Accelerating the next technology revolution Cost Implications of EUV Lithography Technology Decisions Andrea F. Wüest, SEMATECH Andrew J. Hazelton, Nikon Corporation Greg Hughes, SEMATECH Lloyd C. Litt, SEMATECH Frank Goodwin, SEMATECH Copyright 2008 SEMATECH, Inc. SEMATECH, and the SEMATECH logo are registered servicemarks of SEMATECH, Inc. International SEMATECH Manufacturing Initiative, ISMI, Advanced Materials Research Center and AMRC are servicemarks of SEMATECH, Inc. All other servicemarks and trademarks are the property of their respective owners.
Overview Introduction / Motivation Calculation Procedure Results EUVL Considerations Conclusions 2
Motivation Leading edge litho cost will increase dramatically for the 32 nm half-pitch (hp) node Miniaturization of devices continuing at the same pace Identify parameters for cost-effective lithography at 32 nm and 22 nm hp 3
Overview Introduction / Motivation Calculation Procedure Results EUVL Considerations Conclusions 4
Candidate Technologies 32 nm hp ArFi DPL: LELE, Freeze, Spacer High-index ArFi SE EUVL 22 nm hp ArFi DPL: LELE, Freeze, Spacer High-index ArFi DPL: LELE EUVL Nanoimprint SE: Single Exposure, DPL: Double Patterning LELE: Litho-Etch-Litho-Etch 5
Process Flows (schematic) Deposit hardmask(s) Coat, expose, develop ArFi SE Etch hardmask, Strip resist Coat, expose, develop DPL LELE (Line) Freeze Freeze resist Coat, expose, develop Etch hardmask Deposit spacer, Etch back spacer Remove hardmask lines Coat, expose, develop (cut mask) Spacer EUV Imprint Imprint For all flows at end: Etch hardmask, Strip resist, Etch pattern, Strip hardmask 6
Assumptions All technologies are equally reliable and support equal yield. All technologies meet manufacturing requirements. Double Patterning Stepper overlay Mask registration Mask yield (with 30 hour write time) Yield even though with more processing steps EUVL Defect-free masks Source power, tool transmission, and resist sensitivity enable throughput Tool reliability supports uptime Mask and optics meet lifetime requirements Imprint 1 defect-free masks Tool meets throughput (15 improvement over today) Imprint defects Mask lifetime Mask 1 inspection 7
Calculation Procedure $ / yr General ( C fixed + Crecur ) COO = + Cmaterials + C T U Y 24 365 other $ / wafer wafer / h h / yr $ / wafer $ / wafer C fixed Depreciation, Floor space ($/yr) C materials Resist, etc. ($/wafer) C recur Utilities, Consumables, Labor ($/yr) C other Other ($/wafer) T Throughput (wafer / h) U Utilization (%) Y Yield (%) 8
Calculation Procedure Linear relationship Lithography ( C fixed + Crecur ) COO = + Cresist + T U Y 24 365 C N reticle wpr Inversely proportional: large effect C fixed Depreciation, Floor space ($/yr) Cresist Resist, etc. ($/wafer) C recur T Utilities, Consumables, Labor ($/yr) Throughput (wafer / h) C reticle N wpr Reticle ($) Wafer / reticle U Y Utilization (%) Yield (%) 9
Calculation Procedure Calculate COO for each process step Litho Deposition Etch Metrology Clean Process flow # of different process steps Total COO = Σ (Process Cost #Process Steps) Only one critical layer calculated Normalized to 45 nm ArFi SE 10
Model Parameters 45 nm hp 32 nm hp ArFi SE ArFi DPL HI ArFi EUVL LELE Freeze Spacer Tool Cost $40M $49M $49M $49M $50M $54M Throughput / wph 125 180 180 180 120 50 Tool Cost / TPT (M$/wph) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.1 Reticle Cost $200k $584k $584k $466K $396k $178K 45 nm hp 22 nm hp ArFi SE ArFi DPL HI ArFi DPL EUVL NIL LELE Freeze Spacer LELE Tool Cost $40M $52M $52M $52M $53M $89M Throughput / wph 125 200 200 200 135 100 Tool Cost / TPT (M$/wph) 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.9 0.3 Reticle Cost $200k $1176K $1176K $752K $1176K $252K $622k Tool cost based on historical extrapolation, scales with throughput and resolution 11
