This almost ensures profitability, because with only 2 competing high end foundries, TSMC and Samsung/Intel, it’s easier to silently “agree” on price levels than if they were 3.
Still 2 competitors is way better than a TSMC monopoly. So i hope it works out for them to be competitive with TSMC.
PS:
The Tapeout for the latest Apple Chip was about $1 billion, that price tag is so steep that very few can afford to keep up.
https://wccftech.com/dimensity-9400-premium-causing-flagships-to-be-priced-7-5-percent-higher/the tape-out costs alone for Apple’s M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max were estimated to be $1 billion.
Just for scale, if you make $50k per year, it will take 20,000 years to make a billion!
That’s one way to kill off the remaining American foundry business, since if US can’t compete now and Korean and Chinese workers are as good, then there is no reason to shift production off in the long term.
Korea and Taiwan are already ahead of the US in semiconductor fabrication so IDK what you’re talking about. The US also isn’t competitive on cost of production either. The only reason for anyone to build a fab here is for geopolitical reasons and because the government is giving away billions in tax dollars to subsidize it.
I don’t see how this would seriously impact for instance Global Foundries? Lots of things aren’t bleeding edge.
AFAIK Global Foundries survive on niche productions and on being a trusted partner. Despite not being nearly as well known as TSMC Intel and Samsung. Global foundries is the #3 biggest foundry in the world by revenue.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalFoundries
As of 2023, GlobalFoundries is the third-largest semiconductor foundry by revenue.
GlobalFoundries is American in name only. It’s owned by the Saudis.
It has the most advanced factory in USA, that’s not name only.
Advanced how? It doesn’t offer the most advanced process node fabricated in the USA that’s for sure.
Did Intel ever get its foundry business off the ground? I remember some announcements in the last year or two, and then some rumors of yields not being good enough for the customers to move forward, and now some rumors of Intel thinking of spinning off the business. This partnership might be a watered down version of those plans.
Last I heard Intel claimed that their next process 18Angstrom should be on track and amazing.
But as far as I remember they said the same about the current 20Angstrom process.It looks weird that they call it Angstrom when his name was Ångstrøm. I know that Angstrom is the international name of the unit, but still. If you can’t spell or pronounce a name correctly, maybe you should call it something else.
It’s like they are struggling to be edgy, but instead they look goofy.Maybe we should call mr. Gelsinger for mr. Geringer here, which would mean smaller in German.
They didn’t name the node size after the guy they named it after the unit since it’s approaching sub-nanometer node size.
I literally already wrote that:
I know that Angstrom is the international name of the unit
And I wrote the international name too:
Last I heard Intel claimed that their next process 18Angstrom should be on track and amazing. But as far as I remember they said the same about the current 20Angstrom process.
But the problem isn’t Intel, it’s the internationalization that was done wrong for some reason, the correct way to internationalize Ångstrøm is Aangstroem.
Intel canceled their 20A after bad results, and shifted focus to 18A.
It’s even to the point that their own Arrow Lake chips are going to be fabbed by TSMC.
Oh I didn’t know it was completely cancelled, sounds like the infamous 10nm all over again.
But I’m pretty sure Pat Gelsinger claimed 20A would be amazing, right up until there were complaints that the yields were awful.Still I hope Intel succeeds, because we don’t want an Asian monopoly on high end chip production.
I actually have fairly high hopes for Intel’s 18A and the upcoming technology changes presenting competition for TSMC (including others like Samsung and the Japanese startup Rapidus). And even if it turns into a 3-way race among Asian companies, the three nations are different enough that there’s at least some strength in diversity.
TSMC’s dominance in the last decade I think can be traced to their clear advantage in producing finFETs at scale better than anyone else. As we move on from the finFET paradigm and move towards GAA and backside power delivery, there are a few opportunities to leapfrog TSMC. And in fact, TSMC is making such good money on their 3nm and 4nm processes that their roadmap to GAAFETs and backside power is slower than Intel’s and Samsung’s, seemingly to squeeze the very last bit out of finFETs before moving on.
If there’s meaningful competition in the space, we might see lower prices, which could lead to greater innovation from their customers.
Do I think it will happen? I’m not sure. But I’m hopeful, and wouldn’t be surprised if the next few process nodes show big shakeups in the race.
This is just both of them trying to cope with falling behind TSMC permanently.
Yes I think that’s exactly it. From what I’ve heard, Samsung has about the same problems Intel does, sharing know how might help both overcome that, so they can compete with TSMC, alone neither of them seem able to realistically match TSMC.
