Slashdot Mirror


From Silicon To Microprocessors

prostoalex writes "Jim Turley from Embedded Systems Programming magazine answers the question of where microprocessors come from. While the public generally knows about the silicon and microprocessor vendors, few can describe the process of turning the beach sand into the latest and greatest several-hundred-dollars-worth CPU."

56 of 174 comments (clear)

  1. The birds and bees, flowers and trees by ObviousGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

    The microprocessor stork brings them.

    Right, mommy?

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
    1. Re:The birds and bees, flowers and trees by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sometimes, when a boy processor and a girl processor love each other very much...

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
  2. ...giant silver bolognas... by burgburgburg · · Score: 5, Funny
    Raw silicon is grown into crystal ingots, which look like giant silver bolognas.

    That, my friends, is a really unpleasant image.

    Then it's sliced into exceptionally thin wafers about 6 to 8 inches (200 to 300mm) across, depending on the diameter of the ingot.

    Owwww!!!!

    1. Re:...giant silver bolognas... by chullymonster · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have a look at MEMC's website (www.memc.com), they produce silicon wafers like the ones in the article. The site has some nice pics and animations of their manufacturing process.

  3. It's all about what catches the eye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    or at least so I gather from the frequency with which the Silicone/Silicon mistake is made. Maybe if computer chips were warm instead of hot, and squeezably soft instead of hard, and bouncy always bouncy people would know more about them.

  4. One supplier by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Informative
    When I lived in Midland, MI (home to Dow and Dow Corning) 'silicon' wasn't uncommon in casual conversations, particularly in a city of 40,000 with a large engineering population. Dow Corning, besides silicone compounds also provides silicon to a local company literally in the sticks, Hemlock Semiconductor. Some nice stuff on their site regarding products, 1, 2

    I'd always thought these materials were made in hot, dry climates, like Arizona, yet there was a supplier right in my backyard.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  5. Oh, everyone knows... by Faust7 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hellacious spawning vats in the dark dungeons of Intel, AMD, IBM, and Apple.

    *sqlorch*
    *SQLORCH* ...
    *Ding!*

  6. Clean Rooms by nil5 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The only thing I don't like about the process is the working conditions: annoyingly loud!
    For those of you that have never been in a clean room, there is a tremendous amount of ambient sound due to the very important air cleaning/circulation system. In order to make the clean room "clean", there can only be so much dust particles in the air. (e.g. 1ppm) (there are actually different classes of clean rooms)

    The ramification of this is that one can hardly hear one's voice. Personally, I'm glad I'm not in the semiconductor field :)

    1. Re:Clean Rooms by Pulse_Instance · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I do work in a clean room, class 5 is our usual but sometimes a bit lower. I never hear the noise, it is actually nice and quited inside our Fab.

    2. Re:Clean Rooms by ackthpt · · Score: 3, Funny
      For those of you that have never been in a clean room, there is a tremendous amount of ambient sound due to the very important air cleaning/circulation system.

      Well, shoot! That sure blows my image, I thought it was the disco music that people in Intel 'bunny suits' danced to.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  7. Geeks and history by FreemanPatrickHenry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A knowledge of history is almost always a Good Thing. I wonder how many programmers have never heard of Charles Babbage? ("Analytical Engine? What?") You should at least have a decent knowledge of the history of your craft. Call me old-fashioned, but my love of computer science isn't limited by EnterpriseJavaBeans and BiCapitalizedMumboJumbo and whatever buzzword happens to be out today. There's more to it than that.

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous .sig which, unfortunately, this space is too small to contain.
  8. Try Intel's museum by badzilla · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you can visit Santa Clara USA then Intel's museum has a nice introduction to the process of turning sand into chips.

    --
    "Don't belong. Never join. Think for yourself. Peace." V.Stone, Microsoft Corporation
  9. I can, and in only 4 letters by Triumph+The+Insult+C · · Score: 3, Funny

    V I S A

    --
    vodka, straight up, thank you!
  10. Re:near-first post by swordboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They *do* mention the effects that this has on one's brain - especially with metric conversion. From the article:

    Raw silicon is grown into crystal ingots, which look like giant silver bolognas. Then it's sliced into exceptionally thin wafers about 6 to 8 inches (200 to 300mm) across

    Ummm... yeah...

    --

    Life is the leading cause of death in America.
  11. Man, I'm old! by nordicfrost · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read the article and find myself actually knowing in advance how silicon chips are made. You see, in the 80ies we had childrens books about computers that covered something more than how to start Word and update Winblows.

