I just want to add the term "ADVANCED" in terms of foundry node now has an official meaning anything sub 7nm. With specific rules in place in terms of export especially to China. This was a reference from ASML presentation not so long ago.
It is also important to point out, the achievement here is how fast TSMC manage to set things up and running even without the home ground advantage. Intel couldn't even replicate this time frame if it was their Intel 7nm Fab. And of course the greatest record was that with enough planning and permission done before hand TSMC manage to have the fab built and running within 18 months in Taiwan. ( Arguably closer to 12 months )
This also means unless a miracle happen or US Gov being unfair with certain things the chances of Intel catching up with its current team, management, board members and investors, against TSMC in terms of capacity, price, and lead time as a foundry is close to zero. ( I am sorry but I lost all faith and hope now Pat Gelsinger is out. )
Once TSMC 2nm hits the ground later this year, TSMC US will also start their 3nm work if they haven't started now.
It’s about demand isn’t it? TSMC have red hot demand, it’s not hard to understand their urgency in setting up new fabs, wherever they may be. Intel don’t have the same incentive - their incentive is to take the money (because, why wouldn’t you), build newer fabs and hope for some breakthrough in demand. The urgency is not there: being complete before there is demand could be detrimental
Yes. There used to be a saying the most expensive Fab ( or factory ) isn't the most advance Fab, but an empty Fab.
You cant built without first ensuring you can fill it, you cant fill it without first ensuring you can deliver. And Intel has failed to deliver twice with their custom foundry. Both times with Nokia and Ericsson. How the two fall for it twice is completely beyond me, but then Intel are known to have very good sales teams.
Intel will need another Apple moment that has huge demand, little margin, but willing to pay up front. On the assumption that Intel is even price competitive. The Apple modem may be it. But given the current situation with Intel as they want to lower Capital spending I am not even sure if betting on Intel is a risk Apple is willing to make. Comparing to a stable consistent relationship with TSMC.
> On the assumption that Intel is even price competitive. The Apple modem may be it.
Which is super interesting/ironic with the entire reason for an “apple modem” is due to Intels failure there a decade ago. Bonus irony for the subsequent acquisition.
Intel wasn't able to ship a competitive modem to Qualcomm and the whole point of the acquisition was to get rid of Qualcomm and even apple hasn't gotten a shipping version of a 5g modem for six years since the first intel modem started in 2018. This was really to vertically integrate the modem in all of the relevant Apple Silicon devices and it keeps going on...
No, you have to read more of the thread to understand why I asked it.
> TSMC have red hot demand, it’s not hard to understand their urgency in setting up new fabs, wherever they may be. Intel don’t have the same incentive (...)
There was some discussion awhile back about Intel potentially fabbing ARM chips (or any other custom non-x86 chip) as a viable business in the future. I don’t know how serious they were but it sounded plausible when you think about how important it is to have an American leading edge fab, independent of the market future of the x86 ISA.
Basically what would it take for Intel to still have Apple as a customer even if Apple made their own ARM designs…
They feed into each other especially for anything that isn't a vanilla gate. Got a deeply ported SRAM with bypasses? That might fail synthesis if it is too choked by wire rules for the size of the cells so now it's banking time.
If you believe you can consistently predict future like that, it should clearly guide your investment in stocks.
However, just like how quickly and suddenly Intel lost the lead, things may turn around for TSMC too: at some point, their research hits a dead end and somebody overtakes them too.
>If you believe you can consistently predict future like that, it should clearly guide your investment in stocks.
Perhaps I should have written with Disclosures. For the record I did invest in AMD when it was below $3 and TSMC at below $400TWD. None of these are investment advices so take it what you will. ( You get much better return with Tesla and Nvidia in the same period of time but then investment isn't always about best returns. ) And I was waiting to invest into Intel, unfortunately Pat is gone. To my words I said this in April 2023 [1]
"I am just worried if Stock price continue to fall, Pat may be forced out again by those stupid Board. And if Pat is out, I won’t invest in Intel at all."
As you will read in my reply below, I have a very negative view on Intel's board for a very very long time.
>However, just like how quickly and suddenly Intel lost the lead
It wasn't quick or even sudden. I wrote about it in 2014 and got a death threat from Intel Fan boys then. I have been questioning about Intel's management on GPU, Fab capacity allocation, CapEX, dividends etc for a very long time. For another point, TSMC never wanted to be the most advance manufacturing Fab. Them having leading node is purely accidental and Intel's slip up. They have been doing Intel -1 node for most of their history and are doing just fine. Providing Pure Play Foundry Services with Industry wide support on Tools at a reasonable / acceptable price for Fabless players. And right now, they are firing on all cylinders.
Again. None of these are investment advices and personal opinion only.
Wikipedia lists Intel 3 is roughly the same tech level as TSMC 3nm [1], but without listing transistor density. Intel is producing the Xeon 6 using Intel 3 [2]. So arguably Intel has a more advanced process in the USA than TSMC, which is doing 4nm in the USA next year. Intel's production is probably not very high.
Wikichip is my go to (which is down right now for me unfortunately). It’s important to look at the latest data because Intel’s internal nodes real specs have not met the stated expectations recently
I'm not refuting the statement, only pointing out that density is not the only factor.
Unfortunately, these numbers are arbitrary and companies are guessing what performs about like what based on numerous factors. Often wrongly - Samsung's equivalents were so bad Qualcomm pretty much abandoned them, and for good reason. Anyone who used an Exynos or SD888 understands why.
I feel like we should have landed on a better tracking system now, like perf/watt, but here we are.
That was before Intel renamed their process nodes. They went from being 1 node more dense to being 1 node less dense with their new naming scheme. You need Intel 4 to match TSMC 5nm.
But for those living close to the plant, I'm not so sure:
"Environmental, and public health groups, including the Sierra Club, are urging President Joe Biden to veto a controversial bill that exempts most semiconductor companies applying for federal CHIPS Act funding from having to complete essential environmental reviews, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA."
