4 ms·

By the time the fab comes online in 2024 (which seems optimistic), 4nm should be a half-step generation or so behind. TSMC also has a dozen or so fabs in Asia,

By the time the fab comes online in 2024 (which seems optimistic), 4nm should be a half-step generation or so behind. TSMC also has a dozen or so fabs in Asia, so it's not clear how the single plant in Arizona is going to meet capacity requirements or how often that plant will be retrofitted with newer equipment. This plant and the federal subsidies backing it seem more like a way for defense contractors to domestically source relatively recent fab processes over the next couple decades rather than something intended solely for consumer products. The fact that consumer facing companies are interested in using the fab when it comes online doesn't necessarily mean they'll still be using it 10 years from now unless TSMC keeps it up to date.

NeverFade 4y ago
TSMC expects to begin mass production of 3nm chips in its Taiwan fabs by 2023 Q4: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4546779-tsmc-no-3nm-soon https://seekingalpha.com/article/4546779-tsmc-no-3nm-soon This isn't my field, but I'm not sure what's the excitement about an Arizona plant that will optimistically start production a year later with an older process.
- tnel77 4y ago
  Indeed. There are zero domestic use cases for that ancient 4nm tech…
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
    How many consumers or even servers are running latest generation? 4nm indeed seems like it would have legs for a long time.
    - tnel77 4y ago
      Exactly. I get how having the latest and greatest would be ideal, but scoffing at 4nm seems silly to me.
- metalliqaz 4y ago
  It's a start. Certainly miles beyond where US domestic fabrication stands today.
- placatedmayhem 4y ago
  There is still a lot of demand for the not-latest-generation, "long tail" fab processes. Much of the long tail manufacturing was (is?) what the chip shortage was about, rather than the current generation. A good example is the automotive industry. It doesn't typically move quickly or frequently onto newer generation processes as that requires R&D time and other expenses. However, these have been some of the worst shortages, with auto manufacturers still impacted by lead times (although, this is starting to clearing up fwiu). Targeting the current-best process, rather than the next generation, alleviates some compounding of risk that would be incurred by logistics concerns of turning up a new site and putting that new site on a process that they don't yet have full confidence in because it's not seen production yet.
  - NeverFade 4y ago
    Does "one generation before current" count as "long tail", though? The chip shortage in products like cars has been for much simpler chips, AFAIK. The article says Apple, AMD, and Nvidia are looking to source from the new plant. Aren't they canonical examples of companies that are always looking for the latest and greatest? Why would they be interested in an prev-gen chip?
    - rsj_hn 4y ago
      Automotive industry is still using 90nm chips. It's not even the generation before the current one. They have long production runs and require stability, and they also prefer to use standardized parts across many production runs. Defense also uses older chips. Don't ask what kind of chips are in Amraam missiles or the F-35 -- although the F-35 is getting a technology refresh now (after a 14 year production run). Only in bleeding edge consumer devices does it make sense to keep changing chips. In other systems, production runs can last 20 years and the life of the asset can be 40 years or more, and you want the same spare parts available throughout the entire expected life of all assets produced. And then when you look at fixed assets, such as thermal power stations, then you are looking at even longer time horizons.
      - NeverFade 4y ago
- est31 4y ago
  You don't start at the cutting edge immediately. You start where it is better understood. Then you can still pay the enormous investments needed for getting to cutting edge and furthering it, if you want. Also, from an economic perspective, there is still plenty of demand in the market for non-cutting edge node sizes, i.e. in embedded the priority is more around the fact that the chip is not changed from a specific design that was made 4 years ago than having the latest and greatest. From a strategic perspective, it is absolutely important that you have the capability to build chips in your country, of a reasonably modern node size. You need this for weapons manufacturing, for a working government apparatus (governments use computers now), for sending messages to your population. And if China bombs Taiwan, then this fab will become the cutting edge, instead of you having zero chip manufacturing capabilities.

NeverFade 4y ago

TSMC expects to begin mass production of 3nm chips in its Taiwan fabs by 2023 Q4: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4546779-tsmc-no-3nm-soon https://seekingalpha.com/article/4546779-tsmc-no-3nm-soon This isn't my field, but I'm not sure what's the excitement about an Arizona plant that will optimistically start production a year later with an older process.

tnel77 4y ago
Indeed. There are zero domestic use cases for that ancient 4nm tech…
- 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
  How many consumers or even servers are running latest generation? 4nm indeed seems like it would have legs for a long time.
  - tnel77 4y ago
    Exactly. I get how having the latest and greatest would be ideal, but scoffing at 4nm seems silly to me.
metalliqaz 4y ago
It's a start. Certainly miles beyond where US domestic fabrication stands today.
placatedmayhem 4y ago
There is still a lot of demand for the not-latest-generation, "long tail" fab processes. Much of the long tail manufacturing was (is?) what the chip shortage was about, rather than the current generation. A good example is the automotive industry. It doesn't typically move quickly or frequently onto newer generation processes as that requires R&D time and other expenses. However, these have been some of the worst shortages, with auto manufacturers still impacted by lead times (although, this is starting to clearing up fwiu). Targeting the current-best process, rather than the next generation, alleviates some compounding of risk that would be incurred by logistics concerns of turning up a new site and putting that new site on a process that they don't yet have full confidence in because it's not seen production yet.
- NeverFade 4y ago
  Does "one generation before current" count as "long tail", though? The chip shortage in products like cars has been for much simpler chips, AFAIK. The article says Apple, AMD, and Nvidia are looking to source from the new plant. Aren't they canonical examples of companies that are always looking for the latest and greatest? Why would they be interested in an prev-gen chip?
  - rsj_hn 4y ago
    Automotive industry is still using 90nm chips. It's not even the generation before the current one. They have long production runs and require stability, and they also prefer to use standardized parts across many production runs. Defense also uses older chips. Don't ask what kind of chips are in Amraam missiles or the F-35 -- although the F-35 is getting a technology refresh now (after a 14 year production run). Only in bleeding edge consumer devices does it make sense to keep changing chips. In other systems, production runs can last 20 years and the life of the asset can be 40 years or more, and you want the same spare parts available throughout the entire expected life of all assets produced. And then when you look at fixed assets, such as thermal power stations, then you are looking at even longer time horizons.
    - NeverFade 4y ago
est31 4y ago
You don't start at the cutting edge immediately. You start where it is better understood. Then you can still pay the enormous investments needed for getting to cutting edge and furthering it, if you want. Also, from an economic perspective, there is still plenty of demand in the market for non-cutting edge node sizes, i.e. in embedded the priority is more around the fact that the chip is not changed from a specific design that was made 4 years ago than having the latest and greatest. From a strategic perspective, it is absolutely important that you have the capability to build chips in your country, of a reasonably modern node size. You need this for weapons manufacturing, for a working government apparatus (governments use computers now), for sending messages to your population. And if China bombs Taiwan, then this fab will become the cutting edge, instead of you having zero chip manufacturing capabilities.