KrF lithography at SMEE is currently only 110 nm capable but it is 90 nm capable from ASML.
ArF lithography is 57 nm capable on a single scan from ASML, and Intel used dry Nikon ArF tools for both their 65 nm and 45 nm processes (double patterning dry ArF for 45 nm). Yet SMEE only has it certified for 90 nm, only equal compared to ASML KrF tools.
SMEE SSA600 was "rated" at 90nm resolution capability whereas ASML XT1460 is "rated" at 65nm partly because SSA600 uses 0.75NA and the latter uses 0.93NA projection lens. XT1460 also have additional features that enable lower k1 capabilities. SSA600 was reverse engineered based on ASML's older PAS5500/1150C.
SMEE KrF is currently rated with 110nm resolution limit just like ASML's XT860; both with 0.80NA projection lens. ASML does have a higher NA KrF system, XT1060 that is outfitted with 0.93NA and hence it would have better resolution capability of 80nm.
Make / Model | Resolution (nm) | k1 | wavelength (nm) | NA | Litho Type |
SMEE SSB800 | 350 | 0.62 | 365 | 0.65 | Scanner |
ASML XT400 | 350 | 0.62 | 365 | 0.65 | Scanner |
Canon FPA5550/iZ2 | 350 | 0.55 | 365 | 0.57 | Stepper |
| | | | | |
SMEE SSC800 | 110 | 0.36 | 248 | 0.82 | Scanner |
ASML XT860 | 110 | 0.35 | 248 | 0.80 | Scanner |
Canon FPA6300/ES6A | 90 | 0.31 | 248 | 0.86 | Scanner |
ASML XT1060 | 80 | 0.30 | 248 | 0.93 | Scanner |
| | | | | |
SMEE SSA600 | 90 | 0.35 | 193 | 0.75 | Scanner |
ASML 5500/1150C | 90 | 0.35 | 193 | 0.75 | Scanner |
ASML XT1460 | 65 | 0.31 | 193 | 0.93 | Scanner |
ASML NXT1470 | 57 | 0.27 | 193 | 0.93 | Scanner |
What's holding SMEE back?
There's nothing holding SMEE back in terms of their target scanner capability. It's mere choices of what NA lens they plan to put into the system.
What would be holding SMEE back would mostly be all the HVM features required to enable low k1 process capability. The few tidbits Havoc mentioned, to me, are merely basic requirements to make a scanner function (to meet tool acceptance test specification). To go beyond just an equipment that could pass tool acceptance versus one that would do well in production are all the nitty gritty control capabilities, which at this point are mostly missing on SMEE systems. These basic capabilities are missing on the lone SMEE iline SSB800 system, so I don't see why these features would be available on any of their subsequent KrF, ArF, or ArFi releases in the near term.