“Exempting the semiconductor industry from NEPA is completely unwarranted, especially considering the projected significant increase use of PFAS and other toxic chemicals by the industry and their track record of releasing these dangerous chemicals into the air and water surrounding the facilities,” said Tom Fox, Senior Legislative Counsel at the Center for Environmental Health"
But not 2 nm node (N2{,P,X}) until about 2028. The delay is still indicative of protectionism. Until the US has a (or preferably more) American company with 2 nm capabilities with the whole process including diffusion and packaging, there's no real native, strategic capability.
What American company would even attempt this aside from Intel? IBM still does the relevant research, but quit the business of actually using it. They licensed their 2nm process technology research to Japan’s Rapidus if I recall. I cannot think of anyone else in the US that would be willing to take the risk of trying to start a 2nm foundry service.
I've read in the interview below that all attempts to implement IBM's copper interconnects failed, except for TSMC.
At least for this particular technology, IBM did not deliver everything needed to do this.
"So, when we went to .13u, .13u the people began to change from aluminum to copper. And IBM was the leader for the copper metal. They had the longest history of developing copper technology. They worked for more than ten years on copper. TSMC didn't have any experience in copper at all. So, when we decided we need to adopt copper, okay. So, the copper is one story and low-k material is another one. IBM decided kind of low-k material is a spin-on material called SILK. IBM had a Research Consortium that IBM-- Samsung joined them, I think, ST Micro joined them. Several companies joined the Consortium.
"And UMC joined them. But we didn't join them. They all used that spin-on low-K material. But we decided to use CVD - instead of flourine-doped it's a carbon-doped made by Applied Materials. They're called Black Diamond. So, we choose Black Diamond. The reason we chose Black Diamond was very simple, because I suffer at .18 with a spin-on. I wouldn't touch spin-on again. <laughter> But they didn't go through that. So, we were very, very lucky. TSMC became the first company in the world which was able to ship a manufacturing wafers with the copper and low-k, because IBM failed... Later on they found reliability the problem."
Spin in is an interesting tech history. As for cvd low-k, it is mostly how much C is in your silicon, and likewise how you setup the damascene etch stop. Intel was low-ish k in about 2002 on 130nm.
I am not so sure tsm was first. Depends on how you define lowk.
That is what Intel 18A is, no? In some ways it’s worse than N2, and in some ways it’s better. Overall seems comparable to me, and apparently it’s still on track for next year.
It's an awesome contingency. If the island falls, they can destroy/impair the local infrastructure, and reconstitute it in the US. Destroy in this context does not mean mass physical destruction. It is a combination of removal of keys and select components. The message being you can have the island but not the business.
And? Advanced nodes aren't really relevant to subtracting where it is from where it isn't. China is ideologically motivated to conquer Taiwan not economically.
I think you meant "less than one generation behind." Or as the article you linked to says:
"Taiwanese law limits domestic chipmakers to producing chips abroad that are at least one generation less advanced than their fabs at home"
I wonder how the economics will end up – sure, American fabs won't have cutting-edge processes, but in the end there's a stable market for older processes that are critical to industrial capability (e.g. automotive and sensing, high-reliability processors, etc.) One node behind still remains very good value without the visicssitudes of relying on the unstable market for leading-edge products.
As I post every time this question gets asked: no. ASML build fancy printers. Buy an ASML machine and you can now etch nanometer-scale features into something. That’s a great party trick. You still need to know what features to print and how to make the materials you print your design on. The ASML part (lithography) is a hard part but it’s not even close to the biggest hard part. Thus, why semiconductor processes are differentiated in the first place.
China is in the beginning of a 30 year Great Depression, in no shape to invade Taiwan. Consumer spending in Beijing and Shanghai fell 20% y/y in November. Real estate prices have collapsed 50%, even in some parts of Beijing and Shanghai. Trump has filled the cabinet with mostly anti-China hawks, indicating large tariffs coming next year. Capital outflow from China increased to $45B in November, largest monthly deficit ever. China is pretty fucked.
That does sound like a fabulous time to start a jingoistic war to flame the nationalistic sentiments and declare any dissenters traitors to the nation.
Semiconductor fabrication was viewed as a commodified cost center until COVID related supply chain instability.
Furthermore, packaging and testing was largely outsourced and the domestic semiconductor industry imploded in the 2010s with IBM Micro and AMD's failures.
The same thing happened to Japan when they began offshoring Memory Fabrication to South Korea and Taiwan in the 1990s-2000s.
That said, from a NatSec perspective legacy processes (28nm, 48nm) and compound semiconductors would be much more critical (and a significant amount of funding has been devoted to that).
Japan is trying to rebuild its leading edge capability with Rapidus using IBM technology. Interestingly, IBM still does the research needed to make a fabrication plant. They just don’t want to assume the risks from deploying it in production anymore as far as I can tell.
> Interestingly, IBM still does the research needed to make a fabrication plant
Yep. They still own the IP from the IBM Microelectronics days.
Much of the breakthroughs in EUV were done in Upstate NY (especially at SUNY Albany, SUNY Polytechnic, and RPI), and a lot of that was co-owned by IBM, ASML, and TEL.
> They just don’t want to assume the risks
The capex - and pretty much.
Semiconductor Fabrication is high cost, low margins, so it's difficult to spin up without industrial policy.
Free market doctrine, plus the investor class wanting to be able to reap the benefits of outsourcing without being concerned about strategic issues. Occasional proposals to this effect have historically been denounced as protectionism, industrial policy (practically socialism!) and 'picking winners and losers'. I am surprised you're unaware of this.
Japan itself largely began offshoring fabrication in the 1990s.
It was Japanese OSAT players like Hitachi that sparked the Penang packaging cluster in Malaysia in the 70s-90s and Japanese Memory firms like NEC+Hitachi that started South Korea and Taiwan's fabrication industries.
Taiwan didn't truly become a leader in the cutting edge fab space until the 2010s when US, SK, and Japanese players dropped the ball, and Apple chose TSMC in the 2010s due to their patent litigation with Samsung (nixing South Korea).
