webinar
    • Press Releases
    • In the News
    • Upcoming Events
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • History
    • Team
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
  • Blog
  • Simulators

Looking beyond lithography

4/25/2011

1 Comment

 
For the past 40 years, semiconductor technologists relied on improvements in lithography to "cram more components onto integrated circuits". Toshiba, Samsung and other non-volatile memory companies are betting the future will be different. Let's look at the fascinating idea they're pursuing...

I'm going to begin by making three provocative statements:
  • Lithography is expensive.
  • Lithography doesn't give you as much bang for the buck as it used to.
  • Lithography is never on time.
Let me try and explain. Fig. 1 shows a plot of litho tool cost vs. time. To back-up the information in the plot, here is an article that gives litho tool prices today. Believe it or not, an ASML immersion litho tool costs $42M and an ASML dry litho tool costs $27M! EUV tools are projected to cost around $100M. That's a lot of money, isn't it? Especially when you consider that other tools in the fab for implant, deposition and etch cost less than $4M... Well, I recently made an excel sheet to estimate cost of ownership for a 22nm logic technology (along with Israel Beinglass and Usha Raghuram). Here is what we found: For a 20,000wspm fab, lithography and it's associated processes - such as hard mask and anti-reflection coating deposition, etch and clean - form around 60% of the total equipment cap-ex! I guess you'll now agree that my first statement is reasonable.
Let's move on to the second statement. In past years, transistors improved as they scaled down. Not so anymore...  With smaller feature sizes, flash memory cells, for example, get much worse - you have more variability and far wider threshold voltage distributions (makes it difficult to store MLC), endurance gets worse (many manufacturers can do just 500 cycles today) and you need to move to extremely sophisticated error control coding. Device physicists out there may find the next sentence shocking. Many latest generation flash memory cells have sub-threshold slopes greater than 450mV/decade! Scaling has indeed wrecked havoc on the quality of flash memory cells.

The third statement, that litho is never on time, is easy to justify. Here are a few quotes made by industry folks to EETimes over the years :-)
(2002) "EUV to be in production in 2007"
(2003) "EUV to be leading candidate for the 32nm node in 2009"
(2004) "EUV to be pushed out to 2013"
(2010) "EUV late for 10nm node milestone in 2015"
With EUV getting delayed so much, the industry has moved to costly double patterning techniques and now we have quad patterning on the horizon. This is particularly problematic for technologies such as NAND flash memory, where people need to move to the next generation once a year (compared to once every 2-3 years for logic and DRAM).

The net effect of all these trends is the plot shown in Fig. 2 from Toshiba. They say litho costs are becoming so high that moving to smaller feature sizes may not always lead to cheaper NAND flash memory products. While one could argue about the Toshiba plot in Fig. 2, it is clear that any way to break our dependency on lithographic scaling will be great.

How can we break our dependence on lithographic scaling?
Almost all non-volatile memory firms are exploring different versions of the following idea: Build monolithic 3D chips where multiple levels of memory share the same lithography steps. If you have 8 memory cell layers, for instance, and you use one set of litho steps for defining all these 8 layers, you get a 8x increase in memory density compared to a single memory layer 2D chip, but without increasing the dreaded litho cost. This results in a net reduction in bit cost, as shown in Fig. 3.

Let's explain the concept further using Toshiba's figures, reproduced in Fig. 4 and Fig. 5. Toshiba was a pioneer of this "monolithic 3D with shared litho steps" concept and presented their Bit Cost Scalable (BiCS) technology at the Symposium on VLSI Technology in 2007. Fig. 4 shows the basic memory structure. You have a NAND string built vertically where each NAND transistor is a SONOS charge-trap memory cell. The channel of the device is constructed out of poly silicon. Fig. 5 shows the process steps required for constructing the 3D memory array. You'll notice that litho steps required, such as Step 5 for etching and filling to form the polysilicon channel and Step 10 for the BEOL are shared among all memory layers. Litho needed for Step 6 is shared among all memory layers using a neat trick described in the Toshiba paper (I'm not going to describe it here since this blog post is getting too long!). The take-home point is that we form multiple levels of memory without increasing the litho cost significantly.
Picture
How can this idea break our dependency on lithographic scaling? Well, if you share litho steps among all layers of memory, you can reduce bit cost by having more memory layers. For example, if you have 4 layers of memory for a certain generation, you could have 8 layers of memory for the next generation, thereby keeping litho cost constant and reducing bit cost. Of course, the aspect ratios of vias to be etched and filled increases. For the 4 layer memory, you might have an aspect ratio of 10:1 while for the 8 layer memory, you'd have an aspect ratio of 20:1. And for the next node, you'd have an aspect ratio of 40:1. Essentially, you need to figure out techniques to etch and deposit vias of higher aspect ratio every generation. DRAM capacitors made today have aspect ratios of 70:1, so it is indeed possible that we could get several generations of scaling using technologies such as BiCS.