  12. the truth by jjeffries · · Score: 5, Funny

    a couple of macroprocessors get drunk, start messing around... they wake up the next morning full of regret... next thing you know, there's a new microprocessor for someone to install, dress up in a nice case, feed it RAM, and reboot it when it makes a mess, which will be all the damn time for the first few months...

  13. tinker-toys by chunkwhite86 · · Score: 4, Funny

    the latest and greatest several-hundred-dollars-worth CPU.

    Only if you're buying intel can you get the latest and greatest for only several-hundred-dollars-worth. We call the intel servers at work "tinker-toys" because they are wimpy and cannot get much real work done.

    The Alphaserver GS160, the IBM RS/6000, and the Sunfire 12k. Those are the manly servers that do the real work around here. I don't think you can replace fans in these things for "several-hundred-dollars-worth". ;-) The CPU's in these are a couple thousand dollars each.

    --
    I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
    1. Re:tinker-toys by chunkwhite86 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Too bad the processors you mentioned comparitively suck :)

      Perhaps that is the case if you are a l33t g4m3r. Which I suspect you are.

      If you are running a nationwide medical record database with 8000 concurrent users (I am), there is NO intel machine ANYWHERE that can handle the load.

      The current crop of Itanium or Xeon servers (even 8 and 16 way) cannot even come close to the performance of the GS series Alphaservers. Not even close. Not for processing power, and definitely not for memory bandwidth. What happens when you need 32 or 64 CPU's? Or more than that even? Sorry Charlie - intel servers are tinker-toys when compared to the big-iron of today.

      --
      I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
  14. Leaves out the meat... by HermesHuang · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While informative on what it touches on, this doesn't describe what goes into making a chip. It describes how a chip is patterned. Then follows many many diffusion, oxidation, etch, and metallization steps that go between each photoresist mask step. I suppose it makes a good read for someone who wants just a general overview. But it makes it sound like making a chip is just a glorified film development process. I do microfab work, and the lithography steps are the steps we take for granted (mostly -- they still do take effort to get right, but are in general easier then what follows).

    1. Re:Leaves out the meat... by stevesliva · · Score: 3, Informative
      I agree. Even given a perfect mask, you can still blow the chemistry (implants, trenches, diffusion, whatever) for a given process step pretty easily. It also doesn't seem to mention the chemical-mechanical polishing needed to smooth the wafers after certain steps-- that's easy to screw up also.

      But as far as an article targeted at a total layperson goes, it's okay. Not that most laypeople don't quickly lose interest when you start talking about wafers, masks, reticles, photoresist, process steps. You always have to start with the broader concepts and see when their eyes glaze over:

      What do you do?
      I work at a place that makes computer chips
      Oh really? What kinds?
      All kinds. I work in the ASICS group.
      ASICS? Like the sneakers?

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    2. Re:Leaves out the meat... by stevesliva · · Score: 4, Informative
      In and around the fab, there's a huge range of skills necessary, from babysitting machines to trying to figure out quantum mechanics.

      To work in a bunny suit on the production floor? A high school diploma is often enough. To work in test/yield improvement? An EE degree, perhaps. To actually develop the bleeding edge processes? A PhD in physics.

      There's far more to it than that, of course. And the actual chip designers could be across the parking lot or around the world.

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    3. Re:Leaves out the meat... by burnin1965 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A PhD in physics would help, however, I've watched people with and Bachelors and Masters degree ranging from business to chemistry to mechanical engineering all execute the job of process development.

      Of course these same people have been working in the industry for 20+ years and have more than earned a PhD with all the work they've done bringing the industry to where it is today.

      I just want to make sure you don't scare anyone away making them think they have to get a PhD in physics to get into the biz.

      And you are definitely on target about the diversity. I think you could take the work force from a semiconductor fab and throw them into just about any technical business and they would have the skills within the team to get the job done.

      burnin

  15. Misses one important point: yield. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Having smaller die sizes is not good just because you can put more dies on a wafer. It is because your yield will improve. Dust/contamination is the real enemey, and bigger dies have an (exponentially or even worse) higher risk of having one dust particle destroying the chip function. Cutting the size with 10% may well lower the production cost by 50%.

    And that is ofcourse why moving to a smaller technology (eg from .18 to .13) can be a real money saver (next to allowing higher clock rates).

    1. Re:Misses one important point: yield. by stevesliva · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Smaller dies can also mean a much cheaper package with less pins.

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    2. Re:Misses one important point: yield. by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Smaller dies can also mean a much cheaper package with less pins.

      Beg pardon? Seems for the last 20 years processors have been gaining pins like some adherence to Moore's law. Seen the Athlon 64's lately? Didn't the 6502, 8086 and z80 processors have like 40 pins? I can't see a correllation between pins and die size.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    3. Re:Misses one important point: yield. by stevesliva · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Two words: VDD pins.

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
  16. Why just square chips? by RobertB-DC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the article:
    For an example, let's look at a 200mm silicon wafer, which has about 986cm2 of surface area. That's about the size of a salad plate. Let's say your chips are square (most are) and they measure 10mm on a side?that's 100mm2 per chip. If the silicon wafer was also square you could fit 986 chips on your wafer. Alas, wafers are round so you can really only get about 279 chips on a wafer.

    I guess the obvious question, since using squares on a round wafer wastes a certain amount of silicon, is why squares? Why not build a hex grid? That would seem to maximize the usage of the available area.

    But then, I suppose cutting them out would be significantly more difficult.

    What about triangles, then? Straight lines up and down, and in one (or both) diagonal directions.

    On the other hand, someone's already thought of this:
    Intel's old i960MX microprocessor was octagonal. It was so big its corners had to be cut off.

    So my idea has an obvious flaw. The question is... what is it?

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:Why just square chips? by Timbotronic · · Score: 5, Funny
      I guess the obvious question, since using squares on a round wafer wastes a certain amount of silicon, is why squares? Why not build a hex grid?

      They tried this once, but all the geeks in the clean room started putting little orcs on the chips and played Dungeons and Dragons

      --

      One of these days I'm moving to Theory - everything works there

    2. Re:Why just square chips? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Easy, The octagonal intel chips was probably cut as a square. The corners were just wasted space. They were octagonal due to lithogrphy reasons, not to save space. Triangular chips are even worse then square in that regard. For the same area the crossection is larger making layout and lithography harder. Now triangles could still ork for small chips but if they are small you are not wasting much space anyway so its not practical to change your process to squease out an extra 1%.

    3. Re:Why just square chips? by coastwalker · · Score: 3, Informative

      Square ( or rectangular) because the silicon crystal lattice wants to break along perpendicular directions and square because a diamond wheel doesnt change directions very easily. Any other shape would result in more broken chips and lower yield and higher prices.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
    4. Re:Why just square chips? by torpor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about triangles, then? Straight lines up and down, and in one (or both) diagonal directions.

      Indeed, and in fact, this is one of the reasons why we need the International Space Station, because as it turns out, certain crystallization/sillication (whatever its called, apologies to the chemists...) processes, in a micro-gravity environment, are a lot easier to control in a fashion which produces high-yield, multi-dimensional composite core materials. At micro-nano-levels, gravity definitely takes its toll ... in space, presumably, things can be done a little 'smoother' without having Earth tugging at your bits and pieces ...

      ISS gives us more details on how to control some of our common processes for constructing these sorts of materials, and the more we know about that, the easier it'll be to build the orbiting CPU-factories that will then lead the way to nano-assemblies and beyond ... ;)

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  17. Re:near-first post by Spudley · · Score: 2, Informative

    Technically, East Germany was 2nd World, until unification.

    The term "3rd World" was coined to describe the rest of the world, after NATO and the Warsaw Pact nations, which were implied to be the first and second worlds respectively.

    Although that definition didn't stick, the phrase did, and quickly came to take on the meaning that we all know, since most of the nations it included were desperately poor.

    (Here endeth the history lesson ;-) )

    --
    (Spudley Strikes Again!)
  18. This doesn't make sense... by James+Lewis · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "Why not just use one big piece of film to expose the entire wafer at once? The problem is focus. As any photographer knows, the bigger the picture the blurrier the image. That's why big-screen TVs don't look so great up close. Chip images need to be ultra sharp, so a blurry "mega mask" wouldn't cut it."

    I thought big screen TVs were "blurry" up close because they had fewer pixels per area. Besides... in this case, you wouldn't be making the image bigger, you would just be making a LOT of tiny images at once. Can someone either explain how his explaination makes sense, or what the real reason is?

    1. Re:This doesn't make sense... by stevesliva · · Score: 4, Informative

      I guess focus could certainly be a problem, but as far as wafer sized masks go, if you're creating a mask that costs many thousands of dollars, you're far less likely to have a defect in the mask if the mask is only the size needed for one die, and not the entire wafer. And since certain masks are not 1:1 masks but 2:1 or 4:1 masks, you'd might need a 1200mm mask for 4x a 300mm wafer. A 1.2 meter mask. See a problem?

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    2. Re:This doesn't make sense... by lrucker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It doesn't make sense. For one thing, they don't even expose the entire mask at once - most machines do it in "stripes", after the original data was "fractured" (I work on the CATS fracture software). For another, it left out the problems involved in making the mask itself - one glitch, and you've got a $5000 perfectly flat glass paperweight. Making a mask to cover the whole area multiplies those problems.

  19. ESP by AvengerXP · · Score: 2

    "Embedded Systems Programming magazine"

    Isn't this a tad specific? Why not a magazine about processors period? Is that too big? Just how much content can you have being specific about Embedded Systems Programming. Seriously, I'm asking.

    And if it's about Programming, why is this an article about processors? I'm so lost, and i don't think it's my fault this time. Flame away boys i'm bored.

    --
    Trolls dont like to be Flamebait, because they burn so well. Protect our Troll heritage!
    1. Re:ESP by elflet · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Just how much content can you have being specific about Embedded Systems Programming

      A huge amount. Many embedded systems have real-time requirements, tight memory-space limitations, and a much lower tolerance for failure than desktop systems. If you're talking about a comsumer embedded device (e.g. a cellphone), you have to deal with power management as well. There are multiple operating systems to choose from, several types of processor architectures (including the Harvard Archirtecture typified by Intel's old 8051 family that has entirely separate memory spaces for instructions and data), and several buses specific to embedded systems work.

      Why should this matter? There are several embedded systems in your car, and I'm sure you'd be mightily ticked if your car just stopped working randomly. On a more mundane level, what about programmable thermostats or the security card readers where you go to work? That's not to mention the mission-critical embedded systems in aircraft and medical devices.

  20. Don't you mean... by platipusrc · · Score: 3, Funny

    Sometimes, when a CPU and a CPU socket meet in the middle of a back alley...

    --
    And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
  21. Projection blur by Atario · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think he's talking about the fact that focus is consistent on a sphere, not a plane. Since the chips are flat, the image you project on them is only perfectly focused on a circle (the intersection of the perfect-focus sphere with the plane of the wafer). You can see this happen with regular slide-, TV-, or film-projection as well.

    It sounds like they focus the center exactly and let it get blurry the further out you go (this is the case where the plane is tangent to the sphere -- a zero-radius circle of focus, which is of course a point). I would think they would set the cicle to be larger in order to get more area of better focus, but maybe having some blurring in the center screws up their designs more.

    Dunno, IANAMCFA. (Dare anyone to figure out what that one meant.)

    --
    "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
  22. Wafer Diameter? by Betelgeuse+on+Ice · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hmmm, and all this time I thought 200mm wafers were 8 inches and 300mm wafers were 12 inches. Maybe the author is a former NASA engineer...

    And I agree, clean rooms are no fun. Ever trying typing on a plastic-coated miniature keyboard with two pairs of gloves?

  23. Too elementary... by sharkb8 · · Score: 5, Informative

    They don't use beachsand, that's silicon dioxide (SiO2), also known as quartz.

    Pure silicon chunks are actually made from condensing a very pure Silicon gas called Silane. The chunks are broken up, and melted in a very hot furnace, with a crucible made out of quartz(usually). Any doping, or impurities to give the silicon it's different electrical properties are added at this point. Boron (B) is fairly common.

    Then, a nice perfect seed crystal of silicon is dipped into the molten silicon which starts to crystalize around the seed crystal. The growing crystal is turned and slowly pulled out of the liquid silicon as it grows to help keep it regular. The result is called a boule, or "the bologna looking thing"

    As a side note, the doping is usually too high at the top of the boule, and too low at the end of the boule, so only about the middle 25% is used.

    Then it gets sliced into wafers. etc. etc.

  24. Mistakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are more than a few nits...

    (1) Silicon is not sand. Sand is silicon dioxide (well, most sand). It needs to be reduced (the oxygen needs to be removed) and purified. And purified. And purified. (I believe Brazilian quartz is actually the preferred stock for silicon dioxide, rather than sand, due to its purity.)

    (2) Photo-resist does not need to be electrically conductive. It does need to be capable of resisting attack by whatever chemicals are next in the step (especially the HF). Since they're usually polymers that are either polymerized or depolymerized by the exposure, they generally are not conductive.

    (3) Current generation laser steppers are not EUV. (They are UV, maybe DUV, being slightly less than 1/2 the wavelength of visible indigo.)

    (4) One could get the impression that each chip on the wafer is processed separately at each step.

    (5) Fabs and foundries are related but distinct entities. (I personally have worked in a fab, but never a foundry.)

    (6) It's the mask that is imprinted on the wafer's photoresist, not the chip.

    (7) Moore's law is incorrectly repeated. This is especially bad because it claims to be correcting the common belief (which it probably is). Moore's law was about the economics of chip density -- the most _cost effective_ density doubles every 18 months.

    (8) I've usually heard and talked about individual die and multiple dice. (And breaking up wafers into chips is called dicing.) Maybe others call them (plural) die, but not everyone.

    (9) The 200mm wafer area calculations are wrong. A 200mm wafer has a radius of 10cm; the area is therefore (10)^2*pi ~= 310cm^2. So one won't get 986 die from a square wafer and only 279 from a round one.

    (10) Lots and lots of companies don't build their chips on the smallest feature sizes possible. Very few can afford to manufacture 90nm chips at this point, so the bulk of chip _designs_ are manufactured at .13u, .18u, or larger.

    There are probably many more errors...

    RJ

  25. Shape of the Chip by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I guess the obvious question, since using squares on a round wafer wastes a certain amount of silicon, is why squares? Why not build a hex grid? That would seem to maximize the usage of the available area.

    But then, I suppose cutting them out would be significantly more difficult.

    What about triangles, then? Straight lines up and down, and in one (or both) diagonal directions.

    Well, NVidia discovered rotating them 45 degrees give them a diamond instead of a square. Think they're onto something?

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  26. Why the clean rooms? by kindofblue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    More to the point, why are humans required at all in the manufacturing process. I would expect the entire manufacturing and testing process, from sand to plastic-encased chip, to be automated enough that people in bunny suits should not be needed. Maybe they are needed to replace the robots and fill up the supplies, but other than that, what do they do?

    1. Re:Why the clean rooms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      You still need humans for a lot of the alignment-and-inspection work that the machines simply can't do themselves.


      Also, mostly the machines are made by different vendors, so they don't have communication protocols to "talk" to one another, or to talk to a central dispatching control system. Therefore you need operators to move parts from machine to machine, and to select the appropriate programs to run on each machine (the parts pass through each machine multiple times, getting different processing each time).


      Finally, the machines do break, and you want somebody there to intervene before several tens of thousands of dollars worth of parts get crushed.

    2. Re:Why the clean rooms? by burnin1965 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree that humans are still needed for many inspections and troubleshooting, however, that's about where it ends.

      Manufacturers are able to completely automate the entire wafer handling process. The alignment for handling and processing is many times better than what any human could do.

      And there have been standard communication protocols for interconnecting tools and systems for many years now. The two most common protocols are SECS and GEM.

      burnin

  27. Whose Power PC? by marshall_j · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Where do microprocessors come from, Daddy?" That's an awkward question we all must answer at some stage in our careers. What mysterious process converts elemental silicon into elemental forces like Intel's Itanium or Motorola's PowerPC? Let us explore the wonder that is semiconductor creation.

    Shouldn't that include IBM?

  28. I have always wondered... by CrackedButter · · Score: 2, Funny

    the process of turning the beach sand into the latest and greatest
    I always wondered why people bragged about their new computer and made the comment about leaving mine in the dust!

  29. recognizing people in bunny suits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article mentions that, with co-workers encased in bunny suits, you have to look at their eyes to tell people apart. When I worked in a fab, I noticed I became very attuned to people's body shapes and ways of moving. After working there for a while, I could subconsciously identify co-workers at the opposite end of a shopping mall, simply by the way they walked.

  30. uhm... by wisdom_brewing · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "is basically purified beach sand" - since when is deoxidation considered purification? "about 6 to 8 inches (200 to 300mm)" - make that 8 - 12 inches... slightly sad that such trivial mistakes/oversimplicications are made in an otherwise good article...

  31. Its not the laminar flow systems making the noise. by burnin1965 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Unless you are talking about a clean room from the late 70s or the 80s, its more likely that the noise you are hearing is from the exhaust systems sucking fumes from processing equipment.