So much of TSMC's dominance now is due to the influx of Apple cash in the 2010s boosting R&D spending, which in turn is because millenials bought a shit tonne of Apple devices because they were convinced by marketing.
TSMC's dominance is at least as much Intel's fault as it is Apple's. And even if Apple hadn't been funneling so much money to TSMC, the smartphone industry as a whole still would have been a cash cow for TSMC. Intel sure wasn't going to be in the running as a smartphone SoC designer or as a foundry for somebody else's smartphone SoCs. In an alternative history where Android thoroughly beat out iOS even for high-end/high-margin smartphones, Samsung's foundry business probably would have been a bit better off, but overall it would still be TSMC as the leading foundry, just with Qualcomm as the launch customer for new nodes rather than Apple.
Apple pays TSMC better than anyone else does since they want the best processes and are willing to pay a premium to cover much of the investment needed to achieve them. Losing them would really hurt TSMC. Not having them in the 10s would have slowed down TSMC’s development of new process technology.
> Intel sure wasn't going to be in the running as a smartphone SoC designer or as a foundry for somebody else's smartphone SoCs
Intel did try doing this in the 2000s, but couldn't justify the resourcing needed for this due to x86 as well as their restrictive licensing of Intel Atom.
Meanwhile, ARM was fabless and just licensed to anyone (a major reason why Chinese challenger brands exist in the Chips space today)
Fundamentally, you cannot be both an IP creator (eg. Design) and chip fabricator, as both functions have different economics and competitive structures, and one BU inevitabely holds the other back.
> Samsung's foundry business probably would have been a bit better off, but overall it would still be TSMC as the leading foundry
Samsung, SK Hynix, and other Korean players dropped the ball due to the Apple lawsuit as well as the 2016-17 SK-China trade war (impacted SK exports to China - including intermediate parts) and the 2019-23 SK-Japan trade war (a number of critical components in fabrication are supplied by Japanese firms like Tokyo Electron and Nikon and were impacted by mutual tariffs)
> Fundamentally, you cannot be both an IP creator (eg. Design) and chip fabricator, as both functions have different economics and competitive structures, and one BU inevitabely holds the other back.
Vertical integration can win too, it worked for Intel for decades.
Most players in the hardware industry try to specialize in one function and do that very well, as this builds your competitive advantage AND allows you to leverage partnerships to further enhance your moat by building an ecosystem.
For example, ARM is purely design driven - targeted specifically at low power compute usecases - and licensed it's IP out to just about any player, which allowed an ecosystem to develop.
Nvidia did the same thing by remaining fabless and only concentrating on GPUs.
TSMC concentrates only on fabrication and doesn't dare enter design because they know all their customers would leave overnight because they would not want to subsidize a potential competitor.
Intel was in too many segments, which meant it was inevitably competing with everybody, which forced everyone to leverage partnerships to challenge the big baddie.
A similar thing happened to Samsung to a certain extent as well.
No. TSMC's 4nm processes are part of the 5nm family. 3nm has been shipping for over a year, and is only fabbed in Taiwan for now and the next few years.
It's not on par with the best TSMC has in Taiwan, but most companies are still using 4nm. Yes, 3nm has been shipping for over a year - but only if your company is named Apple. Intel just launched a small portion of its products using 3nm two months ago.
I think realistically it'd be more fair to say that 3nm is coming in 2025 and there's a huge distance between 2025 and 2028 (when they'll start doing 3nm and 2nm in the US). Right now, AMD, Nvidia, and Qualcomm aren't doing 3nm. If the world lost 3nm today, it'd basically be Apple's products that would get hit. It'd definitely screw over Apple and it'd mess up the future plans for AMD, Nvidia, and Qualcomm, but it's not like the industry has been using 3nm for over a year. No, only Apple.
The big problem is that there's a big difference between "we'll be bringing 3nm to the US in early 2026" and "we'll be bringing 2nm and 3nm to the US in 2028". If they started making 3nm in the US in early 2026, that's going to be less than a year behind most companies using 3nm. Qualcomm and Nvidia will probably start shipping 3nm in February 2025 and AMD will probably start shipping 3nm in late 2025.
If TSMC's US fab were 12-18 months behind their Taiwan fabs, it wouldn't really be a problem, except for Apple. Everyone else is waiting 18 months for TSMC's latest gen stuff anyway.
The problem isn't that the US fab can't do 3nm today. TSMC's Taiwan fabs aren't doing 3nm at scale unless your name is Apple. The problem is that their US fabs won't be doing 3nm for around 3 years after the industry moves over to 3nm. If the US fab could satisfy 4nm demand and Taiwan disappeared today, it'd mostly hit Apple's product line. The issue is that in 2026 or 2027, every company will be relying on 3nm and if Taiwan disappeared then, it'd hit the whole industry's product lines.
But it's possible that Intel's 18A will do amazing and Intel will be able to manufacture at scale and a lot of TSMC's business will move to Intel. Then the US (Intel) would be manufacturing more advanced chips than TSMC in Taiwan. TSMC isn't expected to make the move to High-NA EUV for a few more years so Intel has some time when it could overtake TSMC.
> Yes, 3nm has been shipping for over a year - but only if your company is named Apple. Intel just launched a small portion of its products using 3nm two months ago.
> I think realistically it'd be more fair to say that 3nm is coming in 2025
Almost everyone but Apple decided to skip N3B and wait for the later N3E. Intel decided to just be late with N3B, launching their laptop part in September and the desktop part in October. Apple, Qualcomm, and Mediatek all have N3E parts on shelves and in consumer's hands. 3nm is here, now. Two generations of TSMC 3nm have ramped to full production.
It may not seem like much since it's only Apple right now, but their 3nm SoCs are stunning. I can only imagine what the industry is going to look like when this tech becomes the standard. The miniaturization potential alone can transform many other technologies, let alone its value for low-power edge compute.
The difference isn't revolutionary, but noticeable. Whoever has it will have a competitive advantage.
