Shrink rates for Logic, DRAM, and NAND flash

Source: Various customers, dates determine production start/qualification

Year

200

100

Logic

NAND

DRAM

/ Slide 3

Shrink

Shrink speed is defined using “half pitch”

Half pitch is led by Flash with k factors below 0.30

DRAM is trailing Flash by about 10%

Logic and µP are trailing Flash by about 50%

Logic customers use “node” instead of “half pitch”

On average, the relation is 70% “half pitch” = ”node”

/ Slide 4

IC characteristics & Lithography implications

NAND Flash

X-point storage
transistor

4 F²
1 4

1D
Dense

Resolution
Strong

0.27 ~ 0.29

DRAM

Transistor
+ Capacitor

6~8 F²
1

1D & 2D

Dense
Imaging & overlay

Moderate
0.29 ~ 0.31

Cell
layout

Logic / SRAM

6 Transistor (SRAM)

50~60 F²
1

2D
Random
OPC, DoF
Weak
0.36 ~ 0.38

Device:

Typical Cell Size:
Bits/cell
Critical Patterns:
Critical Pitch:
Shrink Challenge:
RET:
k ₁limit:

6 Transistor SRAM Cell

Typical
Device
Pattern

/ Slide 5

Shrink drives cost per function and market growth

Source: Gartner Dataquest, iSuppli, ASML

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

NAND cost, $ / GB

NAND size, GB

0.01

0.10

1.00

10.0

100

1,000

10,000

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

NAND Revenue, M$

Projected cross-
over
HDD - NAND, GB

40-80 GB

1-2 GB

64-150 GB

1 GB

4 GB

8 GB

8-16 GB

Expected memory size sweet-spot:

/ Slide 6

Sources: ASML MCC, VLSI Research, iSuppli, SIA

NAND Flash fastest growing IC segment between
2006 and 2009 in terms of silicon exposure area

DRAM

LOGIC

NAND

NOR

ANALOG

MICRO

Other

CAGR Exposure Area 06-09 [%]

Segment size:

20 Bio. US$

/ Slide 7

Resolution, CD uniformity & overlay drive shrink

Layout 6 transistor SRAM Cell

Design Rule & Cell Area [m m²]

Spacing

X-section
through Cell

Source: IMEC, TI

Node

Aggressive

Typical

Relaxed

130 nm

2.00

2.50

3.00

90 nm

1.00

1.25

1.50

65 nm

0.45

0.55

0.80

45 nm

0.20

0.27

0.34

32 nm

0.10

0.13

0.19

cell area 0.24 µm2
metal pitch 130nm
ArF immersion

CDU

& Overlay

CDU

& Overlay

/ Slide 8

Content

The demand for shrink continues

Litho roadmap

Dry

Immersion

Double patterning

EUV

Litho integration

Litho cost

Summary

/ Slide 10

Roadmap scenarios
Resulting k ₁ as function of resolution, wavelength and NA

k₁ = (half pitch) * NA / wavelength

Most aggressive k₁ in production today = 0.3,
physical limit single exposure = 0.25

Practical limit double patterning = 0.2

/ Slide 11

100

year

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

[nm]

248

0.80

0.32

193

0.93

0.31

1.20

0.40

0.28

1.35

0.31

0.22

0.15

1.55

0.26

0.18

13.5

0.25

0.59

0.41

0.35

0.57

0.41

0.45

0.53

0.37

half pitch

First super high NA immersion system enables 45 nm

/ Slide 12

First super high NA immersion

system enables 45 nm

100

year

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

[nm]

248

0.80

0.32

193

0.93

0.31

1.20

0.40

0.28

1.35

0.31

0.22

0.15

1.55

0.26

0.18

13.5

0.25

0.59

0.41

0.35

0.57

0.41

0.45

0.53

0.37

half pitch

-300nm

+300nm

+450nm

-500nm

-180nm

+180nm

950nm DoF

-240nm

+120nm

+210nm

-300nm

-120nm

+60nm

500nm DoF

-150nm

+150nm

+210nm

-210nm

-90nm

+90nm

400nm DoF

50nm 1.2NA, =0.74/0.94, annular, XY polarization, k1 = 0.31

45nm 1.2NA, =0.82/0.97, C-Quad-30, XY polarization, k1 = 0.28

42nm 1.2NA, =0.89/0.98, Dipole X-35, Y polarization, k1 =0.261

@ 550mm/s Scan speed

Overview dense line 1700i imaging results

/ Slide 13

Roadmap scenarios, the impact of immersion
Water-based 193 not sufficient for 32-nm half pitch

