5 ms·

TSMC Gets $11.6B in US Grants, Loans for Three Chip Fabs

113 points by impish9208 3y ago

impish9208 3y ago
https://archive.is/quo5I https://archive.is/quo5I
fancyfredbot 3y ago
It is fun to imagine a future semiconductor supply glut in which Nvidia no longer has to charge an 85% markup on data centre GPUs to get demand down to the point they can (barely) meet it with supply.
- datascienced 3y ago
  More supply is going to create more demand of course, by unlocking more AI use cases.
  - bogdan 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
    - datascienced 3y ago
      Industrial revolution is a fitting analogy too!
- osnium123 3y ago
  Would Intel survive if there is a glut? Their foundry unit reported a $7B loss this year.
  - astrodust 3y ago
    Was it write-downs?
crispyambulance 3y ago
It's nice to build chip fabs in the USA, but is it _really_ necessary to "gift" some of the most capable and productive companies on the planet billions of dollars (not even counting the tax freebies)? The whole CHIPS act thing seems backwards and short-sighted. As the US education system is backsliding into literally worse-than-third-world outcomes, can we expect that companies like TSMC will even be able to find enough US workers to staff these facilities at a scale which will be large enough to move the economic needle?
- aurareturn 3y ago
  The Biden administration sees it as 2 birds with 1 stone. Intel and TSMC are investing in swing states. It matters to Biden when it comes to the election. The second is that the US genuinely wants chip fabs in US in case war breaks out. It's most definitely inefficient use of dollars for mega corporations.
  - senectus1 3y ago
    Without a doubt the biggest reason here is to ensure the tech is capable on their homeland. having most of modern tech being build in China/Taiwan and Japan is a HUGE security risk for US (and other "wesetrn countries")
- harry8 3y ago
  >can we expect that companies like TSMC will even be able to find enough US workers to staff these facilities at a scale which will be large enough to move the economic needle? Immigration.
  - xnx 3y ago
    Is part of the statecraft at play here to brain drain all the valuable engineers from Taiwan and China?
- joshuacc 3y ago
  How else do you propose to get a company to build a factory at your preferred location rather than theirs? Paying companies is the usual way to get them to do things. The economic effects are important but secondary to the national security effects of having TSMC chip manufacturing on US soil.
Royce-CMR 3y ago
Regardless of the reasons for the CHIPS act, any thoughts on how the new fab capacity will change the market? Reduced costs for the consumer? All eaten up by AI chips?
nabla9 3y ago
CHIPS act ($39 billion) pales in comparison to Chinese subsidies. All Chinese semiconductor subsidies, both local and state subsidies, are estimated $60 billion __per__year__.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Chinese semiconductor subsidies, both local and state subsidies, are estimated $60 billion __per__year__ Source? Note that several states, including Arizona, are topping up CHIPS.
- tinco 3y ago
  Even if that's true, don't forget that the semi-conductor companies that are backed by the US are already state-of-the-art and profitable companies. China has to establish a de novo industry, it's not surprising that to do that quickly and effectively it would require ten times as much funding.
  - nabla9 3y ago
    True. China pays for technology. US pays for location.
  - thiago_fm 3y ago
    Never doubt what China can achieve with 6.5 days of workweeks and pseudo-slavery work, as well as subsidies and currency manipulations. Just look how they managed to scale up their car manufacturing business so quickly, now they can probably make enough cars to supply 100% of the world's demand, if they had appropriate demand. What I wonder is why the world didn't cut their ties with China faster, as they are clearly killing the competition by playing a very unfair playbook. Only when China finally respect other countries by letting its population be real consumers, and also treat their population with dignity the west should be willing to talk with them.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  The Big Fund (Chinese subsidy) has ongoing graft and corruption issues [0] all the way to the very top [1][2], so most of that money was never actually deployed competently. This is what lead to Tsinghua Unigroup's collapse, and a number of other corruption probes. Furthermore, the Big Fund subsidy is an attempt to build a greenfield ecosystem, while CHIPS is basically reinvesting in a brownfield ecosystem. [0] - https://www.ft.com/content/8358e81b-f4e7-4bad-bc08-19a77035e1b4 https://www.ft.com/content/8358e81b-f4e7-4bad-bc08-19a77035e... [1] - http://m.ccdi.gov.cn/content/8f/24/93463.html http://m.ccdi.gov.cn/content/8f/24/93463.html [2] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-watchdog-says-is-probing-head-chip-focused-big-fund-2022-08-01/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-watchdog-says-is-p...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
aaron695 3y ago
[dead]

