You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Chinese semiconductor industry
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
“Those controls are also related to components of those things. Those machines will break down at some point or another, which will impede further progress” in China’s efforts to develop its own chip industry, Estevez told reporters on the sidelines of the Mt. Fuji Dialogue, an annual US-Japan policy exchange platform attended by American and Japanese luminaries, in Tokyo on Saturday.
New U.S. BIS amendment on export controls on semiconductor manufacturing items tightened overlay performance criteria of scanner restriction. I have yet to go over the entire document, but it appears the new criteria (f.1.b.2.b) seemed to be quite harsh. You can read it for yourself via the link below:
View attachment 120379
f.1.b.2. Having any of the following:
f.1.b.2.a. A maximum ‘dedicated chuck overlay’ value of less than or equal to 1.50 nm;
or
f.1.b.2.b. A maximum ‘dedicated chuck overlay’ value greater than 1.50 nm but less than or equal to 2.4 nm;
Doesn't those two lines just translates to
A maximum ‘dedicated chuck overlay’ value of less than or equal to 2.4 nm;
Why did they need those two separate lines?
That's the funny thing about the professional cultures in West and their vassals. So many high value careers depend mostly on knowing how to gaslight, deflect, project, deny, and obfuscate, instead of just figuring out how to do a good job.“Those controls are also related to components of those things. Those machines will break down at some point or another, which will impede further progress” in China’s efforts to develop its own chip industry, Estevez told reporters on the sidelines of the Mt. Fuji Dialogue, an annual US-Japan policy exchange platform attended by American and Japanese luminaries, in Tokyo on Saturday.
New U.S. BIS amendment on export controls on semiconductor manufacturing items tightened overlay performance criteria of scanner restriction. I have yet to go over the entire document, but it appears the new criteria (f.1.b.2.b) seemed to be quite harsh. You can read it for yourself via the link below:
View attachment 120379
Dylan Patel says the equipment restrictions were mostly relaxed compared to previous. He's probably talking about non-lithography equipment. Any idea what relaxations he is talking about?
I read through most of the document and I wouldn't necessarily say "equipment restriction for the most part are relaxed". There are a few instances where the revision was relaxed, but nothing too significant.Dylan Patel says the equipment restrictions were mostly relaxed compared to previous. He's probably talking about non-lithography equipment. Any idea what relaxations he is talking about?
Here's an example where BIS relaxed restriction on certain test equipments by making a distinction between test equipments vs screening equipment; the latter would no longer trigger the end-use scope & export restriction:
Topic 34: A commenter requested that BIS draw a distinction between semiconductor fabrication processing test equipment, which does warrant control, and semiconductor screening test equipment, which does not. This commenter noted that there are two primary categories of semiconductor test equipment: (1) semiconductor fabrication processing test equipment, which provides measurements for process control parameters and ensures that Chemical Vapor
Deposition (CVD), Physical Vapor Deposition (PVD), lithography, and other pieces of equipment and additive manufacturing processes work as required to produce the semiconductor; and (2) semiconductor screening test equipment, which provides measurements used to establish if individual manufactured devices satisfy quality requirements and can be shipped. This commenter noted that former items are necessary to the proper operation of a semiconductor fabrication plant, and include essential elements used during the fabrication process to produce a viable semiconductor.
BIS response: This comment is addressed by the addition of new paragraph § 744.23(a)(5) in this SME IFR, described in greater detail below in section C.11. BIS has created a distinction between these two types of test equipment. As described by this commenter, semiconductor fabrication processing test equipment appears to include equipment that is used in front-end integrated circuit fabrication steps, while semiconductor screening test equipment would appear to be used only in back-end production steps. If the semiconductor screening test equipment is used exclusively in back-end production stages that do not alter the technology level of the ICs produced, the equipment does not trigger the end-use scope in paragraphs § 744.23(a)(2) or
§ 744.6(c)(2)(i) and (ii), because this type of test equipment qualifies for the back-end exclusion under paragraph § 744.23(a)(5) and the exclusion in § 744.6(d)(3).
New U.S. BIS amendment on export controls on semiconductor manufacturing items tightened overlay performance criteria of scanner restriction. I have yet to go over the entire document, but it appears the new criteria (f.1.b.2.b) seemed to be quite harsh. You can read it for yourself via the link below:
Thanks for this.
I read through most of the document and I wouldn't necessarily say "equipment restriction for the most part are relaxed". There are a few instances where the revision was relaxed, but nothing too significant.
Actually I don't understand how they can impose rules on ASML, like it is a US-company. But of course US rules are always based on power-play (especially with their so called allies), more than on international law.
ASML CEO spoke about limitations but only on few big firms, this part is totally missing in the document. Limitations seem to apply to all Chinese firms....probably there is some behind-the-curtain negotiation ongoing.
LAM Research stated that new regulations do not affect their business. I'd guess that, after last year fiasco, now they don't want US firms to be kicked out completely from China market...but this horse has bolted already.
The most worrisome news is about lithography machines. New rules state that DUVi is banned in China. This means to cripple not only advanced nodes, but also 28nm node. If US succeeds in banning ASML, this will be a "success" for US hawks....and a cold shower for everybody else.
Now it is really time from SMEE to come out with a viable commercial solution!
China semiconductor and SME community did a wonderful job: today they have all covered for 28nm and soon for more advanced nodes too, but there isn't yet a commercial litho machine. After many years of stricter and stricter export controls, now chickens came to roost: China badly needs localization of lithography machine. This is the last hurdle in the long way to self-sufficiency, but is also the hardest to conquer....and is needed now.
These new export controls will hardly be effective in the last months of 2023, so if no new DUVi machine is delivered starting from 2024, China will feel the pain maybe from Q1/Q2 2024.
One final note: SMEE had plenty of time to develop a commercial solution, indeed they had more than 10 years time! Unfortunately, due to complacency and a wrong read of the future, they wasted much of this time with money-grabbing static prototypes, and started to work for real only in the last few years...now all China semiconductor world is suffering for their shorth-sighted approach.
Please don't take it as a rant, I have nothing against SMEE and I'm sure they will succeed eventually. I just try to have an objective view of the current situation.
Last edited:
Any updates on whether deposition equipment from Naura/AMEC/Piotech can do advanced nodes or are they still stuck at 28nm?Update to add KingSemi lastest track tool and U-Precision immersion dual wafer stage.
View attachment 109344
View attachment 109343
Also, can anyone give a tldr about how silicon/dielectric/metal etch is related to ICP, CCP and TSV etch?
ASML CEO spoke about limitations but only on few big firms, this part is totally missing in the document. Limitations seem to apply to all Chinese firms....probably there is some behind-the-curtain negotiation ongoing.
Yes, the latest US ban is a countrywide ban on China，not a targeted firm ban. I don't know how ASML CEO get this conclusion that shipping to some Chinese firm is okay but others are not. Even there are some kind of behind-the-curtain negotiation, there is no way he can talk about it publicly on official announcement like this. So it's really strange
Yes, the latest US ban is a countrywide ban on China，not a targeted firm ban. I don't know how ASML CEO get this conclusion that shipping to some Chinese firm is okay but others are not. Even there are some kind of behind-the-curtain negotiation, there is no way he can talk about it publicly on official announcement like this. So it's really strange
These bans are implemented using a licensing requirement with presumption of denial. May be he is confident or has inside knowledge that those licenses would be granted if they are not for leading edge fabs. Or he just don't want to deliver too much bad news at once to investors.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.