/ Slide 15

Max NA water-based 193 nm immersion

requires double patterning to get to 32 nm

100

year

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

[nm]

248

0.80

0.32

193

0.93

0.31

1.20

0.40

0.28

1.35

0.31

0.22

0.15

1.55

0.26

0.18

13.5

0.25

0.59

0.41

0.35

0.57

0.41

0.45

0.53

0.37

half pitch

Single Exposure (like EUV) Litho requirements

Real CD is smaller than target CD

Error caused by litho step

CD error during
litho process
steps will result
in smaller lines

Extra CD errors

are created
during etch step

Combined with
litho CD error to
a Final CD error

Target CDlitho

CD determined by 2
error components
litho and etch:

DCDlitho < 7% of CD

Overlay < 20% of CD

Target CD < 10% CD

/ Slide 16

Litho Double Patterning Litho requirements

Real CDlitho is smaller than target
CDlitho

Error caused by litho

Target CDlitho

CD determined by 8
error components; 2 x
litho, 2 x etch and
overlay:

DCDlitho < 3,5% of CD

Overlay < 7% of CD

Final CD < 10% CD

1^st Photo CD
errors during
litho will result in
smaller/larger
lines

1^st Etch+CD trim

Extra CD errors
could take place

2^nd Photo

Overlay error
translates into

CD error
between lines

2^nd etch+CD trim

2^nd pattern with
CD errors from
2^nd etch/trim and
overlay

/ Slide 17

Double line patterning; 32-nm half pitch Flash

MASK A

MASK B

Pitch = 64nm

Target
Min Pitch 64nm

k1 = 0.20

SPLIT + OPC

Poly patterning

Annular 0.8/0.5, X-Y polarized

XT:1700i, 193nm - 1.2NA

Co work ASML, Imec, Synopsys and Mentor Graphics

Hard mask

Poly

/ Slide 18

New software & algorithms required to split &
optimize OPC and stitching for Double Patterning

Memory

Logic

Original

layout

Pattern
split

NAND Flash

DRAM

Restricted Logic

Random Logic

Increasing Difficulty

Challenges

Correct decomposition

OPC for decomposition

Model-based stitching
error compensation

/ Slide 19

Spacer Double Patterning Litho requirements

Real CD is smaller than target CD

Error caused by litho and etch trim
patterning steps

Sacrificial line
patterning:

A CD error
during litho and
etch process
steps will result
in smaller lines

Line CD error
propagates
during spacer
uniform
deposition and
etched back

Initial CD error

becomes a

pitch variation

on the final
pattern

Target CDlitho

CD determined by 11 error
components; litho, etch,
spacer deposition, trim and
final etch:

DCDlitho < 3 % of CD

Overlay < 20% of CD

Final CD < 10%CD

/ Slide 20

CD and overlay litho budget challenge

3-4

# process steps relative to
single exposure

2-3

# mask steps

20%

Spacer
double
patterning

3,5%

20%

Overlay

Litho
double
patterning

Single
exposure

Litho exposure Equipment
parameter as percentage of CD

/ Slide 21

Lithography Limits for ArF Single & Double Patterning

100

NAND Flash

Physical limit

Double Patterning limit

Double Exposure limit

Single Exposure limit

DRAM

Logic

DPT

0.93

1.20

1.35

NAND

DRAM

Logic

ArF

/ Slide 22

32 nm half pitch with 193 immersion
extremely challenging

/ Slide 23

NA 1.55 requires new liquid, new glass

and very low k1 to extend to 32nm

100

year

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

[nm]