Doesn't this remove the incentive for the US to protect Taiwan then?
I'm speculating, but if China invades Taiwan, it's cheaper for the US to bomb the fab in Taiwan to not let it get into Chinese hands in case of an invasion. They could additionally offer generous asylums to Taiwaneese researchers and engineers. Then whatever happens to Taiwan happens?
CHIPS and the Inflation Reduction Act are two of the most underrated domestic policy bills in recent American history. Conservative-driven contrarian politicking aren't doing the country any favors.
As much as I dislike Biden from a leftist perspective, I must commend him for the inflation reduction act. Felt funny seeing a president actually, you know, improve the country
This is getting way off topic, but Biden is a centrist. The idea that he’s a lefty socialist is a political cudgel the right wing has swung at every Democratic prez candidate since 1988; it’s getting more traction in recent years as the media has been increasingly purchased by right wing billionaires. They called Obama a socialist even as he was praising Reagan and helping out the bankers who caused the 2008 economic meltdown.
Everything I’m saying here is a documented. Biden has been in public service since 1973; look up his Senate voting record. Look up the ownership and political stances thereof for any given traditional media outlet; newspapers, websites, etc.
> As more fabs open, the United States is also facing a shortage of engineers and technicians.
levels.fyi says principle level engineers are making $86,000 annually in Taiwan, with zero shares. $49,000 being the average for [software] engineers in Taiwan
there will be a shortage at that compensation range, which they can solve with higher cash and amplify with shares and a competitively short cliff like Meta and others have, of 3 months or less.
> Cost of Living Including Rent in Taipei is 59.0% lower than in San Francisco, CA
Salaries tend to scale with cost of living. The cost of living in Taiwan is lower than the US. The difference is particularly large if you compare Taipei, the capital where the cost of living is likely the highest, to San Francisco. Presumably, the salaries would be higher if they hire people from the US.
They don't have that many SWE...so be careful on your comparisons. 95% of their engineers are non-SWE...and those engineering disciplines do not make 4X those salaries listed above.
They are not solved with compensation...simply put Taiwanese in both the US or Taiwan will put in more hours and work harder regardless of pay. Will compensation get some US workers to work as hard...yes...but not enough for what is needed to expand the AZ plant and keep it running. The numbers in the OP are Taiwan salaries...AZ salaries are upwards of $140-150K (not including bonuses) for someone with <10 years experience. These are not SWE...these are mechanical, electrical and chemical engineers...not in competition with Google, Apple, Meta, etc.
Yep, not that many top-tier talent in the US willing to be in the factory for the graveyard shift under high pressure. The lines run 24/7 and if anything is slightly wrong techs need to be already on site to go fix it, because it's crap tons of money for every second of downtime. That leads to a corporate culture where even R&D has similar pressures from your boss (because essentially you're always racing with the competing fabs).
Ive never understood this culture. This kind of operation could be achieved by having several teams of folks working in shifts so noone is working crazy long, no? It seems like the company is unwilling to invest in the manpower required to achieve that SLA? fwiw ive heard similar things about the fruit company.
I just want to add the term "ADVANCED" in terms of foundry node now has an official meaning anything sub 7nm. With specific rules in place in terms of export especially to China. This was a reference from ASML presentation not so long ago.
It is also important to point out, the achievement here is how fast TSMC manage to set things up and running even without the home ground advantage. Intel couldn't even replicate this time frame if it was their Intel 7nm Fab. And of course the greatest record was that with enough planning and permission done before hand TSMC manage to have the fab built and running within 18 months in Taiwan. ( Arguably closer to 12 months )
This also means unless a miracle happen or US Gov being unfair with certain things the chances of Intel catching up with its current team, management, board members and investors, against TSMC in terms of capacity, price, and lead time as a foundry is close to zero. ( I am sorry but I lost all faith and hope now Pat Gelsinger is out. )
Once TSMC 2nm hits the ground later this year, TSMC US will also start their 3nm work if they haven't started now.
It’s about demand isn’t it? TSMC have red hot demand, it’s not hard to understand their urgency in setting up new fabs, wherever they may be. Intel don’t have the same incentive - their incentive is to take the money (because, why wouldn’t you), build newer fabs and hope for some breakthrough in demand. The urgency is not there: being complete before there is demand could be detrimental
>It’s about demand isn’t it?
Yes. There used to be a saying the most expensive Fab ( or factory ) isn't the most advance Fab, but an empty Fab.
You cant built without first ensuring you can fill it, you cant fill it without first ensuring you can deliver. And Intel has failed to deliver twice with their custom foundry. Both times with Nokia and Ericsson. How the two fall for it twice is completely beyond me, but then Intel are known to have very good sales teams.
Intel will need another Apple moment that has huge demand, little margin, but willing to pay up front. On the assumption that Intel is even price competitive. The Apple modem may be it. But given the current situation with Intel as they want to lower Capital spending I am not even sure if betting on Intel is a risk Apple is willing to make. Comparing to a stable consistent relationship with TSMC.
> On the assumption that Intel is even price competitive. The Apple modem may be it.
Which is super interesting/ironic with the entire reason for an “apple modem” is due to Intels failure there a decade ago. Bonus irony for the subsequent acquisition.
Intel wasn't able to ship a competitive modem to Qualcomm and the whole point of the acquisition was to get rid of Qualcomm and even apple hasn't gotten a shipping version of a 5g modem for six years since the first intel modem started in 2018. This was really to vertically integrate the modem in all of the relevant Apple Silicon devices and it keeps going on...
I don't get it. If TSMC has demand, then so could Intel. What am I missing?
The missing bit is "TSMC makes better chips than Intel" and thus they have higher demand.
Yes, but then there should be a higher level of urgency?
Urgency with what? You asked why TSMC has higher demand then Intel...
No, you have to read more of the thread to understand why I asked it.
> TSMC have red hot demand, it’s not hard to understand their urgency in setting up new fabs, wherever they may be. Intel don’t have the same incentive (...)
