You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
I agree, IDM makes the business more inward looking, so when they are asked to design a new mobile or AI chip they look at it and say “oh the volumes aren’t that big and itll cost too much to make”. That’s because they are looking at their internal costs and bloated overheads. The overhead is...
This was my starting reference, I’m looking at how things have evolved in the last 2-3 years since then and going forward and it seems like from a cost per transistor standpoint chips stopped getting cheaper after 28nm, but you were still getting better transistor performance at the same price...
I doubt it, at more advanced nodes it seems like an ever increasing portion of the costs go to things like wafer cleaning, HVAC, and other supporting systems. The smaller you go the cleaner the wafer needs to be, cleaner the air needs to be, the more dampening you need, ect.
Wanted to discuss this in light of another thread talking about how TMSC is planning to significantly increase wafer costs at 2nm.
The article indicates that cost/transistor stopped decreasing at 28nm, and is flat to rising slightly. It may actually start to rise a bit more going forward...
I think the gap is probably around 4-6 years. It would probably be more like 1 year if it wasn't for EUV sanctions.
I think the gap will widen a little before closing. So they may stall out for the next few years while China builds it's in house alternatives to EUV, and as soon as they do...
It’s usually the other way around. You produce smaller tiles first because your yield will be higher for smaller tiles (defects increase to the square of die size). As you ramp and improve yields you start making bigger tiles.
Fab economics are not going to magically get better with 18A instead of 20A. If they can't get a lot of high volume products on 18A it will be a money loser.
It might be a feature vs a bug. Let's say China kills profit margins on the trailing edge (and many Chinese foundries will fail in that process no doubt). I think that will also slow down progress on the leading edge, because if you aren't making money on trailing edge nodes, you may need to...
Amazon is a big chip buyer and presumably has a lot of clout to force Intel's hand. Also Intel might be looking for a big name foundry customer to generate good PR.
Independent board of directors is pretty critical. They can appoint key people from customers to be directors, like imagine if Intel could get Hock Tan or Jensen Huang as a director.
It's a pretty recurring thing where Intel has been known to refuse any business below a certain margin threshold. This is because they have a monopolistic "price setter" mindset where if you want to do business with Intel you have to do things on Intel's terms.
Intel is not a monopoly anymore...
It's not just that labor costs, in my opinion China and Taiwan are better at manufacturing, have smarter, more capable, and harder working people in that sector than the US.
It's like Americans have forgotten how to do manufacturing. You've be amazed how many experienced manufacturing...
If/when Intel exits the fab business the stock will go back up to maybe $30, and the company can start to become healthy again. The longer they wait the harder it will be for shareholders.
If it's $10b or $100b, either way, if China fails to develop EUV it won't be because of lack of money. The Chinese economy is the largest in the world measured by purchasing power parity. In manufacturing they are easily the best in the world.
This reminds me of the debate 15 years ago on whether Chinese companies could produce quality cars without Western partners.
I think one way or another China will catch up or surpass western chipmakers. Either they will catch up on EUV, some other technology, or maybe in 10 years the focus...
I had another look at the financials. Call it $4b a year instead if you use the R&D budget. Or if you use the sum of Capex and R&D it's $6b. It could be $10b and it would still be small potatoes for China.
If you are saying the worlds largest economy measured by PPP cannot afford to develop...
