Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Comparing traditional OPC to field-based OPC for 45-nm node production
Author(s): Rick Farnbach; Josh Tuttle; Matt St. John; Randy Brown; Dave Gerold; Kevin Lucas; Robert Lugg; James Shiely; Mike Rieger
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00
cover GOOD NEWS! Your organization subscribes to the SPIE Digital Library. You may be able to download this paper for free. Check Access

Paper Abstract

The upcoming 45nm device node is a point at which newer field-based (i.e., dense pixel-based) OPC simulation methods may begin to show advantages over sparse-sampling ("flash") simulation methods. Field-based simulation provides computational efficiencies in applications where a large number of model evaluation locations are needed, and where the simulated layout geometry is complex. Field-based simulation leverages computation in the frequency domain, whereas sparse-sampling methods operate in the space domain. Mathematically, both methods are equivalent but their respective numerical methods give rise to some implementation differences for OPC applications. These differences include different optimization strategies for hierarchical processing, and fine-grained feature symmetry control for critical matched-transistor circuits (such as SRAM, where noise margin is a fundamental device control issue). An optimum, field-based OPC solution will address these differences without compromising the performance benefits of field-based methods. In this paper we describe and compare the manufacturing implementation of flash-based and field-based OPC at the 45nm and 32nm device nodes

Paper Details

Date Published: 4 April 2007
PDF: 10 pages
Proc. SPIE 6520, Optical Microlithography XX, 65204F (4 April 2007); doi: 10.1117/12.721593
Show Author Affiliations
Rick Farnbach, Synopsys, Inc. (United States)
Josh Tuttle, Synopsys, Inc. (United States)
Matt St. John, Synopsys, Inc. (United States)
Randy Brown, Synopsys, Inc. (United States)
Dave Gerold, Synopsys, Inc. (United States)
Kevin Lucas, Synopsys, Inc. (United States)
Robert Lugg, Synopsys, Inc. (United States)
James Shiely, Synopsys, Inc. (United States)
Mike Rieger, Synopsys, Inc. (United States)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 6520:
Optical Microlithography XX
Donis G. Flagello, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top