They set up a 3nm fab in the US in less than two years. That seems pretty urgent on TSMCs part...
TSMC makes nvidia GPUs and iPhone chips among other things, intel doesn't
There was some discussion awhile back about Intel potentially fabbing ARM chips (or any other custom non-x86 chip) as a viable business in the future. I don’t know how serious they were but it sounded plausible when you think about how important it is to have an American leading edge fab, independent of the market future of the x86 ISA.
Basically what would it take for Intel to still have Apple as a customer even if Apple made their own ARM designs…
You might be missing that you cannot just "port" across fabs.
Why not? You might have to redo lots of phys work but essentially all of the RTL will be the same and that's the vast majority of the work.
Intel doesn't have demand because they only make Intel chips, and they haven't been doing too well lately.
They feed into each other especially for anything that isn't a vanilla gate. Got a deeply ported SRAM with bypasses? That might fail synthesis if it is too choked by wire rules for the size of the cells so now it's banking time.
I honestly don't believe that e.g. Apple couldn't relatively easily base their designs on a different underlying technology.
They do it all the time when they change nodes.
Drop another billion is sort of the name of the game here.
If you believe you can consistently predict future like that, it should clearly guide your investment in stocks.
However, just like how quickly and suddenly Intel lost the lead, things may turn around for TSMC too: at some point, their research hits a dead end and somebody overtakes them too.
>If you believe you can consistently predict future like that, it should clearly guide your investment in stocks.
Perhaps I should have written with Disclosures. For the record I did invest in AMD when it was below $3 and TSMC at below $400TWD. None of these are investment advices so take it what you will. ( You get much better return with Tesla and Nvidia in the same period of time but then investment isn't always about best returns. ) And I was waiting to invest into Intel, unfortunately Pat is gone. To my words I said this in April 2023 [1]
"I am just worried if Stock price continue to fall, Pat may be forced out again by those stupid Board. And if Pat is out, I won’t invest in Intel at all."
As you will read in my reply below, I have a very negative view on Intel's board for a very very long time.
>However, just like how quickly and suddenly Intel lost the lead
It wasn't quick or even sudden. I wrote about it in 2014 and got a death threat from Intel Fan boys then. I have been questioning about Intel's management on GPU, Fab capacity allocation, CapEX, dividends etc for a very long time. For another point, TSMC never wanted to be the most advance manufacturing Fab. Them having leading node is purely accidental and Intel's slip up. They have been doing Intel -1 node for most of their history and are doing just fine. Providing Pure Play Foundry Services with Industry wide support on Tools at a reasonable / acceptable price for Fabless players. And right now, they are firing on all cylinders.
Again. None of these are investment advices and personal opinion only.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35722974
Great news and arguably these are the most advanced semiconductors being produced in the United States today.
Wikipedia lists Intel 3 is roughly the same tech level as TSMC 3nm [1], but without listing transistor density. Intel is producing the Xeon 6 using Intel 3 [2]. So arguably Intel has a more advanced process in the USA than TSMC, which is doing 4nm in the USA next year. Intel's production is probably not very high.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_nm_process#cite_note-74
[2] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/details/pro...
TSMC 3nm is a double digit percentage denser. Intel 3 is closer to TSMC 5nm
Citation?
(Not intended as a snipe. I honestly just don't know where to look for that kinda info.)
Wikichip is my go to (which is down right now for me unfortunately). It’s important to look at the latest data because Intel’s internal nodes real specs have not met the stated expectations recently
I'm not refuting the statement, only pointing out that density is not the only factor.
Unfortunately, these numbers are arbitrary and companies are guessing what performs about like what based on numerous factors. Often wrongly - Samsung's equivalents were so bad Qualcomm pretty much abandoned them, and for good reason. Anyone who used an Exynos or SD888 understands why.
I feel like we should have landed on a better tracking system now, like perf/watt, but here we are.
>these numbers are arbitrary
Seeing as Intel 7 is formerly Intel 10nm, there is at least a reasonable argument in that Intel's number is one size(?) smaller than it should be.
It's equally likely Intel realized it performed as well as Samsung/TSMC "7". Which is the whole issue, we'll never really know.
IIRC it was the other way around.
That was before Intel renamed their process nodes. They went from being 1 node more dense to being 1 node less dense with their new naming scheme. You need Intel 4 to match TSMC 5nm.
Is Intel 3 manufactured in the US or Ireland? https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/new-fa...
Also, it depends on the metrics but TSMC’s N4 is a mainstream foundry logic node. Who is using Intel 4/3 outside of Intel?
Looks like both according to this quote:
> Our Intel 3 is in high volume manufacturing in our Oregon and Ireland factories
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/intel-3-3nm-class...
These are 4nm facilities. Intel’s 18A process is more advanced. Hopefully it will turn out well. If not, that is the end of Intel.
>Intel’s 18A process is more advanced.
Can be, not "is". I will believe them when I see it.
Maybe ...
But for those living close to the plant, I'm not so sure:
"Environmental, and public health groups, including the Sierra Club, are urging President Joe Biden to veto a controversial bill that exempts most semiconductor companies applying for federal CHIPS Act funding from having to complete essential environmental reviews, as required by the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA."
“Exempting the semiconductor industry from NEPA is completely unwarranted, especially considering the projected significant increase use of PFAS and other toxic chemicals by the industry and their track record of releasing these dangerous chemicals into the air and water surrounding the facilities,” said Tom Fox, Senior Legislative Counsel at the Center for Environmental Health"
https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2024/10/environmen...
NEPA doesn't govern any releases: that's done by the EPA under clean Air and clean water act.
[flagged]
But not 2 nm node (N2{,P,X}) until about 2028. The delay is still indicative of protectionism. Until the US has a (or preferably more) American company with 2 nm capabilities with the whole process including diffusion and packaging, there's no real native, strategic capability.
What American company would even attempt this aside from Intel? IBM still does the relevant research, but quit the business of actually using it. They licensed their 2nm process technology research to Japan’s Rapidus if I recall. I cannot think of anyone else in the US that would be willing to take the risk of trying to start a 2nm foundry service.
