China's memory maker CXMT reportedly violates U.S. export rules with its 18nm 3D DRAM — chipmaker blatantly presented new tech at industry conference: Report

CXMT DRAM
(Image credit: Foresee, CXMT)

According to semiconductor analysis firm SemiAnalysis, China's memory maker CXMT has new DRAM chips and fabrication nodes that blatantly violate U.S. export rules. At the recent IEDM conference, China-based ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT) introduced its first dynamic random access memory (DRAM) made using its 18nm half-pitch process technology featuring gate-all-around (GAA) transistors. 

DRAM makers have been striving to achieve a 4F^2 cell design for years. It is considered a very efficient memory cell layout in DRAM circuits, enabling makers to build high-capacity chips cheaply. The key feature of a 4F^2 cell design is that it occupies an area only four times the square of the minimum feature size of the fabrication technology used, which requires very advanced process technology (and wafer fab tools). Now, CXMT claims that it has managed to fabricate a fully functional 3D DRAM with vertical channel transistors and 4F^2 cell design on a 18nm half-pitch node using fab equipment it currently has.

"We have successfully fabricated the junction-less GAA VCT combined with a hexagonal capacitor to realize a compact 4F^2 DRAM architecture," a description of the fabrication technology by CXMT reads. "It shows the breakthroughs of /on//of>10^9 and SS=62.5 mV/dec. We also elaborated on various key process issues and device parameters and how they impact on performance."

Meanwhile, China export rules imposed last year require U.S. companies and individuals to obtain licenses for selling fab tools and technologies that can be used to produce DRAM chips with a half-pitch of 18nm or less, non-planar transistor logic chips on 14nm/16nm nodes (and smaller), and 3D NAND with 128 layers or more.

Now that CXMT has officially introduced its 18nm DRAMs with GAA transistors, it means that Applied Materials, KLA, Lam Research, and other U.S.-based makers of wafer fab equipment can no longer ship tools to the fab at which CXMT produced these ICs, reports SemiAnalysis. Having successfully secured funds from the government, CXMT is reportedly planning to spend $7 billion on equipment this year, with $3.8 billion going to U.S.-based companies.

A 4F^2 DRAM cell design may not be the most optimal for an 18nm half-pitch process technology, and we can only wonder whether CXMT is indeed going to use this technology for mass production. However, its technological prowess seems to be undisputed.

Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • Pierce2623
    This will be the same as the “7nm” Kirin 9000s that can’t perform equally to 5 year old core designs on TSMC 10nm, even though it actually has a brand new core design.
    Reply
  • setx
    Pierce2623 said:
    This will be the same as the “7nm” Kirin 9000s that can’t perform equally to 5 year old core designs on TSMC 10nm, even though it actually has a brand new core design.
    Why does it matter that something perform equally or not?
    China is making great progress and that's the most important.
    Reply
  • phead128
    Pierce2623 said:
    This will be the same as the “7nm” Kirin 9000s that can’t perform equally to 5 year old core designs on TSMC 10nm, even though it actually has a brand new core design.
    The original goal of US sanctions was 0% yield on sub-14nm nodes by stopping all shipment of DUV equipment, on top of EUV lithography.

    So any yield >0% on performance better than 14nm is a win for China.

    All this proves that export controls do not work and only accelerate China's development in semiconductors.
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    The politically slant on these articles are getting ridiculous.

    First of, a country that makes something better than what outside companies are allowed to sell to the country in questions does not do the following: violates, defy, get around, bust, etc. sanctions/export rules. A company would have to sell to the country in question equipment or the band items in order to violate an export rule. A country making an item itself violates nothing (unless the country applies the rule to itself).
    Reply
  • ThomasKinsley
    Pierce2623 said:
    This will be the same as the “7nm” Kirin 9000s that can’t perform equally to 5 year old core designs on TSMC 10nm, even though it actually has a brand new core design.
    You have it reversed. The TSMC design is 5nm and the 9000S produces a good showing, if benchmarks are to be believed, despite being 7nm, especially in AnTuTu10 and GeekBench 6. The TSMC is also only a 3 year design. Only in the GPU is the 9000S weak. Battery life is yet to be seen but it is fair to say it is probably worse for the 9000S, being 7nm. Still a very good result for a domestic production.

    GeekBench 6 Kirin 9000SKirin 9000 TSMCAsset compression172.6 MB/sec146.1 MB/secHTML 5 Browser125.5 pages/sec90.8 pages/secPDF Renderer136.4 Mpixels/sec113.9 Mpixels/secImage detection76.8 images/sec71.8 images/secHDR118.1 Mpixels/sec98.9 Mpixels/secBackground blur11.8 images/sec11.8 images/secPhoto processing45.1 images/sec29.7 images/secRay tracing5.15 Mpixels/sec4.01 Mpixels/sec
    AnTuTu10Kirin 9000SKirin 9000 TSMCCPU279677242171GPU200982315801Memory225491155272UX194615188275Total score900765892502
    Reply
  • phead128
    JamesJones44 said:
    These politically slant on these articles are getting ridiculous.

    First of, a country that makes something better than what outside companies are allowed to sell to the country in questions does not do the following: violates, defy, get around, bust, etc. sanctions/export rules. A company would have to sell to the country in question equipment or the band items in order to violate an export rule. A country making itself violates nothing (unless the country applies the rule to itself).
    Yes, importers cannot "violate" US export controls, only exporters can.
    Also, US export controls cannot "ban" the laws of physics operating in China, so if they making an indigenous breakthrough, it's not a "violation" of export controls, it's application of laws of physics which US cannot "ban" unless it does hogwarts magic wizardy.
    Reply
  • stargem
    Another blatantly incorrect article, and this time I had to comment. A Chinese company CANNOT violate US law, because US law doesn't apply outside US. All US can do is prevent US companies from exporting tech to China, which is what a sanction is. So if the sanction was violated, it was done by a US company, not Chinese.
    Reply
  • d0x360
    Admin said:
    CXMT reportedly candidly violates U.S. sanctions with its GAA-based 18nm DRAM process technology with 4F^2 cell design that it presented at IEDM.

    China's memory maker CXMT reportedly violates U.S. export rules with its 18nm 3D DRAM — chipmaker blatantly presented new tech at industry conferen... : Read more

    Actually it was just discovered that it wasn't what they claimed and in fact made by TSMC and not with any design that came from China or anyone related.

    Once again they prove they rely on theft and not actual innovation.
    Reply
  • purpleduggy
    I wonder what the US will do when China creates export rules for US companies. Think its unlikely? Think again. Free trade is crucial or you risk becoming the victim of the same sanctions you imposed on others. All this does is increase prices for the consumer. US and China should work together and build utopia.
    Reply