10 ms·

Samsung, Global Foundries, UMC, and SMIC are other large players in the foundry space. It would be very difficult for TSMC to eliminate these competitors.

55873445216111 6y ago
Among these only Samsung and TSMC have 7/5nm in production. GF and UMC aren't even pursuing it. SMIC is far behind.
- greggyb 6y ago
  Intel has proven for the last 4 or so years that a mature 14nm node can be competitive with <=10nm nodes. Progress in chip manufacturing doesn't happen exclusively at the node size of the cutting edge. As the manufacturing technology matures, I'm sure we'll see advances across all the major foundries, even if they aren't all competing to be the first to a new node. And the fact that all of these foundries remain in business is a strong indicator that perhaps the most expensive, most cutting edge manufacturing process is not optimal for every single chip manufactured.
krastanov 6y ago
Some of these foundries explicitly do not compete on cutting edge node-sizes. Global Foundries, for instance, have said they will focus on specialty circuitry, but will not try to compete on things like <10nm node sizes. I think it is fair to say they are not really competitors as their business is sufficiently different.
- jorvi 6y ago
  Didn't GlobalFoundries state they would skip 7/5nm and directly jump to whatever node would be below that?
- greggyb 6y ago
  Whether they compete on cutting edge nodes is irrelevant to whether they compete. My comment was explicitly in response to the idea of a TSMC foundry monopoly. It's certainly valuable to understand the specific nature of their competition, but such conversation tautologically defines TSMC as not-monopoly. Ninja-edit: And even if you want to restrict the definition of competition in chip manufacturing to only those foundries with cutting edge nodes, then Samsung's existence is sufficient argument against the claim of monopoly on that front.
bryanlarsen 6y ago
TSMC has 85% of the 5nm, 7nm and 10nm market.

55873445216111 6y ago

Among these only Samsung and TSMC have 7/5nm in production. GF and UMC aren't even pursuing it. SMIC is far behind.

greggyb 6y ago
Intel has proven for the last 4 or so years that a mature 14nm node can be competitive with <=10nm nodes. Progress in chip manufacturing doesn't happen exclusively at the node size of the cutting edge. As the manufacturing technology matures, I'm sure we'll see advances across all the major foundries, even if they aren't all competing to be the first to a new node. And the fact that all of these foundries remain in business is a strong indicator that perhaps the most expensive, most cutting edge manufacturing process is not optimal for every single chip manufactured.

krastanov 6y ago

Some of these foundries explicitly do not compete on cutting edge node-sizes. Global Foundries, for instance, have said they will focus on specialty circuitry, but will not try to compete on things like <10nm node sizes. I think it is fair to say they are not really competitors as their business is sufficiently different.

jorvi 6y ago
Didn't GlobalFoundries state they would skip 7/5nm and directly jump to whatever node would be below that?
greggyb 6y ago
Whether they compete on cutting edge nodes is irrelevant to whether they compete. My comment was explicitly in response to the idea of a TSMC foundry monopoly. It's certainly valuable to understand the specific nature of their competition, but such conversation tautologically defines TSMC as not-monopoly. Ninja-edit: And even if you want to restrict the definition of competition in chip manufacturing to only those foundries with cutting edge nodes, then Samsung's existence is sufficient argument against the claim of monopoly on that front.

bryanlarsen 6y ago

TSMC has 85% of the 5nm, 7nm and 10nm market.