113 points by impish9208 3y ago

https://archive.is/quo5I https://archive.is/quo5I

It is fun to imagine a future semiconductor supply glut in which Nvidia no longer has to charge an 85% markup on data centre GPUs to get demand down to the point they can (barely) meet it with supply.

datascienced 3y ago
More supply is going to create more demand of course, by unlocking more AI use cases.
- bogdan 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
  - datascienced 3y ago
    Industrial revolution is a fitting analogy too!
osnium123 3y ago
Would Intel survive if there is a glut? Their foundry unit reported a $7B loss this year.
- astrodust 3y ago
  Was it write-downs?

crispyambulance 3y ago

It's nice to build chip fabs in the USA, but is it _really_ necessary to "gift" some of the most capable and productive companies on the planet billions of dollars (not even counting the tax freebies)? The whole CHIPS act thing seems backwards and short-sighted. As the US education system is backsliding into literally worse-than-third-world outcomes, can we expect that companies like TSMC will even be able to find enough US workers to staff these facilities at a scale which will be large enough to move the economic needle?

aurareturn 3y ago
The Biden administration sees it as 2 birds with 1 stone. Intel and TSMC are investing in swing states. It matters to Biden when it comes to the election. The second is that the US genuinely wants chip fabs in US in case war breaks out. It's most definitely inefficient use of dollars for mega corporations.
- senectus1 3y ago
  Without a doubt the biggest reason here is to ensure the tech is capable on their homeland. having most of modern tech being build in China/Taiwan and Japan is a HUGE security risk for US (and other "wesetrn countries")
harry8 3y ago
>can we expect that companies like TSMC will even be able to find enough US workers to staff these facilities at a scale which will be large enough to move the economic needle? Immigration.
- xnx 3y ago
  Is part of the statecraft at play here to brain drain all the valuable engineers from Taiwan and China?
joshuacc 3y ago
How else do you propose to get a company to build a factory at your preferred location rather than theirs? Paying companies is the usual way to get them to do things. The economic effects are important but secondary to the national security effects of having TSMC chip manufacturing on US soil.

Royce-CMR 3y ago

Regardless of the reasons for the CHIPS act, any thoughts on how the new fab capacity will change the market? Reduced costs for the consumer? All eaten up by AI chips?

nabla9 3y ago

CHIPS act ($39 billion) pales in comparison to Chinese subsidies. All Chinese semiconductor subsidies, both local and state subsidies, are estimated $60 billion __per__year__.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> Chinese semiconductor subsidies, both local and state subsidies, are estimated $60 billion __per__year__ Source? Note that several states, including Arizona, are topping up CHIPS.
tinco 3y ago
Even if that's true, don't forget that the semi-conductor companies that are backed by the US are already state-of-the-art and profitable companies. China has to establish a de novo industry, it's not surprising that to do that quickly and effectively it would require ten times as much funding.
- nabla9 3y ago
  True. China pays for technology. US pays for location.
- thiago_fm 3y ago
  Never doubt what China can achieve with 6.5 days of workweeks and pseudo-slavery work, as well as subsidies and currency manipulations. Just look how they managed to scale up their car manufacturing business so quickly, now they can probably make enough cars to supply 100% of the world's demand, if they had appropriate demand. What I wonder is why the world didn't cut their ties with China faster, as they are clearly killing the competition by playing a very unfair playbook. Only when China finally respect other countries by letting its population be real consumers, and also treat their population with dignity the west should be willing to talk with them.
alephnerd 3y ago
The Big Fund (Chinese subsidy) has ongoing graft and corruption issues [0] all the way to the very top [1][2], so most of that money was never actually deployed competently. This is what lead to Tsinghua Unigroup's collapse, and a number of other corruption probes. Furthermore, the Big Fund subsidy is an attempt to build a greenfield ecosystem, while CHIPS is basically reinvesting in a brownfield ecosystem. [0] - https://www.ft.com/content/8358e81b-f4e7-4bad-bc08-19a77035e1b4 https://www.ft.com/content/8358e81b-f4e7-4bad-bc08-19a77035e... [1] - http://m.ccdi.gov.cn/content/8f/24/93463.html http://m.ccdi.gov.cn/content/8f/24/93463.html [2] - https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-watchdog-says-is-probing-head-chip-focused-big-fund-2022-08-01/ https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-watchdog-says-is-p...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

aaron695 3y ago

[dead]