From the perspective of long-term data, the current localization rate <...> 90% of the glue remover....The reason everyone knows.
Sorry, for which reason?
From the perspective of long-term data, the current localization rate <...> 90% of the glue remover....The reason everyone knows.
I never said insignificant, I said unquantifiable. Why are you putting words in my mouth? Where did I ever use the term insignificant?
They did not specify a number at all for many of their specifications, it is unquantifiable by definition.
What is the quantitative difference between "不锈钢超高光洁度“ vs "不锈钢超高光洁度制造”? What is the quantitative improvement in “Ra达到更低水平?” 0.1% better? 100% better?
Yes I know equipment manufacturers have strict requirement of components. There's standards for particle counting/organic leach/surface analysis for all suppliers, some also have an outgassing standard either by QMS or ASTM 595E. But those component requirements, as specified by the buyers, are not divided by process node. They're divided by component environment i.e. wet process vs. rough vacuum/gas vs. high vacuum. For instance SEMI F19 standard is irrelevant for UHV but vitally important for fluid handling components.
In addition, why did they have a timeline with times that didn't match date of first introduction of process? That is even further proof that its an internally focused document on progress, not of standards.
Sure, I absolutely can. If a more advanced process than 14 nm can use equipment from a less advanced process than 28 nm, then that proves that 28 nm and 14 nm processes can use interchangable equipment.
This paper shows 5 nm gate all around (GAA) process structures produced with 1990's PECVD equipment and 2000's ICP etch on 200 mm wafers. This equipment was built for 180 nm process which was state of the art at the time. If 180 nm equipment from 1990's can produce 5 nm GAA structures, then 28 nm and 14 nm are even more similar.
No, your document is unquantifiable, which is a fact as I quoted from the document directly.There is no such thing as “unquantifiable” when equipment manufacturers receiving components and conduct inspection,there is very clear standard on which components deemed pass or not.
Why did they have a timeline with times that didn't match date of first introduction of process?Simple,because this particular components supplier is a relatively new player in the field compare to established Western companies,they are still doing catch up work.
The paper you presented doesn't prove anything. It's a research paper conducted in a lab environment,which bears little resemblance to actual commercial labs. Simple question, there is no EUV machine involved in this experiment,does it mean you can actually produce 5nm chips without EUV now?
For the experiment it is indeed not commercial scale. So what? It is on 200 mm wafer which isn't even suited for logic mass production, of course it's an experiment..
The paper you presented doesn't prove anything. It's a research paper conducted in a lab environment,which bears little resemblance to actual commercial labs. Simple question, there is no EUV machine involved in this experiment,does it mean you can actually produce 5nm chips without EUV now?
Is possible to mass produce "5nm" FinFets with immersion lithography the problem is that require more patterning steps than EUV and really good overlay thus is more harder to make but not imposible.Simple question, there is no EUV machine involved in this experiment,does it mean you can actually produce 5nm chips without EUV now?
5nm requires a mix of EUV and DUV. The majority of exposures is till done using DUV and only some steps requires EUV. When ASML advertise a DUV scanner as 5nm capable they simply mean that it is complementary to EUV for 5nm production. 5nm mass production without EUV has never been attempted before so anyone saying that 5nm is possible without EUV is just speculating.Is possible to mass produce "5nm" FinFets with immersion lithography the problem is that require more patterning steps than EUV and really good overlay thus is more harder to make but not imposible.
It will be way harder with the 2050i but not impossible. What if EUV wasn't ready? Would TSMC stopped at 7nm? No they would have go with the 2050i, more masks, harder research, yield problems but they would have it done.5nm requires a mix of EUV and DUV. The majority of exposures is till done using DUV and only some steps requires EUV. When ASML advertise a DUV scanner as 5nm capable they simply mean that it is complementary to EUV for 5nm production. 5nm mass production without EUV has never been attempted before so anyone saying that 5nm is possible without EUV is just speculating.