248

0.80

0.32

193

0.93

0.31

1.20

0.40

0.28

1.35

0.31

0.22

0.15

1.55

0.26

0.18

13.5

0.25

0.59

0.41

0.35

0.57

0.41

0.45

0.53

0.37

half pitch

29-nm imaging on interference set-up

Version I Interferometer

85 nm ARC-29A, 50 nm PARIM850 resist

Imaging results with

Dupont IF169

beam
splitter

Fold
mirror

laser

Wafer

/ Slide 24

Apertures, field sizes and refractive indices

Water

based

litho

Second gen
fluid

n=1.65

Quartz

lens material

n = 1.57

Second gen fluid

n=1.65

New

lens material

n>1.9

New fluid
n>1.8

New

lens material

n>1.9

New resist

N>1.8

15%

/ Slide 25

Historic reduction stepper imaging technology changes

3.3

109

Diffraction
limit [nm]

>2010

> 6

193 nm/HI

1031

>2010

>10

13 nm/ vacuum

2006

193 nm/water

Failed

157 nm/air

2002

193 nm/air

1995

248 nm/air

1989

365 nm/air

1980

436 nm/air

Incremental
Improvement %

Production
Insertion

Incubation
time [yr]

Technology

/ Slide 26

EUV the only high volume opportunity

100

year

2005

2007

2009

2011

2013

2015

[nm]

248

0.80

0.32

193

0.93

0.31

1.20

1.35

0.15

1.55

0.26

0.18

13.5

0.25

0.59

0.41

0.35

0.57

0.41

0.45

0.53

0.37

half pitch

EUV required for 32 nm as cost reduction

for double patterning and more extendable

technology than non water immersion

/ Slide 27

Full field, through focus 40 nm lines, 55 contacts

Resist: MET-2D, ~18 mJ/cm²

NA=0.25

= 0.5 (conventional illumination)

Field point

-10.6 mm

-6.36 mm

6.36 mm

10.6 mm

Focus

/ Slide 29

0.1

100

1000

2001

2003

2005

2007

2009

2011

Year

_{Planned performance}

Source power progress has been increasing

supplier 2

supplier 1

supplier 3

supplier 4

180 W 100 W/hr @ 10 mJ/cm²

_{Actual data}

/ Slide 30

/ Slide 31

Low k₁ challenge

half pitch

0.37

0.53

0.45

0.41

0.57

0.35

0.41

0.59

0.25

13.5

0.18

0.26

1.55

0.15

0.22

0.31

1.35

0.28

0.40

1.20

0.31

0.93

193

0.32

0.80

248

[nm]

2015

2013

2011

2009

2007

2005

year

100

Likely technology roadmap

Pitch relaxation or

Double patterning

Fluid/

material
challenge

Infrastructure challenge

opportunity

likely

Low k₁: High Design to Wafer Integration

Low k1 (<0.4) : Integration of design, mask and Lithography processes

Litho aware design constrains

Design for

Manufacturing

DFM

Application
Specific

Manufacturing

Design space

Manufacturing space

/ Slide 35

ASML & Brion: Integrated manufacturing solution

Brion

Ultra fast verification & RET/OPC

LithoCruiser: Source & Mask Optimization

Scanner data &

optimization

ASML MaskTools

Reticle Enhancement Technologies

Chrome-less
Phase-shift
technology (CPL)

Scattering Bars
placement
technology

Production Litho
Verification

Production

RET/OPC

Process Window

Coverage

Tachyon
Platform

ASML TWINSCAN

Highest productivity
scanner

Source
definition

/ Slide 36

Extending Lithography is driving Integration of
Design, Mask, Process and Exposure

IC Design

RET
mask

193i

Process

flow

193 Immersion with hyper NA and low k1 capability

IC design for manufacturability, DFM

Source-mask optimization, Litho, RET&OPC

Process flow optimized for low contrast imaging, optimal CD
and stitching (overlay)

/ Slide 37

Increased litho process complexity drives cost

Hard Mask Etch

Resist

Organic BARC

Hard Mask

Expose

Develop

Inorganic BARC

Metrology

Strip & Clean

Top Coat

KrF

ArF

ArFi

ArFi DPT

130nm

90nm

65nm

45nm

32nm

EUV

32nm

DPT = Double Patterning

Spacer DPT

/ Slide 39

A Process (Single Exposure)

