SMIC and Huawei could use quadruple patterning for China-made 5nm chips: Report
Self-aligned quadruple patterning (SAQC) is now patented in China.
Huawei and presumably China's Semiconductor Manufacturing International Co. (SMIC) have submitted patents for a chip production method called self-aligned quadruple patterning (SAQP). The ultimate aim is to produce chips on a 5nm-class process technology, according to a Bloomberg report. The very same method was a major reason for the failure of Intel’s 1st Generation 10nm-class process technology, but Huawei and SMIC have no choice but to use quadruple patterning as they do not have access to leading-edge production tools due to U.S. export rules.
Usage of SAQP could enable SMIC to build chips on sub-10nm technologies (we are talking about SMIC’s rumored 5nm fabrication process) despite U.S. efforts to limit China’s capabilities in the field of advanced semiconductor production. In Intel’s case, SAQP technology was meant to eliminate reliance on high-end lithography, specifically extreme ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines made by ASML. In the Huawei and SMIC case, quadruple patterning is the only technique that increases transistor density using the tools that the contract chipmaker already has.
The SAQP method described in Huawei's patent application involves etching lines on silicon wafers multiple times to boost transistor density, reduce power consumption, and potentially increase performance. This approach could allow for the production of more sophisticated chips than those that SMIC already produces for Huawei, including the Kirin 9000S. SiCarrier, a state-backed chipmaking gear developer working with Huawei, has also been granted a patent that involves multipatterning, according to Bloomberg, which again confirms SMIC's plans to use this technology for its next-generation nodes.
Despite the potential of quadruple-patterning technology to enable China to manufacture 5nm-class chips, experts like Dan Hutcheson, vice-chairman at TechInsights, believe that China will eventually need to acquire or develop EUV machines for long-term competitiveness beyond 5nm-class nodes. If Huawei and its partners resort to alternative methods for semiconductor production, their cost per chip may exceed what is economically feasible for commercial devices like PCs and smartphones. Then again, processors used for supercomputers, which in turn could be used for developing weapons including weapons of mass destruction, don't need to pay heed to commercial economic restrictions.
While developing weapons may be important for China, the advancements in chip technology are crucial for the country's economy. Nowadays it is largely based on demand from within the country and somehow buyers in China would like to possess competitive products, such as an iPhone from Apple. This is where Huawei may use the tech, for consumer system-on-chip design, but its chipmaking partner SMIC has to catch up and this ultimately involves acquiring advanced chipmaking process technologies.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
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.
-
jkflipflop98 It's going to happen, eventually. The chinese aren't stupid, and they have the full backing of a nation's resources behind them. Eventually they're going to home-brew their own solution to this problem.Reply -
The Historical Fidelity
Yes but the real question is will they be able to develop EUV while it is still relevant. The west is already well underway developing BEUV and soft X-Ray lithography.jkflipflop98 said:It's going to happen, eventually. The chinese aren't stupid, and they have the full backing of a nation's resources behind them. Eventually they're going to home-brew their own solution to this problem. -
jkflipflop98 That's very true. It could be EUV, it may be some type of electron beam based solution, it may be something totally radical no one else has ever thought of.Reply -
The Historical Fidelity
Very true, and the west could obsolete all of China’s development by coming out with some radical new lithography. But let’s not swim in theoreticals. Most likely China will need 20 to 30 years to develop EUV, then create the on-shore infrastructure to replace their former access to the global lithography supply ecosystem. This assumes China does not cheat by hacking or spying of course.jkflipflop98 said:That's very true. It could be EUV, it may be some type of electron beam based solution, it may be something totally radical no one else has ever thought of. -
Pierce2623
Oh sure, everything happens eventually. Right now though, this stuff is meaningless. Their “7nm” was already extremely far behind on performance compared to TSMC 7nm, and the same will apply to “5nm” as well. Also trying to stretch old technology way beyond it’s effective ceiling also makes these extremely expensive nodes to use as well.jkflipflop98 said:It's going to happen, eventually. The chinese aren't stupid, and they have the full backing of a nation's resources behind them. Eventually they're going to home-brew their own solution to this problem. -
usertests
It would be funny if they offered cheaper chips even with the quadruple patterning. But if the application demands homegrown solutions, they can eat the cost, and some products are so expensive that the wafer costs don't even matter.jkflipflop98 said:It's going to happen, eventually. The chinese aren't stupid, and they have the full backing of a nation's resources behind them. Eventually they're going to home-brew their own solution to this problem.
For example, Wafer Scale Engine units are apparently sold for millions of dollars but TSMC N5 wafers cost only $16,000. Consumer electronics may suffer from high wafer costs but enterprise-grade AI chips are the thing that's in short supply right now. Many home and office PCs would be fine with e.g. a 28/22/14nm class node. The latest 8-core Zhaoxin x86 CPUs of unknown fab origin are overkill for personal computing and apparently not affected by sanctions yet, so they should try to get as many of those as they can.
Even if the latest SMIC process node is more expensive, less performant, and less efficient than the competition, it can be fine because the most important thing right now is volume (especially having more than... zero wafers). They can catch up later, which will be easier to do if transistor progress is slow or halted. -
edzieba The very same method was a major reason for the failure of Intel’s 1st Generation 10nm-class process technology
But also worked perfectly well for all subsequent 10nm-class processes, including those used to fab their desktop chips today. SAQP does not appear to have been a limiter for yields or output volume. -
Chips4all
The next challenge will be economic, that is political, with 19 fabs coming online to dump/corner the >17nm chip market & leverage such capacity in the >5nm production, despite throughput, yields, even binnings, being at such low levels they would bankrupt any Western company vs state-owned or subsidized Chinese sector.Pierce2623 said:Oh sure, everything happens eventually. Right now though, this stuff is meaningless. Their “7nm” was already extremely far behind on performance compared to TSMC 7nm, and the same will apply to “5nm” as well. Also trying to stretch old technology way beyond it’s effective ceiling also makes these extremely expensive nodes to use as well.
What products need such chip production capacity is obviously cars or military. --- time to do more work in the West & focus on US STEM here. -
Chips4all
Definitely there was an increased cost for multiple litho lines, storage & amhs, but once in place the constraint tool issue was no longer & target throughput ok.... Yield/binning issues can be addressed.edzieba said:But also worked perfectly well for all subsequent 10nm-class processes, including those used to fab their desktop chips today. SAQP does not appear to have been a limiter for yields or output volume. -
COLGeek Folks, as a reminder. Focus on the technology aspect of the topic. Not politics. Thank you.Reply