4 ms·

> But every time TSMC has executed so well. TSMC or ASML? Or both? I am not trying to be dismissive, just curious about who deserves the credits here.

xbmcuser 3y ago
TSMC otherwise intel and samsung would not be chasing TSMC
bwhitty 3y ago
It’s a massive supply chain, so, yes, both. But also a hundred other companies. TSMC and other foundries bring together many technologies from many companies (and no doubt a lot of their own) to ship a full foundry solution (design-technology-cooptimization, masks, lithography, packaging, etc).
markhahn 3y ago
arguably, the current race is down to TSMC making the right decision on hi-NA EUV (ie, to run with low-NA). it's not as if Intel couldn't have acquired EUV, they just chose not to.
ksec 3y ago
Its predominantly TSMC. I do get quite tired and sometimes annoyed when 99.99999% of the internet including HN stating it is just "ASML". As if buying those TwinScan would be enough to make you the world's best leading edge foundry. Remember, 1. TSMC didn't beat Intel because they had the newer EUV first. They beat Intel before the whole thing started. 2. If having EUV Machines from ASML were enough, Samsung would have been the 2nd given they are or they will use it for NAND and DRAM. And yet they are barely competing. 3. It is not like Global Foundry dropped off racing the leading edge node for no reason. 4. TSMC has always managed to work around any road block when ASML failed to deliver their promise on time. 5. Quoting from CEO of ASML, half jokingly but also half true "Dont ask us about how those EUV machine are doing. Ask TSMC, they know that thing better than we do." Of course there is large number of small companies around the whole Pure Play Foundry business in which TSMC ex-CEO calls it the Grand Alliance. You need every party to perform well for it to happen. This is somewhat different to Samsung and Intel, both are ( more or less ) much more vertically integrated.

xbmcuser 3y ago

TSMC otherwise intel and samsung would not be chasing TSMC

bwhitty 3y ago

It’s a massive supply chain, so, yes, both. But also a hundred other companies. TSMC and other foundries bring together many technologies from many companies (and no doubt a lot of their own) to ship a full foundry solution (design-technology-cooptimization, masks, lithography, packaging, etc).

markhahn 3y ago

arguably, the current race is down to TSMC making the right decision on hi-NA EUV (ie, to run with low-NA). it's not as if Intel couldn't have acquired EUV, they just chose not to.

ksec 3y ago

Its predominantly TSMC. I do get quite tired and sometimes annoyed when 99.99999% of the internet including HN stating it is just "ASML". As if buying those TwinScan would be enough to make you the world's best leading edge foundry. Remember, 1. TSMC didn't beat Intel because they had the newer EUV first. They beat Intel before the whole thing started. 2. If having EUV Machines from ASML were enough, Samsung would have been the 2nd given they are or they will use it for NAND and DRAM. And yet they are barely competing. 3. It is not like Global Foundry dropped off racing the leading edge node for no reason. 4. TSMC has always managed to work around any road block when ASML failed to deliver their promise on time. 5. Quoting from CEO of ASML, half jokingly but also half true "Dont ask us about how those EUV machine are doing. Ask TSMC, they know that thing better than we do." Of course there is large number of small companies around the whole Pure Play Foundry business in which TSMC ex-CEO calls it the Grand Alliance. You need every party to perform well for it to happen. This is somewhat different to Samsung and Intel, both are ( more or less ) much more vertically integrated.