backtop


Print 108 comment(s) - last by joset00.. on Dec 17 at 1:53 PM

To make 45nm process manufacturing easier: just add water

Intel has said on multiple occasions that its 45nm process is on track for production 2007. In fact, Intel began sampling its Penryn 45nm chips just several weeks ago. At the IEDM, IBM and AMD described three technologies that hope to compete with Intel’s 45nm development: the use of immersion lithography, which AMD says will “deliver enhanced microprocessor design definition and manufacturing consistency,” ultra-low-K interconnect dielectrics to enhance performance-per-watt ratio and multiple enhanced transistor strain techniques.

Current process technologies use conventional lithography, which has significant limitations in defining microprocessor designs beyond the 65nm process technology generation. Immersion lithography uses a projection lens filled with purified water as part of the step-and-repeat lithography -- think of the same principles applied to immersion microscopy.

Immersion lithography provides increased flow of light, depth of focus and improved image fidelity that can improve chip-level performance and manufacturing efficiency. For example, the performance of an SRAM cell shows improvements of approximately 15 percent due to this enhanced process capability, without resorting to more costly double-exposure techniques.

In addition, AMD and IBM say that the use of porous, ultra-low-K dielectrics reduces interconnect capacitance, wiring delay, as well as lowering power dissipation. This advance is enabled through the development of an ultra-low-K process integration that reduces the dielectric constant of the interconnect dielectric while maintaining the mechanical strength. The addition of ultra-low-K interconnect provides a 15 percent reduction in wiring-related delay as compared to conventional low-K dielectrics.

In spite of the increased packing density of the 45nm generation transistors, IBM and AMD demonstrated multiple enhanced transistor strain techniques that give an 80 per cent increase in p-channel transistor drive current and a 24 per cent increase in n-channel transistor drive current compared to unstrained transistors. The companies claim that their achievement results in the highest CMOS performance reported to date in a 45nm process technology.

In November 2005, AMD and IBM announced an extension of their joint development efforts until 2011 covering 32nm and 22nm process technology generations. AMD and IBM expect the first 45nm products using immersion lithography and ultra-low-K interconnect dielectrics to be available in mid-2008.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Viditor on 12/13/2006 12:41:59 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Intel rushes their next gen process out the door to fool the media and consumers into thinking they are ahead on technology, but really they aren't

At the moment, they are (at least in product). The point I think you were trying to make is that Intel basically shot their whole load with C2D, and that is probably true until the end of 2008 with Nehalem...

quote:
AMD's 90 nano process arrived later but was quite superior in electrical and thermals as documented


While I agree that AMD's 90nm was superior, it wasn't THAT superior...the issue for Intel wasn't the process, it was the netburst design. Intel won't have that problem with Penryn and Nehalem...
I do agree that the new 45nm process from AMD looks amazing, and we should see some dramatic headroom from it.


RE: AMD always delivers a more mature process than Intel
By Goty on 12/13/2006 7:27:17 PM , Rating: 1
The heat issues with Prescott had nothing to do with the architecture. Similarly clocked Northwood P4s ran significantly cooler than their Prescott bretheren.


By Dactyl on 12/13/2006 8:30:26 PM , Rating: 2
The heat issues with Prescott had nothing to do with the architecture.

Now, that's just a silly thing to say. Of course it was the architecture. Dropping from 130 to 90 to 65nm helped out a lot, but Core 2 Duo at 65nm is much cooler than Pentium IV or Pentium D technology at 65nm.

What's the difference between C2D and a PD if they're both at 65nm? The architecture!


By Khato on 12/13/2006 8:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
If you want to argue that the heat issues on Prescott were due to Intel's 90nm process and not the design, then feel free to explain how Dothan decreased power usage compared to Banias despite having twice the L2 cache.


RE: AMD always delivers a more mature process than Intel
By Goty on 12/13/2006 10:17:42 PM , Rating: 2
Alright, let me rephrase this. The architecture had very little to do with Prescott's heat problems. If you will both remember, the 65nm Prescotts ran relatively cool.

And as for the Dothan-Banias argument, it's called microarchitectural improvements as well as process improvements. Not to mention the whole improved halt-state.


By Khato on 12/13/2006 11:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
Note, I stated design, not architecture. Dothan was built on the exact same process as the initial Prescott, it just was designed to make use of all the 'anti-leakage' tricks available. And if I recall correctly, the later prescotts showed better power consumption once they started doing similarly.

Oh, and that leakage thing, Intel definitely learned its lesson, hehe, let's see if it decides to bite AMD sometime soon. One of my favorite quotes thus far from an AMD person on 45nm, from http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/12/13/HNamd45n...

quote:
We've been unable to scale the size as much as we used to because of leakage. We're still putting transistors closer together, but not shrinking the gates.


By Goty on 12/14/2006 10:38:53 AM , Rating: 2
>Note, I stated design, not architecture.

I was under the impression that those were synonymous (unless, of course, you mean the physical spacing of the individual processor components).

>...it just was designed to make use of all the 'anti-leakage' tricks available.

>And if I recall correctly, the later prescotts showed better power consumption once they started doing similarly.


Both statements just echo what I said.



By JumpingJack on 12/17/2006 2:00:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
While I agree that AMD's 90nm was superior, it wasn't THAT superior...the issue for Intel wasn't the process, it was the netburst design.


You are incorrect that AMD's 90 nm was superior, you are correct that the Netburst design was far from optimum and was the main problem.

Device performance for both clock speed and power are a convoluted function of both design (architecture) and process.

Take, for example, a 90 nm mobile part (Dothan or Banias) clocked up to 2.8 GHz (desktop speed) and compare to AMD at the same relative clocks. The Pentium-M in this case is made on the same 90 nm process that the Pentium 4 (prescott) was made, yet trades blows with AMD but at lower power.... to extrapolate one that one company has a better process over the other simply by power and computational performance is erroneous -- it cannot be done. To compare process technology directly takes data from the fundamental transistor parametrics. (See other posts below from ChipDude, he is bang on).

Data:
http://www.matbe.com/articles/lire/298/pc-desktop-...

This is one the only sites I could find that actually did an experiment to see what a Pentium-M at desktop clock speed could do.... truly odd Intel stuck with Netburst soo long.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates

Related Articles
Intel Samples "Penryn" 45nm Chips
November 28, 2006, 1:41 AM
Intel Talks 45nm Production
September 26, 2006, 2:19 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki