|
針對Gate-First和Gate-Last之爭,目前選擇Gate-Last的只有TSMC和Intel,IBM陣營包括Samsumg, Global foundry, Chartered和一些IDM廠則選擇Gate-First,IBM陣營宣稱Gate-First做出來的die size比較小,製程上也有成本優勢,而且研發比較容易成功,但也承認比較適合low power, performance應用比較差,而蔣尚義認為,Gate-Last的製程步驟(process steps, 將影響cycle time, 而cycle time將影響成本)、和光罩層數(mask level)都和Gate-First類似,因此成本不會比較高,至於影響die size的design rule,和gate-first/gate-last無關,因此Gate-Last的die size也不會比較大,但是比較難做是真的,如果你學會的話,performance比較好,也不會比較貴。
蔣尚義大膽預測,Gate-Last終必成功,到了22/20nm,IBM陣營的對手們將全部轉回來做Gate-Last,將可證明他們選擇錯誤,蔣先生似乎暗示,對手陣營中,很快就會有人率先開始重新研發28nm的Gate-Last。
RRB(Richard's Research Blog)查了一下Globalfoundries的網站,有這麼一段話:
The "Gate Last" approach to HKMG is costly and requires a number of additional processing steps. GLOBALFOUNDRIES has chosen to implement a "Gate First" approach because it is simpler and more scalable to future generations. The process flow is very similar to what was used for previous technology generations. The "Gate First" maximizes power efficiency and transistor scaling while minimizing die size and design complexity when compared to the alternative "Gate Last" approach.
http://www.globalfoundries.com/technology/tech_elements.aspx
很明顯的,Globalfoundries的說法和TSMC的說法剛好相反,事實只有一個,不是有人說謊,就是有人功力不夠,看得不透徹,以至於選錯技術路線,當然,RRB相信TSMC,畢竟,蔣先生當年在0.13um天險的銅製程Black Diamond和SILK之爭,曾經大敗IBM和U聯軍,讓TSMC在0.13um世代之後取得絕對的技術領先優勢,兩年多前張先生把已半退休的蔣先生找回來重新掌管RD,會不會再度大敗IBM聯軍,我們拭目以待。這個議題對未來兩年foundry的競爭,甚至半導體業的競爭,應該都非常重要,很奇怪好像很少人關心這件事,大部份報告和媒體都沒有提。 |
|