Model Parameters Reticle cost (SEMATECH model, G. Hughes) Mask Cost = [ (Capital Cost term Write Time) + Material Cost ] / Yield 2.5 data growth per node for optical 2 data growth for EUV and Imprint Mask yield based on ITRS difficulty 45 nm: 70% EUVL: 77% (Yield targets looser) DPL: 63% (Mask registration tighter) Imprint: 54% (Defect specs much tighter, minimum feature 1 ). Utilization fixed at 83%, yield at 98% for all technologies. Non-litho process costs based on SEMATECH data ~ 250 total parameters (~ 25 per litho technology) 12
Overview Introduction / Motivation Calculation Procedure Results EUVL Considerations Conclusions 13
Overview 20,000 Wafers/Mask 45 nm 32 nm 22 nm 250% 250% 20,000 wpm: Reticle cost 200% 20,000 wpm: Reticle cost 10 45 % 10 45 150% % 100% 100% Reticle Clean Etch Metrology Deposition Litho Reticle Clean Etch Metrology Deposition Litho 50% 50% 0% 0% Technology (wph) 45 nm ArFi SE (125) 32 nm LELE (180) 32 nm Freeze (180) 32 nm Spacer (180) 32 nm HI ArFi SE (120) 32 nm EUVL (50) 22 nm LELE (200) 22 nm Freeze (200) 22 nm Spacer (200) 22 nm HI LELE (135) 22 nm EUVL (100) 14
Overview 1,000 Wafers/Mask 45 nm 32 nm 22 nm 500% 500% 1,000 wpm: Reticle cost 70 90 % 450% 1,000 wpm: 400% 70 350% 90 % 300% 300% 250% 250% 200% 200% 150% 150% Reticle Clean Etch Metrology Deposition Litho Reticle Clean Etch Metrology Deposition Litho 100% 100% 50% 50% 45 nm ArFi SE (125) 32 nm LELE (180) 32 nm Freeze (180) 32 nm Spacer (180) 32 nm HI ArFi SE (120) 32 nm EUVL (50) 22 nm LELE (200) 22 nm Freeze (200) 22 nm Spacer (200) 22 nm HI LELE (135) 0% 0% Technology (wph) 22 nm EUVL (100) 22 nm Imprint ($0.3M/wph) 15
Error Estimation (20,000 Wafers/Mask) 300% 300% 250% 250% 200% 200% 10 % error on parameters ~15 % error on CoO (U and Y kept constant) 150% 150% 100% 100% 50% 50% 0% 45 nm ArFi SE (1 25) 32 nm LELE (180) 32 nm Freeze (180) 32 nm Spacer (180) 32 nm HI ArFi SE (120) 32 nm EUVL (50) 22 nm LELE (200) 22 nm Freeze (200) 22 nm Spacer (200) 22 nm HI LELE (135) 22 nm EUVL (100) 0% 16
Results - 32 nm hp (20,000 w/m) 45 nm 32 nm 200% 200% DPL most expensive because of reticle, 160% deposition and etch costs 140% DPL most expensive 180% 120% 120% 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% Reticle Clean Etch Reticle Clean Etch Metrology Deposition Litho Metrology Deposition Litho 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% Technology (wph) 0% 45 nm ArFi SE (125 wph) ArFi SE (125) 32 nm ArFi DPL LELE (180 wph) ArFi DPL (180) 32 nm ArFi DPL Freeze (180 wph) ArFi DPL Freeze (180) 32 nm ArFi DPL Spacer (180 wph) ArFi DPL Spacer (180) 32 nm HI ArFi SE (120 wph) HI ArFi SE (120) 32 nm EUVL (50 wph) EUVL (50) High EUV litho cost because of capital cost 17
Results - 22 nm hp (20,000 w/m) 45 nm 22 nm 250% 200% High reticle costs for DPL Cost advantage of EUVL 150% 150% 100% 100% Reticle Clean Etch Metrology Metrology Deposition Deposition Litho Litho 50% 50% 0% 0% Technology (wph) 45 nm ArFi SE (125 wph) ArFi SE (125) 22 nm ArFi DPL LELE (200 wph) ArFi DPL LELE (200) 22 nm ArFi DPL Freeze (200 wph) ArFi DPL Freeze (200) 22 nm ArFi DPL Spacer (200 wph) ArFi DPL Spacer (200) 22 nm HI HI ArFi ArFi DPL LELE (135 wph) DPL LELE (135) 22 nm EUVL (100 wph) EUVL (100) 18
Overview Introduction / Motivation Calculation Procedure Results EUVL Considerations Conclusions 19
EUVL Cost Parameters Contribution of individual parameters to COO? Sensitivity Analysis: What are the target values of cost parameters such that EUVL remains as cost-effective as LELE? 20
EUVL Cost Parameters Contribution of individual parameters to COO? Sensitivity Analysis: What are the target values of cost parameters such that EUVL remains as cost-effective as LELE? 21
EUVL: Equipment Costs Equipment 72% Equipment 72% Consumables 19% 32 nm (50 wph) Litho cost excluding reticle Consumables 19% Labor Labor 2% Facilities 2% 2% Facilities 2% Materials Utilities 4% 1% Utilities 1% Materials 4% Equipment main cost factor Equipment 69.4% Consumables 21.9% Equipment, 69.4% Consumables, 21.9% Labor, 1.3% 1.3% Facilities 1.1% Facilities, 1.1% Materials, 5.8% Utilities, 0.4% Utilities 0.4% Materials 5.8% 22 nm (100 wph) Litho cost excluding reticle 22