I've read in the interview below that all attempts to implement IBM's copper interconnects failed, except for TSMC.
At least for this particular technology, IBM did not deliver everything needed to do this.
"So, when we went to .13u, .13u the people began to change from aluminum to copper. And IBM was the leader for the copper metal. They had the longest history of developing copper technology. They worked for more than ten years on copper. TSMC didn't have any experience in copper at all. So, when we decided we need to adopt copper, okay. So, the copper is one story and low-k material is another one. IBM decided kind of low-k material is a spin-on material called SILK. IBM had a Research Consortium that IBM-- Samsung joined them, I think, ST Micro joined them. Several companies joined the Consortium.
"And UMC joined them. But we didn't join them. They all used that spin-on low-K material. But we decided to use CVD - instead of flourine-doped it's a carbon-doped made by Applied Materials. They're called Black Diamond. So, we choose Black Diamond. The reason we chose Black Diamond was very simple, because I suffer at .18 with a spin-on. I wouldn't touch spin-on again. <laughter> But they didn't go through that. So, we were very, very lucky. TSMC became the first company in the world which was able to ship a manufacturing wafers with the copper and low-k, because IBM failed... Later on they found reliability the problem."
https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/10279267...
Spin in is an interesting tech history. As for cvd low-k, it is mostly how much C is in your silicon, and likewise how you setup the damascene etch stop. Intel was low-ish k in about 2002 on 130nm.
I am not so sure tsm was first. Depends on how you define lowk.
Samsung is going for 2nm in Taylor TX
That is what Intel 18A is, no? In some ways it’s worse than N2, and in some ways it’s better. Overall seems comparable to me, and apparently it’s still on track for next year.
they are making "dies", they have to export them to china/taiwan to make the finals chips... as far as I understand it.
But this plant cant stand alone, I mean if something bad happens to TSMC on Taiwan, then they will no be able to move fab to the newer nodes, I think.
Rome was not built in a day. I think it’s a stepping stone for that
If there is no plan to make it standalone, even worse, for TSMC it would be illegal to make this plant the leading one,
then still US should put more money into Intel
It's an awesome contingency. If the island falls, they can destroy/impair the local infrastructure, and reconstitute it in the US. Destroy in this context does not mean mass physical destruction. It is a combination of removal of keys and select components. The message being you can have the island but not the business.
And? Advanced nodes aren't really relevant to subtracting where it is from where it isn't. China is ideologically motivated to conquer Taiwan not economically.
Is this fab on par with TSMC's fabs in Taiwan? I am not up to date with the various processes.
Taiwan has a law barring the export of technology more than one generation behind:
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2024/11/08/200...
The article mentions that Arizona was set to ramp 4nm, which is presumably what they have now.
I think you meant "less than one generation behind." Or as the article you linked to says: "Taiwanese law limits domestic chipmakers to producing chips abroad that are at least one generation less advanced than their fabs at home"
I did. My apologies for the typo.
I wonder how the economics will end up – sure, American fabs won't have cutting-edge processes, but in the end there's a stable market for older processes that are critical to industrial capability (e.g. automotive and sensing, high-reliability processors, etc.) One node behind still remains very good value without the visicssitudes of relying on the unstable market for leading-edge products.
I thought the machines that make this stuff come from ASML in The Netherlands? How does this work, couldn’t we buy the machines from ASML?
As I post every time this question gets asked: no. ASML build fancy printers. Buy an ASML machine and you can now etch nanometer-scale features into something. That’s a great party trick. You still need to know what features to print and how to make the materials you print your design on. The ASML part (lithography) is a hard part but it’s not even close to the biggest hard part. Thus, why semiconductor processes are differentiated in the first place.
Plus, ASML's EUV machines for TSMC are different from those for Samsung or Intel. Each order is tailored to the buyer's specifications.
TSMC's manufacturing process using ASML EUV machines is different from Intel or Samsung.
People think you just buy an EUV machine, and you can start printing money. Far from it.
Presumably, one could license IBM’s 2nm research, buy the equipment and try doing 2nm fabrication. That is what Rapidus is doing.
This seems like the exact kind of law that would not standup to extreme pressure from a determined US president
Taiwan has alot of leverage given the tension between the US and China. The upcoming admin will be even easier on play off.
Why doesn’t the U.S. have laws like that?
It does.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Administration_Regulati...
And in fact, the machines that make these chips are restricted by US export law:
https://www.asml.com/en/news/press-releases/2024/asml-statem...
Because keeping the bleeding edge in manufacturing to ourselves is not vital to our survival as a sovereign state
yeah but stopping China from invading China isn't either
It is for Taiwan
China is in the beginning of a 30 year Great Depression, in no shape to invade Taiwan. Consumer spending in Beijing and Shanghai fell 20% y/y in November. Real estate prices have collapsed 50%, even in some parts of Beijing and Shanghai. Trump has filled the cabinet with mostly anti-China hawks, indicating large tariffs coming next year. Capital outflow from China increased to $45B in November, largest monthly deficit ever. China is pretty fucked.
That does sound like a fabulous time to start a jingoistic war to flame the nationalistic sentiments and declare any dissenters traitors to the nation.
Why is “vital to our survival as a sovereign state” the criterion?
Because it is for Taiwan
The US had famously tried and failed to do this for software techniques like cryptography.
Because we already have enough current/ex superfund sites.
(see the Santa Clara section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_Cal...)
We do for a wide variety of products and IP: https://www.trade.gov/us-export-controls
See also the US sanctions on SMIC.
Semiconductor fabrication was viewed as a commodified cost center until COVID related supply chain instability.
Furthermore, packaging and testing was largely outsourced and the domestic semiconductor industry imploded in the 2010s with IBM Micro and AMD's failures.
The same thing happened to Japan when they began offshoring Memory Fabrication to South Korea and Taiwan in the 1990s-2000s.
That said, from a NatSec perspective legacy processes (28nm, 48nm) and compound semiconductors would be much more critical (and a significant amount of funding has been devoted to that).