Outlook
Should we then forget about improving our litho tools and concentrate instead on these new monolithic 3D architectures? The answer is no. BiCS has several challenges: it uses polysilicon channels for it's NAND strings, it uses charge-trap devices that are known to be hard to take to production, aspect ratios required for cost effective products can go to 40:1 which are very high, just to list a few. But then, the whole NAND flash memory industry, which includes Samsung, Macronix, Hynix and Intel/Micron, has started pursuing this technology... this industry momentum has produced several enhancements to the basic idea proposed by Toshiba. The technology appears more and more practical with every passing year.

What connection does MonolithIC 3D Inc. have with all this?
Like I mentioned above, one of the key challenges with the approaches pursued by Toshiba, Samsung and others is the use of polysilicon channels for transistors. This can cause variability and wide threshold voltage distributions (difficult for MLC), low mobility (low read current) and bad yield. We at MonolithIC 3D Inc. have invented cost-effective monolithic 3D flash memories which utilize monocrystalline silicon transistors, low aspect ratio processes AND shared litho steps. These are key advantages over approaches pursued by the rest of the industry.

Furthermore, while people in the industry have focused on building just monolithic 3D flash memories with shared litho steps, we have invented monolithic 3D DRAMs and monolithic 3D resistive memories with shared litho steps. This is largely enabled by our monocrystalline silicon solution. A polysilicon-based solution will be hard to apply to DRAMs, since the stored charge will leak out.

Will monolithic 3D chips with shared lithography steps transform the memory industry? Time will tell...

- Post by Deepak C. Sekar

submit to reddit
1 Comment
Dean Stevens link
4/25/2011 06:43:03 am

And just today, we see a related story in EETimes: "Japan's EUV source vendors file for divorce" (http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4215434/Japan-s-EUV-source-vendors-divorce-)

Quoting from the story:
"...EUV, the leading NGL candidate for chip makers, remains dogged by delays with the power sources, resists and the critical mask and metrology infrastructure. And as a result, EUV continues to slip and is in jeopardy of missing another insertion point, this time, the early stages of the 1x-nm device nodes"

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Search Blog


    Meet the Bloggers


    Follow us


    To get email updates subscribe here:


    Recommended Links

    3D IC Community
    3D IC LinkedIn Discussion Group

    Recommended Blogs

    • 3D InCites by Francoise von Trapp
    • EDA360 Insider by Steve Leibson
    • Insights From the Leading Edge by Phil Garrou
    • SemiWiki by Daniel Nenni, Paul Mc Lellan, et al.

    Archives

    March 2022
    December 2021
    August 2021
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    December 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    August 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011

    Categories

    All
    3d Design And Cad
    3dic
    3d Ic
    3d Nand
    3d Stacking
    3d Technology
    Brian Cronquist
    Dean Stevens
    Deepak Sekar
    Dram
    Education
    Heat Removal And Power Delivery
    Industry News
    Israel Beinglass
    Iulia Morariu
    Iulia Tomut
    Monolithic3d
    Monolithic 3d
    MonolithIC 3D Inc.
    Monolithic 3d Inc.
    Monolithic 3d Technology
    Moore Law
    Outsourcing
    Paul Lim
    Repair
    Sandisk
    Semiconductor
    Semiconductor Business
    Tsv
    Zeev Wurman
    Zvi Or Bach
    Zvi Or-Bach

    RSS Feed

© Copyright MonolithIC 3D Inc. , the Next-Generation 3D-IC Company, 2012 - All Rights Reserved, Patents Pending