EUVL: Consumable Costs Equipment 72% Equipment 72% Consumables 19% 32 nm (50 wph) Litho cost excluding reticle Consumables 19% Labor 2% Labor 2% Facilities 2% Facilities 2% Utilities 1% Materials Utilities 4% 1% Materials 4% Consumables and materials (resist) are significant cost factor Equipment 69.4% Consumables 21.9% Equipment, 69.4% Consumables, 21.9% Labor, 1.3% 1.3% Facilities 1.1% Facilities, 1.1% Materials, 5.8% Utilities, 0.4% Utilities 0.4% Materials 5.8% 22 nm (100 wph) Litho cost excluding reticle 23
EUVL: Labor, Facilities, Utilities Costs Equipment 72% Equipment 72% Consumables 19% Consumables 19% 32 nm (50 wph) Litho cost excluding reticle Labor Labor Facilities 2% 2% 2% Facilities 2% Materials 4% Utilities 1% 1% Materials 4% Labor, facilities and utilities very small contribution Equipment 69.4% Consumables 21.9% Equipment, 69.4% Consumables, 21.9% Labor, 1.3% 1.3% Facilities 1.1% Facilities, 1.1% Materials, 5.8% Materials Utilities, 0.4% Utilities 0.4% 5.8% 22 nm (100 wph) Litho cost excluding reticle 24
EUVL: Power Consumption Costs Equipment 72% Equipment 73% Consumables 19% 32 nm (50 wph) Litho cost excluding reticle Equipment 69.4% Materials Utilities 3% Labor Facilities Utilities 1% 2% 2% Labor 2% Facilities 2% 1% Consumables 21.9% Consumables 19% Materials 4% Even for power consumption of 200 kw (based on 20 kw CO 2 laser for LPP) facilities cost is negligible: 1-2 % of total litho cost excluding reticle. Equipment, 69.4% Consumables, 21.9% Labor, 1.3% Materials, 5.8% Utilities, 0.4% Labor Utilities 1.3% Facilities, 1.1% 0.4% 1.1% Materials 5.8% 22 nm (100 wph) Litho cost excluding reticle 25
EUVL Cost Parameters Contribution of individual parameters to CoO? Sensitivity Analysis: What are the target values of cost parameters such that EUVL remains as cost-effective as LELE? 26
EUVL Throughput Sensitivity Analysis Normalized Cost per wafer (to 45 nm ArFi SE) Normalized Cost per wafer (to 45 nm ArFi SE) 260% 240% 220% 200% 180% 32 nm cross over: ~ 35 wph 160% 140% 22 nm cross over: 35-45 wph 32 nm 50 wph $54M 22 nm ArFi DPL LELE (200 wph) 32 nm ArFi DPL LELE (180 wph) 22 nm 100 wph $89M 120% 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 110.0 EUVL (wph) EUVL Throughput (wph) 20,000 wpm ArFi DPL LELE (180 wph) EUVL (variable) EUVL constant ArFi DPL LELE (200 wph) EUVL variable EUVL constant Constant and variable tool price as function of throughput assumed 27
EUVL Sensitivity Analysis Repeat analysis for different wafer/mask values Perform same analysis for EUVL utilization Comparing to LELE 180 wph LELE 200 wph LELE 83 % LELE 83 % Wafers / mask EUVL Throughput (wph) EUVL Utilization 32 nm 22 nm 32 nm 22 nm 1,000 < 10 < 5 < 10 % < 10 % 20,000 35 / 40 35 / 45 60% 35% 50,000 45 / 45 50 / 60 75% 50% 100,000 50 / 50 65 / 70 83% 60% The numbers on the left/right correspond to variable/constant tool price. Throughput > 30 wph needed (U kept fixed) Utilization can be lower than LELE (TPT kept fixed) 28
Overview Introduction / Motivation Calculation Procedure Results EUVL Considerations Conclusions 29
Conclusions At 22 nm hp, EUVL has cost advantages over DPL because of fewer process steps and lower reticles costs EUVL equipment cost contributes strongly, facilities negligible EUVL throughput > 30 wph required to be as costeffective as LELE (under assumptions made) Except for EUVL, reticles are significant cost component (even at 20,000 wpm) 30
Acknowledgements Dennis Fandel, Jackie Ferrelll, Jacque Georger, Chawon Koh, Bob Rulliffson, Phil Seidel, Larry Smith, Robert Wright (SEMATECH) Will Conley (Freescale), Rob Crowell (TEL),Hiroyuki Mizuno (Toshiba), Nick Stacey (Molecular Imprints), Obert Wood (AMD) Céline Lapeyre (CEA-LETI Minatec), Gary Zhang (Rohm and Haas) 31