The Designer's Guide Community Forum

The Designer's Guide Community Forum
https://designers-guide.org/forum/YaBB.pl
Design >> Analog Design >> channel length vs technology
https://designers-guide.org/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1269271848

Message started by siddhartha .k on Mar 22^nd, 2010, 8:30am

Title: channel length vs technology
Post by siddhartha .k on Mar 22^nd, 2010, 8:30am

Hi
For 65nm channel length of transistor is 60nm insted of 65nm for 90nm channel length is 100nm insted of 90nm why...Can u plz rectify.

Title: Re: channel length vs technology
Post by loose-electron on Mar 22^nd, 2010, 2:35pm

there is the concepts of "drawn length" vs. "effective length" vs. "physical length"

What you draw (in Layout) is not what you see (electron microscope) vs. what it performs like in comparison to models ( effective length)

Most foundries have largely tossed this out of the conversation and links everything to the "drawn length"

You say in your schematic, that L=90nm, W=400nm and everything links and simulates from there.

Under an electron microscope the L = 69 and the W= 395 but you really don't care because the transistor model is tied to the drawn length, and simulations vs. silicon are in agreement.

With things like angualr implants (aka halo implants) it starts to get a little fuzzy when you realize that you would need to account for the angles and depth issues as well.

(substitute the word "width" for "length" in the above, as well)

Title: Re: channel length vs technology
Post by siddhartha .k on Mar 24^th, 2010, 11:19am

Thank you San Diego California

Title: Re: channel length vs technology
Post by loose-electron on Mar 24^th, 2010, 12:33pm

not a problem, happy to help,
Jerry