Japan is trying to rebuild its leading edge capability with Rapidus using IBM technology. Interestingly, IBM still does the research needed to make a fabrication plant. They just don’t want to assume the risks from deploying it in production anymore as far as I can tell.
> Interestingly, IBM still does the research needed to make a fabrication plant
Yep. They still own the IP from the IBM Microelectronics days.
Much of the breakthroughs in EUV were done in Upstate NY (especially at SUNY Albany, SUNY Polytechnic, and RPI), and a lot of that was co-owned by IBM, ASML, and TEL.
> They just don’t want to assume the risks
The capex - and pretty much.
Semiconductor Fabrication is high cost, low margins, so it's difficult to spin up without industrial policy.
Regarding chips, if your best is generations behind someone else's best, nobody want's to buy your old and busted anyways.
Free market doctrine, plus the investor class wanting to be able to reap the benefits of outsourcing without being concerned about strategic issues. Occasional proposals to this effect have historically been denounced as protectionism, industrial policy (practically socialism!) and 'picking winners and losers'. I am surprised you're unaware of this.
We had to give Japan something in the 90s to keep them on side.
Japan itself largely began offshoring fabrication in the 1990s.
It was Japanese OSAT players like Hitachi that sparked the Penang packaging cluster in Malaysia in the 70s-90s and Japanese Memory firms like NEC+Hitachi that started South Korea and Taiwan's fabrication industries.
Taiwan didn't truly become a leader in the cutting edge fab space until the 2010s when US, SK, and Japanese players dropped the ball, and Apple chose TSMC in the 2010s due to their patent litigation with Samsung (nixing South Korea).
So much of TSMC's dominance now is due to the influx of Apple cash in the 2010s boosting R&D spending, which in turn is because millenials bought a shit tonne of Apple devices because they were convinced by marketing.
TSMC's dominance is at least as much Intel's fault as it is Apple's. And even if Apple hadn't been funneling so much money to TSMC, the smartphone industry as a whole still would have been a cash cow for TSMC. Intel sure wasn't going to be in the running as a smartphone SoC designer or as a foundry for somebody else's smartphone SoCs. In an alternative history where Android thoroughly beat out iOS even for high-end/high-margin smartphones, Samsung's foundry business probably would have been a bit better off, but overall it would still be TSMC as the leading foundry, just with Qualcomm as the launch customer for new nodes rather than Apple.
Apple pays TSMC better than anyone else does since they want the best processes and are willing to pay a premium to cover much of the investment needed to achieve them. Losing them would really hurt TSMC. Not having them in the 10s would have slowed down TSMC’s development of new process technology.
> Intel sure wasn't going to be in the running as a smartphone SoC designer or as a foundry for somebody else's smartphone SoCs
Intel did try doing this in the 2000s, but couldn't justify the resourcing needed for this due to x86 as well as their restrictive licensing of Intel Atom.
Meanwhile, ARM was fabless and just licensed to anyone (a major reason why Chinese challenger brands exist in the Chips space today)
Fundamentally, you cannot be both an IP creator (eg. Design) and chip fabricator, as both functions have different economics and competitive structures, and one BU inevitabely holds the other back.
> Samsung's foundry business probably would have been a bit better off, but overall it would still be TSMC as the leading foundry
Samsung, SK Hynix, and other Korean players dropped the ball due to the Apple lawsuit as well as the 2016-17 SK-China trade war (impacted SK exports to China - including intermediate parts) and the 2019-23 SK-Japan trade war (a number of critical components in fabrication are supplied by Japanese firms like Tokyo Electron and Nikon and were impacted by mutual tariffs)
> Fundamentally, you cannot be both an IP creator (eg. Design) and chip fabricator, as both functions have different economics and competitive structures, and one BU inevitabely holds the other back.
Vertical integration can win too, it worked for Intel for decades.
Until it didn't.
Most players in the hardware industry try to specialize in one function and do that very well, as this builds your competitive advantage AND allows you to leverage partnerships to further enhance your moat by building an ecosystem.
For example, ARM is purely design driven - targeted specifically at low power compute usecases - and licensed it's IP out to just about any player, which allowed an ecosystem to develop.
Nvidia did the same thing by remaining fabless and only concentrating on GPUs.
TSMC concentrates only on fabrication and doesn't dare enter design because they know all their customers would leave overnight because they would not want to subsidize a potential competitor.
Intel was in too many segments, which meant it was inevitably competing with everybody, which forced everyone to leverage partnerships to challenge the big baddie.
A similar thing happened to Samsung to a certain extent as well.
This is stupid. They should amend it to ban export of less than 3 generations behind.
No. TSMC's 4nm processes are part of the 5nm family. 3nm has been shipping for over a year, and is only fabbed in Taiwan for now and the next few years.
It's not on par with the best TSMC has in Taiwan, but most companies are still using 4nm. Yes, 3nm has been shipping for over a year - but only if your company is named Apple. Intel just launched a small portion of its products using 3nm two months ago.
I think realistically it'd be more fair to say that 3nm is coming in 2025 and there's a huge distance between 2025 and 2028 (when they'll start doing 3nm and 2nm in the US). Right now, AMD, Nvidia, and Qualcomm aren't doing 3nm. If the world lost 3nm today, it'd basically be Apple's products that would get hit. It'd definitely screw over Apple and it'd mess up the future plans for AMD, Nvidia, and Qualcomm, but it's not like the industry has been using 3nm for over a year. No, only Apple.
The big problem is that there's a big difference between "we'll be bringing 3nm to the US in early 2026" and "we'll be bringing 2nm and 3nm to the US in 2028". If they started making 3nm in the US in early 2026, that's going to be less than a year behind most companies using 3nm. Qualcomm and Nvidia will probably start shipping 3nm in February 2025 and AMD will probably start shipping 3nm in late 2025.
If TSMC's US fab were 12-18 months behind their Taiwan fabs, it wouldn't really be a problem, except for Apple. Everyone else is waiting 18 months for TSMC's latest gen stuff anyway.
