1. International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors
2005 ITRS/ORTC Product Model Proposals
For Public 07/13/05 Conference
(based on Rev1Kc, 07/12/05)

2. ORTC Overview - 2005 ITRS Proposals
Recommendation for one standard TWG table technology trend header
Presently continue to use DRAM stagger-contacted M1 as typical industry lithography driver – UNCHANGED from the 2003/2004 Roadmap Update
Remove ITRS single-product “node” label emphasis, to minimize industry guidance confusion; as we transition to product-oriented technology trend drivers and cycles*
ORTC Table 1a,b - adjusted to Proposed Japan (STRJ) MPU/ASIC M1 Half-Pitch Trend
Stagger-contacted, same as DRAM
2.5-year Technology Cycle* (.5x/5yrs)
180nm/2000; 90nm/2005; 45nm/2010(equal DRAM)
Then continue on a 3-year Technology Cycle*, equal to DRAM
ORTC Table 1a,b - added Proposed STRJ Flash Poly (Un-contacted dense lines)
2-year Technology Cycle* (0.5x/4yrs)
180nm/2000; 130nm/2002; 90nm/2004; 65nm/2006
Then 3-year Technology Cycle* 1 year ahead of DRAM ’06-’20
ORTC Table 1a,b – adjusted MPU/ASIC Printed Gate Length to FEP and Litho TWG agreement for ratio relationship to Final Physical Gate Length, which remains UNCHANGED from the 2005 ITRS targets (3-year cycle* after 2005)
TWG table Product-specific technology trend driver header items to be added to individual TWG tables from ORTC Table 1a&b
Chip Size Models connected to proposals and historical trends, incl. new Flash Model
Function Size [Logic Gate; SRAM Cell; Dram Cell; Flash Cell (SLC, MLC)]
Functions/Chip [Flash; DRAM; High Performance (hp) MPU; Cost Perf. (cp) MPU]
Chip Size [hp MPU; cp MPU; DRAM; Flash]
*Note: Cycle = time to 0.5x
linear scaling every two
cycle periods ~ 0.71x/ cycle
DRAFT – Work In Progress - NOT FOR PUBLICATION July 2005

3. 2003/2004 ITRS Definition of the Half Pitch - WAS
Source: ITRS - Exec. Summary Fig 4
2003/2004 ITRS Definition of the Half Pitch - WAS
[DRAM half-pitch determines the 2003 ITRS “node”]
Metal
Pitch
Typical DRAM
Metal Bit Line
DRAM ½ Pitch
= DRAM Metal Pitch/2
Poly
Typical MPU/ASIC
Un-contacted Poly
MPU/ASIC Poly Silicon ½ Pitch
= MPU/ASIC Poly Pitch/2
Contacted Metal 1
MPU/ASIC M1 ½ Pitch
= MPU/ASIC M1 Pitch/2
Metal 1 (M1)

4. 2005 Definition of the Half Pitch – IS
[No single-product “node” designation; DRAM half-pitch still litho driver; however, other product technology trends may be drivers on individual TWG tables]
Metal
Pitch
Typical DRAM/MPU/ASIC
Metal Bit Line
DRAM ½ Pitch
= DRAM Metal Pitch/2
MPU/ASIC M1 ½ Pitch
= MPU/ASIC M1 Pitch/2
Poly
Typical flash
Un-contacted Poly
FLASH Poly Silicon ½ Pitch
= Flash Poly Pitch/2
8-16 Lines

5. Fig 2 Production Ramp-up Model and Technology Node -24 12 24 -12
Volume (Parts/Month) 1K
10K
100K
Months
-24 1M
10M
100M
Alpha
Tool 12 24
-12
Development
Production
Beta
First
Conf.
Papers
First Two Companies
Reaching Production
Volume (Wafers/Month) 2 20
200 2K
20K
200K
Source: ITRS - Exec. Summary Fig 2
Fig 2
[UNCHANGED]

6. Source: 2003 ITRS - Exec. Summary
hp22
hp32
hp45
hp65
hp90
2018
2016
2015
2013
2012
2010
2009
2007
2006
2004
2003
2002
[Actual]
Year of Production
hp130
Technology Node (nm)
WAS: 2003 ITRS Technology Nodes: 3-year cycle*
3-Year Technology Cycle
2-Year Technology
Cycle [ actual]
Note: Faster introduction of half-poly pitch from Flash is expected; and
Doubling of transistors every 2 years from MPU/ASIC is expected.
* Cycle Time = one-half of the time to reach a technology trend reduction to 0.5x
Source: ITRS - Exec. Summary

7. DRAFT – Work In Progress - NOT FOR PUBLICATION 13 July 2005
Note: Faster introduction of half-poly pitch from Flash is expected; Doubling of transistors every 2 years from MPU/ASIC is expected
2005 ITRS Flash Poly Half-Pitch Technology: 2.0-year cycle until 1yr ahead of
3-Year Technology Cycle
2-Year Technology Cycle [’98-’06 ]
Year of Production
Technology -
Uncontacted
Poly H-P (nm)
2003
2005
2001 65 22 32 45 16
2008
2006
2002
[Actual]
2004
2000 90
130
180 76
107
151 50 57 13
2015
2012
2009
2018
2016
2013
2010
2019
2020
2005 ITRS MPU M1 Half-Pitch Technology: 2.5-year cycle; then equal
Technology
- Contacted
M1 H-P (nm)
157
136
119
103 78 68 59 52
[July’08]
[July’02]
[130]
[ 65]
2007
2.5-Year Technology Cycle
3-2-Yr
Cycle] 14
IS: (’05-’20) ITRS Technology Trends DRAM M1 Half-Pitch : 3-year cycle
2-Year Technology Cycle
[‘98-’04] 80 71 10
DRAFT – Work In Progress - NOT FOR PUBLICATION July 2005