    The materials used to produce semiconductors are extremely deadly to humans as are many of the process by products.

    Pretty much every processing tool has multiple exhaust connections which remove potentially harmful fumes to a scrubbing system on the roof that removes the toxic chemicals which are then treated and disposed.

    There are other noises from the tools and support equipment but I assume you thought it was the laminar air flow filtering system because it sounded like high volume air movement. They do move high volumes of air but you don't want the air moving too fast as it will stir up any particles that may be present in the room.

    burnin

    oh, I do work in a clean room, have since 1989.

  32. Re:near-first post by flint · · Score: 2, Informative

    You are correct sir.

    And, if it's history education we're after... Sauvy, a French demographer, is generally credited with the term. He wanted to convey how Third World countries are exploited by the first and second. It was an analogy dating to the French Revolution when the first two estates (clergy and nobility) exploited the third (the commoners).

  33. Yield terminology wrong... by burnin1965 · · Score: 2, Informative

    In a semiconductor factory yield is a measure of the percentage of good die versus the total number of potential die on a wafer. It is not the measure of the total number of die produced from a wafer and is therefore not directly affected by the size of the die.

    You are correct that smaller die sizes produce more die per wafer, however, shrinking the structures in a die's circuit make it more susceptible to failure due to contamination. Therefore you are actually wrong when you state that a smaller die will yield more.

    You can think about it this way. If you have two parallel conducting poly lines that are seperated by an insulator that is 1 inch wide and you drop a penny on the insulator it is likely that the insulator will still work because the penny, which is the contaminant, is not large enough to short across the insulator. If you take that insulator and shrink it down to 1/4 of an inch and drop the same contaminating penny on it there is a chance that it will short the two poly conductors across the insulator and destroy your circuit. Take that same circuit and shrink it to 0.01 inch lines and suddenly your process that ran wonderfully is destroying every die on the wafer because the penny is guaranteed to short the circuit every time.

    So what you can derive from this is two things. First, the smaller contaminating particles are the less likely they are to destroy a die and may actually be acceptable, the smaller a die gets the more likely it will be destroyed by smaller particles and you plunge into a never ending battle of cleaning up smaller and smaller sized particles.

    Speaking from experience I watched a process that ran for 10+ years and worked fine. Once the geometries in the die shrunk to .35 microns the same process was destroying die because the tiny particles it introduced suddenly were big enough to start creating a significant number of shorts. Needless to say I had my work cut out for me as the equipment required some reengineering along with the process.

    burnin

  34. Or why even flat chips? by burnin1965 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Your ideas are good, thinking out of the box, and check this out for thinking out of the box, spherical semiconductor circuits.

    Ball Technologies

    burnin

  35. correct by burnin1965 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    soon after the photo resist is developed it goes through an etch process which is usually a dip in a nice acid bath, or a shower in a nice acid spray, or my favorite, a plasma treatment in a vacuum chamber with RF or microwave and wonderful gases like Sulfur Hexafluoride, Hydrogen Bromide, Chlorine, Carbon Tetra-Fluoride, etc.

    But this may not always be the case. It may be headed for an implant step. A nice electron beam zaps the wafer while it is laced with boron, or arsenic, etc.

    burnin

  36. some neat stuff, despite you are not being serious by lingqi · · Score: 4, Informative

    * when cutting the ingots, people almost ALWAYS use a ring-blade; where the blade is on the inner edge of a ring larger than the ingot, and ingot is sliced. extra points for anyone who know why.**

    * ingots are not always "grown." (think dipping candles) there is also a technique where you start off with a polychrystaline ingot and use localized heating to progressively monocrystalize it by localized melting. The technique is similar to one of the methods of removing impurities from iron bars.

    * CMP is damn cool. I mean, it's nice and all hearing about "polish to within an atom" precision, but if you take a polished wafer, it would make the best mirror you'd ever own. Granted silicon is not the perfect reflective surface, but you won't get a mirror more accuratly shows every feature on your face. =) Otoh, when dusts and stuff DO get into the CMP machines, though, it scratches the wafer. Though you don't see it, when you trace failures on the wafer the failing gates would generally follow an arc shape (corresponding to the wafer and polishing head rotation), and from that you get the CMP machine checked out.

    random junk I thought that was kinda neat.

    ** I used to know about 3 years ago but then I forgot. so don't expect like a correct answer or nothing.

    --

    My life in the land of the rising sun.