Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/foundry-monopoly-in-leading-edge-manufacturing-is-it-a-real-problem.22909/page-3
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Foundry Monopoly in leading-edge Manufacturing: is it a real problem?

Dear all, let us not respond too personal. I started this thread as I was very interested to hear ideas, opinions and experiences from whomever feels like to contribute something. I really appreciates Dan's (and his team's) hard work to provide this OPEN forum.

Let's keep it professional for professionals!

Many thanks for all the responses so far, really appreciated 🌷


I'm not sure if I misunderstood what you were talking about. The Intel Foundry slide Daniel posted has the word "Breakthroughs" at the top. Let us know if you believe they are 20 breakthroughs or something else. Granted, the definition of "breakthrough" might vary from person to person.
 
Monopolists in Foundry land and their supply chain: worse than a marriage?

While listening to this interesting youtube recording from a 27 May 2027 chat at a Commonwhealth.org evening between Patrick McGee and John Ford on "Apple in China" (https://appleinchina.com/) and the role of supply chain

I was reminded of some other issues with monopolists in the semi-industry. Years ago, the then-CEO of (litho monopolist) ASML, Peter Wennink, many times jokingly reminded his audience that the relation between ASML and some of its suppliers had gotten so tight that they were "worse than a marriage, one could not divorce". Specifically, his comment referred to the very special relation between ASML and its supplier Zeiss in Germany (see also here: https://hoeijmakers.net/zeiss-and-asml/ ).

Now that 3D packaging appears to have become the new competitive frontier in leading-edge semi manufacturing I wonder if this is becoming more and more another determining competitive edge for Foundry operation, especially related to AI and HPC, which seems to be the moneymaker the next decade for leading-edge manufacturing?

TSMC so far seems to be well positioned with its suppliers in 3D packaging and I wonder if the key-suppliers here are becoming more and more aligned with the demands of the largest user of 3D-packaging, TSMC foundry.

On the developments in (optical) 3D packaging see also here:
https://tspasemiconductor.substack.com/p/technology-forum-cpo-and-copos-challenge

It seems both TSMC and NVIDIA are strongly "working on building alliances in Europe" these days. Remember that with all the things going on presently in USA (aiming to become an "island" protected by oceans, tariffs and visas?) and Europe (fighting a hot war with Russia and loosing their formerly trusted liberator of WW2) there seems to be a longing for sovereign AI and building trusted allies.

On the expanding strategy of TSMC with its customers and supply eco-system in Europe, see this summary paper from 31 May (yesterday):
https://tspasemiconductor.substack.com/p/tsmcs-strategic-blueprint-from-a

More news around NVIDIA and Europe are expected during the Europe trip of its CEO in June to Paris, Brussels and other cities:
https://youtu.be/c-XAL2oYelI?t=678
https://vivatechnology.com/

Will the economy-of-scale that TSMC is building up with 3D-packaging Fabs (with more and more integration of photons) and all the key-suppliers that it is aligning worldwide around its globally expanding Foundry Fabs, has the 3D-supply chain become another key area of the monopolist advantage?
 
Last edited:
I’ve seen how lack of competition slows innovation and drives up prices, but I also get how insanely expensive and risky it is to build new fabs at leading-edge nodes.
The "good news" here is TSMC still needs to compete against itself. If the new node has say a 200% price premium for a 10% performance gain I doubt there is much of a market for that new node :).

Intel had the same issue with its products even when AMD offered no real alternatives.

Though (my imagination) if TSMC gets to be 3-4 full nodes ahead of Samsung and Intel, who knows what premiums they could get away with.
 
Regarding the continuous "battle" between innovation and trusted manufacturing, I find it very interesting how this battle is currently ongoing between high-NA and multi-patterning-low-NA EUV adoption/insertion in the coming nodes. I get the impression that TSMC always tries to put trusted manufacturing first as they are simply so customer-oriented, especially now during 2025-2030, where this whole AI transition depends on TSMC's trusted execution for NVIDIA, AMD, Google, Apple and some other customers. TSMC must feel an enormous responsibility and opportunity to execute well supporting this AI transition. Perhaps Intel was always a bit too-much R&D process innovation oriented where the R&D engineers had more cloud (Copy Exact!) versus the Fab engineers.

And this battle is ongoing regarding innovation and trusted manufacturing: there seems to be a strong lobby going on by Intel, IBM and ASML for (innovative tool) high-NA insertion at the 14A / A14 nodes, where TSMC seems to insist at staying at (multi-patterning) low-NA for 14A:

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-i...igh-na-euv-for-1-4nm-class-process-technology
When asked whether A14 heavily relies on multi-patterning, Zhang responded that he could not comment on specifics, but said that TSMC's technology team had found a way to produce chips on a 1.4nm node without using High-NA EUV tools that provide an 8nm resolution compared to a 13.5nm resolution of Low-NA EUV systems.

"This is a great innovation from our technology team," said Zhang. "As long as they continue to find a way, obviously, we do not have to use High-NA EUV. Eventually, we will use it at some point. It is just so we need to find a right interception point, provide the maximum benefit, maximum return on investment."

It is noteworthy that TSMC's A14 will be succeeded by A14 with SPR backside power delivery in 2029, and it does not appear that the foundry will require High-NA EUV tools for this iteration either. To that end, it looks like, unlike Intel, which is set to start using next-generation EUV lithography machines with its 14A manufacturing technology to reduce the number of EUV exposures (read: multipatterning) and process steps in 2027 – 2028, TSMC has no plans to use High-NA EUV for mass production until at least 2030, or perhaps even later.

Stimulated by this wonderful analysis of SPIE-2025 (https://semianalysis.com/2025/04/14/spie2025/) and the mentioning of the IBM-contribution by Luciana Meli, I just listened to her talk:
https://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/...erconnect-scaling-and/10.1117/12.3056559.full

ASML appears to be in the middle of this Intel-TSMC battle. ASML invested tremendously in high-NA EUV but their most important EUV-customer presently, TSMC, seems not (publicly) planning HVM with high-NA till perhaps 2030. And Intel needs/wants more support in the high-NA eco-system for innovation on resists and lobbying ASML for larger mask-sizes (to increase productivity):
https://bits-chips.com/article/asml-throws-weight-behind-bigger-euv-masks/

I have the impression that for now the monopolist foundry, TSMC, is winning this innovation-vs-trusted manufacturing battle, as Intel has also indicated that its 14A process will have (multi-patterning) low-NA as an option for its foundry process:
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-com...echnique-has-identical-yield-and-design-rules

Additionally, Intel’s claim that both production flows offer the same yields signals that there won’t be severe time-to-market repercussions if High-NA EUV development hits a snag, or if Intel chooses not to deploy it due to economics. Employing multi-patterning often reduces yields, but Intel's claim of yield parity speaks to the advances of modern multipatterning, particularly in the field of overlay technology.


Innovation versus trusted-manufacturing, the battle continuous.....
What does "Cloud" mean? Are you really underestimating the engineers at Intel?
I think it's a bit rude
 
Typically, when a company reaches a monopoly position, it becomes complacent, stops innovating, and takes advantage of its customers. But TSMC is different. Unlike traditional monopolies, TSMC is constantly pushed by its diverse customers to advance in multiple technical directions, ensuring steady progress. This benefits its customers rather than harming them. If TSMC were forcibly broken up, the pace of technological development would likely slow, ultimately hurting customers instead of helping them. Unlike typical monopolies, where splitting the company might bring relief to customers, in TSMC’s case, it would do the opposite.
I don't think so.
Things are fine at the moment, but we don't know what will happen to the semiconductor industry in the long term, so I can't say for sure that TSMC is free of problems.
Where does that confidence come from?
 
And yet there's nothing personal or unprofessional in this remark. Merely asking a reasonable question. A very pertinent one IMHO.
Does publishing 20 papers at a conference equate to 20 breakthroughs, or to 20 meaningful and impactful breakthroughs?
TSMC does not have a monopoly on
semiconductor R&D.
There is also Imec
so it is a different story when it comes to actually mass-producing and utilizing that R&D, but I think that R&D can be done by any company.
I don't think I have any right to complain about that...
 
Back
Top