8. 2005 ITRS Product Technology Trends
.71x/2.5yrs
Historical
.71x/3yrs
2005 ITRS Product Technology Trends
Past   Future
ITRS Range
[Cross DRAM 65nm/2006
1 year ahead after that]
[Equal DRAM 45nm/2010]
[GLpr IS = x
GLph WAS, which is
unchanged from 2003/04
ITRS, but under discussion
by FEP, PIDS, Litho,
and Design TWGs
for CD-control red limits]
[Unchanged from 2003 ITRS]
.71x/2yrs
GLpr / GLph =
Ratio
DRAM Survey Update:
- DRAM (H-P unchanged)
Flash: Japan/STRJ
MPU: Japan/STRJ

9. DRAFT – Work In Progress - NOT FOR PUBLICATION 13 July 2005
Past   Future
ITRS Range
DRAM IS: 8f2 -> 6f2 / 2008
5f2
~ 29f2
~ 320f2
Flash 28f2 -> 4f2
[WAS: ITRS]
[IS: ITRS]
Note:
f = product-related
Half-Pitch
Feature Size;
A = product-related
Design Factor;
n = # transistors per
SRAM cell or
MPU Logic Gate;
Af2 = Function Size;
Af2/n = SRAM Cell or
Logic Gate
Transistor Size
Note for Flash: SLC =
Single-Level-Cell Size
MLC =
Multi-Level-Cell
(Electrical Equivalent) Cell Size
DRAFT – Work In Progress - NOT FOR PUBLICATION July 2005

10. Moore’s Law After 40 years (functions per chip)
4004
8080
8086
8008
Pentium® Processor
486™ DX Processor
386™ Processor
286
Pentium® II Processor
Pentium® III Processor
Itanium® Processor
Pentium® 4 Processor
Itanium® 2 Processor
2X/2YR
2X/1YR
Source: Intel® Corp.
Moore’s Law states that the number of trasistors that can be crammed onto a chip will double every two years. Intel’s microprocessors have followed this trend for over 3 decades! Our latest Itanium® 2 processor, codenamed Madison, contains over 400 million transistors. We expect to have a 1 billion transistor microprocessor in the early part of the 2nd half of this decade.

11. DRAFT – Work In Progress - NOT FOR PUBLICATION 13 July 2005
Chip Size Trends – 2005 ITRS Functions/Chip Model Proposal IS
(WAS)
Past   Future
ITRS Range
Average
Industry
“Moore’s Law”
2x Functions/chip
Per 2 years
Production, Affordable Chip Size**)
** Affordable
Production
Chip Size Targets:
DRAM, Flash < 145mm2
hp MPU < 310mm2
cp MPU < 140mm2
** Example
1.1Gt P07h MPU
@ intro in 2004/620mm2
@ prod in 2007/310mm2
0.39Gt P07c MPU
@ intro in 2004/280mm2
@ prod in 2007/140mm2
MPU ahead or =
2x Xstors/chip
Thru 2010
DRAFT – Work In Progress - NOT FOR PUBLICATION July 2005

12. DRAFT – Work In Progress - NOT FOR PUBLICATION 13 July 2005
Past   Future
ITRS Range
Chip Size Trends – 2003/04 vs.2005 ITRS DRAM & Flash (NEW) Model IS
DRAFT – Work In Progress - NOT FOR PUBLICATION July 2005

13. DRAFT – Work In Progress - NOT FOR PUBLICATION 13 July 2005
Past   Future
ITRS Range
Chip Size Trends – 2003/04 vs.2005 ITRS Flash (NEW) Model IS
DRAFT – Work In Progress - NOT FOR PUBLICATION July 2005

14. DRAFT – Work In Progress - NOT FOR PUBLICATION 13 July 2005
Past   Future
ITRS Range
Chip Size Trends – 2005 ITRS MPU Model Proposal IS
DRAFT – Work In Progress - NOT FOR PUBLICATION July 2005

15. DRAFT – Work In Progress - NOT FOR PUBLICATION 13 July 2005
Summary
DRAM Model stagger-contacted M1 is unchanged from 2003/2004 Update ITRS (single-“Node” reference removed)
MPU Revised M1 to stagger-contact half-pitch (same as DRAM) and 2.5-year cycle* through 2010, then 3-year cycle* same as DRAM
New Flash Model Added for un-contacted poly half-pitch and equal to DRAM contacted, but continues on 2-year cycle* to 1 year ahead of DRAM in 2006, then 3-year cycle* same as DRAM
Printed MPU/ASIC Gate Length adjusted to new FEP and Litho TWGs ratio agreement, but Physical GL unchanged and on 3-year cycle* beginning 2005
Historical chip size models “connected” to new Product model proposals, including design factors, function size, and array efficiencies
Average industry product “Moore’s Law” met or exceeded throughout ITRS timeframe
[* ITRS Cycle definition = time to .5x linear scaling every two cycle periods]
DRAFT – Work In Progress - NOT FOR PUBLICATION July 2005

16. Backup

17. Generic ITRS Table Header Technology Trend Proposal:
Optional (from ORTC Table 1a&b) TWG Table Product-Specific Technology Trend Proposals: