Log In   |  Register Free Newsletter Subscription
Skip navigation
Zibb
Subscribe to Semiconductor International

The Other 450 mm Shoe

May 6, 2008

The three companies openly pushing
for 450 mm wafers are working on a plan to subsidize the equipment
industry’s 450 mm development effort. The carrot will be
large, perhaps approaching a billion dollars when all is said and
done. Its increasingly clear that a combined stimulus package is
needed to prompt the equipment vendors to start 450 mm development,
a well-placed source in Austin said.

 

Intel Corp., Samsung Electronics
Co., and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. Ltd. went public
Monday with their support for a transition to 450 mm wafers

beginning in 2012. Toshiba Corp. is keeping out of the spotlight,
but also is backing the transition. The companies said the 450 mm
effort will develop standards within the International Sematech Manufacturing
Initiative
(ISMI), “as it plays a critical role in
coordinating industry efforts on 450 mm wafer supply, standards
setting and developing equipment test bed capabilities.”

 

ISMI, which has grown to include 16
corporate members, also is a focal point for environmental impact
studies, an increasingly important area for an industry awash in
chemicals. Look for ISMI to launch a significantly expanded
Environment, Safety, and Health (ES&H) initiative soon. With
the recent decision by ES&H guru Walter Worth to retire from
Sematech/ISMI, ISMI is searching for a person who can head up the
expanded ES&H initiative.

 

As the Sematech lithography,
interconnect, and metrology programs have largely shifted to
Albany, lured there by the Empire State’s 2:1 matching grants
for equipment and salaries, about 50 jobs have moved from Austin to
Albany in the past six months. New job creation for
Sematech’s core technology R&D also has largely been in
Albany. At the same time, ISMI has grown its staff in Austin. The
result, employment will be roughly balanced between Austin and
Albany, with about 200 people working in each location.

 

450 Green

 

In their
Monday announcement,
Intel, Samsung and TSMC tied the
environmental and cost advantages of the 450 mm wafers together.
The press release said, “through more efficient use of
energy, water and other resources, bigger wafers can help diminish
overall use of resources per chip. For example, the conversion from
200 mm wafers to 300 mm wafers helped reduce aggregate emissions
per chip of air pollution, global warming gasses and water, and
further reduction is expected with a transition to 450 mm
wafers.”

 

Fewer fabs, each with
state-of-the-art environmental controls, would be seen as the Green
solution in a world increasingly concerned with water and energy
consumption. 

Mike Goldstein, Intel Corp., holds a 450 mm
wafer

So there you have it.

 

The carrot: subsidies to equipment
and materials companies which quickly get on the 450 mm train.

 

The stick: risk being left out of
the four biggest equipment buyers, who account for ~40% of capex
spending, and growing. When leading-edge production is considered,
the four proponents of 450 mm wafers account for more than half of
new equipment purchases.

 

And the sweetener? The 450 mm wafer
fabs are being positioned as the environmentally safer
solution.

 

The opposition to 450 mm wafers has
been intense and widespread. The opponents don’t buy the
basic argument that moving to the larger wafer size will be more
efficient this time around. Instead, they argue, take the billions
needed to develop 450 mm equipment and invest that money instead in
more automated 300 mm fabs, which are accessible to companies in
the middle tier.

 

Indeed, AMD, Chartered, IBM, Hynix,
Powerchip, STMicroelectronics, and UMC are large chip
manufacturers, but they are among the companies not quite large
enough to afford 450 mm fabs. What the anti-450 crowd argues is
that bigger fabs certainly help Intel and the other very large
companies as they compete with smaller rivals. That economic
survival battle alone nearly guarantees strong opposition to 450 mm
wafers. When combined with the economic pressures facing most
equipment suppliers now, the 300/450 teeter-totter hangs in the
balance.

 

The debate will continue to
intensify this year as the industry gathers at
Semicon West
beginning July 14, and will be a major focus at
the ISMI
Symposium on Manufacturing Effectiveness/ISMI Manufacturing
Week
, October 20‑23. Mark your calendars.

Posted by David Lammers on May 6, 2008 | Comments (4)

May 7, 2008
In response to: The Other 450 mm Shoe
no doubt commented:

It is sometimes estimated a 450 mm wafer has the area of two 300 mm wafers. Equivalently you produce about the same number of chips using two 300 mm wafers or one 450 mm wafer. Cost of consumables scales with wafer area not wafer units, so the cost would be the same for the two 300 mm wafers or the one 450 mm wafer. So it is mathematically clear cost per chip doesn\'t change (much) with wafer size!


May 7, 2008
In response to: The Other 450 mm Shoe
doubt? commented:

To \"doubtful\" points: it\'s about cost, material and energy per unit out, 450 mm fabs will not run a few wafers and idle - larger wafers are about being able to make high volume more cheaply whether for low mix or high mix - and not only will the intercept happen in the timeframe indicated, Silicon will be run for a long time after.


May 7, 2008
In response to: The Other 450 mm Shoe
doubtful commented:

I think two points need to be made here. First, a 450 mm wafer obviously consumes more material and energy than a 300 mm wafer. For the same amount of consumption, given a choice between running a few large wafers and idling the fab the rest of the time vs running many smaller wafers with little idling, which is more reasonable (and flexible)? Second, this transition will not intercept 32 nm or even 22 nm. Beyond that, why would there be necessarily a need for silicon wafers?


May 7, 2008
In response to: The Other 450 mm Shoe
guest commented:

This is just a repeat of history of the 300 mm transition which was also backed by the big players first. Many companies including the vendors have not felt the payoff from the 300 mm transition, so they don\'t believe the benefit of the 450 mm. No vendor wants only a few customers, all with very different requirements. Plus there is more opposition to 450 mm this time, now that the cost difference between 200 mm and 300 mm is better understood.

POST A COMMENT
Display Name
captcha

Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above. Note the letters are case sensitive:

Advertisement

Advertisement
NEWSLETTERS
SI NewsBreak and Special Reports
Photovoltaics Report
Wafer Processing Report
Litho & Metrology Report
Packaging Report



Please read our Privacy Policy

OTHER NEWS FROM RBI
About Us   |   Advertising Info   |   Site Map   |   Contact Us   |   FREE Subscription   |   RSS
© 2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Please visit these other Reed Business sites