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.
I thought Xnm was just a marketing term and not related to any physical measurements? How are they going to legally enforce this if foundries can just change the naming convention?
Subjective enforcement is a great tool in cases like these. Not necessarily what’ll happen, but unclear criteria allows politicians to dictate what is “advanced”.
The measurement is roughly equivalent to the density that feature size would allow in previous generations. Intel ditched the number anyway.
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.
What really baffles me is how Taiwans leadership can’t see the US endgame with the CHIPs act and the Chinese sanctions. The US government wants to steal TSMC by using subterfuge, sheer force and malice, while making Taiwan paying for it by refusing the revenue of selling advanced chips to China.
Not even TSMC should feel safe even if they successfully relocate themselves to the US.
Buccaneering has a long tradition in Anglo-Saxon countries and as TikTok shows the US has no qualms in preaching free commerce, stable legal rules and all that bullshit to everyone else, while doing the most egregious mercantilist stuff without even an once of shame.
It’s the hypocrisy that bothers me personally. They force other countries to have maximally free trade with the world bank/IMF, then abandon those ideals the moment they aren’t convenient for the US. I think it’s reasonable for the US to act in their interest, but it should also be reasonable for every other nation to do the same, even if it means not having the same property laws as the US wants
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.
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"
This proves that with sufficient political and military pressure and
the ability to give away nearly unlimited amounts of money
you can get production moved to the US in a way that works,
(Any deals the US has with Taiwan, will always have a military
backdrop, they just recently took deliver of some nice new
military hardware). Stuff you will never see in Ukraine. )
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."
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.
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?
Readit News
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.
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.
The measurement is roughly equivalent to the density that feature size would allow in previous generations. Intel ditched the number anyway.
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.
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
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_nm_process#cite_note-74
[2] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/details/pro...
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?
Can be, not "is". I will believe them when I see it.
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...
Dead Comment
(Any deals the US has with Taiwan, will always have a military backdrop, they just recently took deliver of some nice new military hardware). Stuff you will never see in Ukraine. )
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...
then still US should put more money into Intel
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?