The problem isn't that the US fab can't do 3nm today. TSMC's Taiwan fabs aren't doing 3nm at scale unless your name is Apple. The problem is that their US fabs won't be doing 3nm for around 3 years after the industry moves over to 3nm. If the US fab could satisfy 4nm demand and Taiwan disappeared today, it'd mostly hit Apple's product line. The issue is that in 2026 or 2027, every company will be relying on 3nm and if Taiwan disappeared then, it'd hit the whole industry's product lines.
But it's possible that Intel's 18A will do amazing and Intel will be able to manufacture at scale and a lot of TSMC's business will move to Intel. Then the US (Intel) would be manufacturing more advanced chips than TSMC in Taiwan. TSMC isn't expected to make the move to High-NA EUV for a few more years so Intel has some time when it could overtake TSMC.
> Yes, 3nm has been shipping for over a year - but only if your company is named Apple. Intel just launched a small portion of its products using 3nm two months ago.
> I think realistically it'd be more fair to say that 3nm is coming in 2025
Almost everyone but Apple decided to skip N3B and wait for the later N3E. Intel decided to just be late with N3B, launching their laptop part in September and the desktop part in October. Apple, Qualcomm, and Mediatek all have N3E parts on shelves and in consumer's hands. 3nm is here, now. Two generations of TSMC 3nm have ramped to full production.
It may not seem like much since it's only Apple right now, but their 3nm SoCs are stunning. I can only imagine what the industry is going to look like when this tech becomes the standard. The miniaturization potential alone can transform many other technologies, let alone its value for low-power edge compute.
The difference isn't revolutionary, but noticeable. Whoever has it will have a competitive advantage.
And purposefully so to keep the "silicon shield" intact for Taiwan. I did read that the yields in the US are just as good
A victory for sovereign Taiwan, protecting the industry they built from the ground up!
Doesn't this remove the incentive for the US to protect Taiwan then?
I'm speculating, but if China invades Taiwan, it's cheaper for the US to bomb the fab in Taiwan to not let it get into Chinese hands in case of an invasion. They could additionally offer generous asylums to Taiwaneese researchers and engineers. Then whatever happens to Taiwan happens?
The parent comment was being sarcastic.
The US is not anywhere close to replacing the outputs of Taiwan. The US will be dependent on Taiwan chips for a long time.
Awesome!!!!
Is it just me, or did this behemoth get built in record time? Extremely impressive.
The CHIPs Act is a great piece of legislation.
CHIPS and the Inflation Reduction Act are two of the most underrated domestic policy bills in recent American history. Conservative-driven contrarian politicking aren't doing the country any favors.
As much as I dislike Biden from a leftist perspective, I must commend him for the inflation reduction act. Felt funny seeing a president actually, you know, improve the country
Do you dislike him because he's a leftist or because you're a leftist?
This is getting way off topic, but Biden is a centrist. The idea that he’s a lefty socialist is a political cudgel the right wing has swung at every Democratic prez candidate since 1988; it’s getting more traction in recent years as the media has been increasingly purchased by right wing billionaires. They called Obama a socialist even as he was praising Reagan and helping out the bankers who caused the 2008 economic meltdown.
Everything I’m saying here is a documented. Biden has been in public service since 1973; look up his Senate voting record. Look up the ownership and political stances thereof for any given traditional media outlet; newspapers, websites, etc.
“Biden is a lefty” is a false, lazy canard.
(username is relevant here)
> As more fabs open, the United States is also facing a shortage of engineers and technicians.
levels.fyi says principle level engineers are making $86,000 annually in Taiwan, with zero shares. $49,000 being the average for [software] engineers in Taiwan
there will be a shortage at that compensation range, which they can solve with higher cash and amplify with shares and a competitively short cliff like Meta and others have, of 3 months or less.
Let's get real. A lot of talent has gone into ad tech in the U.S.
https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...
> Cost of Living Including Rent in Taipei is 59.0% lower than in San Francisco, CA
Salaries tend to scale with cost of living. The cost of living in Taiwan is lower than the US. The difference is particularly large if you compare Taipei, the capital where the cost of living is likely the highest, to San Francisco. Presumably, the salaries would be higher if they hire people from the US.
Even if you adjust for cost of living, the pay is still significantly lower than US and somewhat lower than central europe.
Basically 25% of what American SWEs make. I can only surmise the cost of living is much lower in Taiwan.
They don't have that many SWE...so be careful on your comparisons. 95% of their engineers are non-SWE...and those engineering disciplines do not make 4X those salaries listed above.
It is mostly, but real estate in Taipei is more expensive than SF.
yeah of course, but many organizations have a rigid corporate ladder to overcome. this seems like one of them, and their many "cultural differences".
they are incentivized to underpay americans, complain that they "can't" find talent, to ensure the relevancy of Taiwan
but their arguments are weak and solved with compensation
They are not solved with compensation...simply put Taiwanese in both the US or Taiwan will put in more hours and work harder regardless of pay. Will compensation get some US workers to work as hard...yes...but not enough for what is needed to expand the AZ plant and keep it running. The numbers in the OP are Taiwan salaries...AZ salaries are upwards of $140-150K (not including bonuses) for someone with <10 years experience. These are not SWE...these are mechanical, electrical and chemical engineers...not in competition with Google, Apple, Meta, etc.
Yep, not that many top-tier talent in the US willing to be in the factory for the graveyard shift under high pressure. The lines run 24/7 and if anything is slightly wrong techs need to be already on site to go fix it, because it's crap tons of money for every second of downtime. That leads to a corporate culture where even R&D has similar pressures from your boss (because essentially you're always racing with the competing fabs).
Ive never understood this culture. This kind of operation could be achieved by having several teams of folks working in shifts so noone is working crazy long, no? It seems like the company is unwilling to invest in the manpower required to achieve that SLA? fwiw ive heard similar things about the fruit company.
"Most advanced" planned obsolescence scam.