Lithography

B Process (Double Exposure)

Cycle time

Higashiki, Tosiba, Santa Clara, SPIE march 06

Cycle time of multiple exposure strategies increases

/ Slide 40

Lithography System Price Evolution

10M

100M

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year

i-line

300mm

200mm

150mm

KrF

ArF

ArFi

EUV

Wafer Size

Wavelength

Stepper

Platform

Step & Scan

Dual Stage

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.93

1.2

Aperture

€40M?

/ Slide 41

ASML System Throughput Improvement

120

160

200

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

XT:1450G

g-line

i-line

KrF

ArF

Immersion

Wavelength

Year of Introduction

XT:1400Ei

XT:1700Fi

200mm
Stepper

Future DPT

requirement

150mm
Stepper

200mm
Scanner

TWINSCAN
300mm Scanner

XT:1900Gi

/ Slide 42

Litho cost per layer: estimates for 32nm

* Mask cost based on 5000 wafers / mask usage

100

193nm Spacer DPT

193nm Litho DPT

EUV

Fixed

Operating

Source

Chemical

CVD

Etch

Metrology

Other

Strip

Reticle

Defect free mask
/ no pellicle

Source power /
resist sensitivity

Pattern split

Process
complexity

Overlay & CDU

Pattern split

Process

complexity

CDU control

Challenges

Further cost
reduction
opportunity?

/ Slide 43

XT:1400
65 nm

0.93 NA ArF

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

2000

2002

2004

2006

2008

2010

2012

Lithography cost affordability:
Cost per minimum Feature² continuous shrink

32 nm

0.25 NA EUV

(60 WPH)

22 nm

0.25 NA EUV

(100 WPH)

XT:1700i
45 nm

1.2 NA ArFi

AT:850

130 nm

0.8 NA KrF

XT:1250
90 nm

0.85 NA ArF

Source: ASML

32 nm

ArFi DPT

32 nm

Spacer DPT

/ Slide 44

Shrink rates for Logic, DRAM, and NAND flash
versus tool introduction at k₁ 0.27 and 0.40

Source: Various customers, dates determine production start/qualification

200

100

Year

ASML Product
Introduction

XT:1400

XT:1700i

AT:1200

AT:850

XT:1900i

k1=0.4

k1=0.27

Logic

DRAM

R&D

NAND

To enable
continued
shrink for
memory: EUV is
needed, Double
Patterning to
bridge gap until
EUV mature

Litho technology
will allow Logic
to shrink

XT:1450
Double
Patterning

/ Slide 46

Summary lithography roadmap

Water based immersion will capture the 40 nm half pitch
using 1.35 NA 193 nm lithography.

Non water based immersion needs new lens materials to
increase resolution capability significantly:

New fluid technology advantage for full field resolution limited by
existing lens materials to 4%, not sufficient to give economic return
to equipment supplier and its user.

New lens material technology still needs to mature, this will push
any product implementation beyond 2009.

EUV technology acceptance is significantly growing with
shipments of EUV Alpha Demo Tools and orders for pre-
production tools but is still below industry threshold.

Hence double patterning is the only option in the 2008-2009
time frame. ASML will support this with sufficient overlay
and productivity on their products in time.

/ Slide 47

Summary lithography integration and cost

Extension of 193 nm is requiring tighter CD and overlay,
yielding DPT split and processing. This will drive the
integration of design, mask, process and exposure, resulting in
integrated DFM solutions as well as mask and application
specific manufacturing.

EUV becomes a cost, cycle time and performance
improvement opportunity due to more CD and overlay tolerant
single patterning process and single mask with low OPC
content. However the infrastructure needs to be developed.

EUV introduction will be driven by the need for shrink from
memory manufactures.

The required amount, performance and complexity of
lithography tools, resist, process and mask will go up in any
scenario which should be positive for the integral litho
business (mask, exposure, process and optimization software
tools) however litho cost needs to be addressed by higher
productivity.

/ Slide 48