6 ms·

I just want to add the term "ADVANCED" in terms of foundry node now has an official meaning anything sub 7nm. With specific rules in place in terms of export es

by ksec 2y ago

I just want to add the term "ADVANCED" in terms of foundry node now has an official meaning anything sub 7nm. With specific rules in place in terms of export especially to China. This was a reference from ASML presentation not so long ago. It is also important to point out, the achievement here is how fast TSMC manage to set things up and running even without the home ground advantage. Intel couldn't even replicate this time frame if it was their Intel 7nm Fab. And of course the greatest record was that with enough planning and permission done before hand TSMC manage to have the fab built and running within 18 months in Taiwan. ( Arguably closer to 12 months ) This also means unless a miracle happen or US Gov being unfair with certain things the chances of Intel catching up with its current team, management, board members and investors, against TSMC in terms of capacity, price, and lead time as a foundry is close to zero. ( I am sorry but I lost all faith and hope now Pat Gelsinger is out. ) Once TSMC 2nm hits the ground later this year, TSMC US will also start their 3nm work if they haven't started now.

necovek 2y ago
If you believe you can consistently predict future like that, it should clearly guide your investment in stocks. However, just like how quickly and suddenly Intel lost the lead, things may turn around for TSMC too: at some point, their research hits a dead end and somebody overtakes them too.
- ksec 2y ago
  >If you believe you can consistently predict future like that, it should clearly guide your investment in stocks. Perhaps I should have written with Disclosures. For the record I did invest in AMD when it was below $3 and TSMC at below $400TWD. None of these are investment advices so take it what you will. ( You get much better return with Tesla and Nvidia in the same period of time but then investment isn't always about best returns. ) And I was waiting to invest into Intel, unfortunately Pat is gone. To my words I said this in April 2023 [1] "I am just worried if Stock price continue to fall, Pat may be forced out again by those stupid Board. And if Pat is out, I won’t invest in Intel at all." As you will read in my reply below, I have a very negative view on Intel's board for a very very long time. >However, just like how quickly and suddenly Intel lost the lead It wasn't quick or even sudden. I wrote about it in 2014 and got a death threat from Intel Fan boys then. I have been questioning about Intel's management on GPU, Fab capacity allocation, CapEX, dividends etc for a very long time. For another point, TSMC never wanted to be the most advance manufacturing Fab. Them having leading node is purely accidental and Intel's slip up. They have been doing Intel -1 node for most of their history and are doing just fine. Providing Pure Play Foundry Services with Industry wide support on Tools at a reasonable / acceptable price for Fabless players. And right now, they are firing on all cylinders. Again. None of these are investment advices and personal opinion only. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35722974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35722974
  - necovek 2y ago
    "Sudden" with big enterprises is still a span of multiple years: probably iX-4 series CPUs hit the wall on performance, with power efficiency continuing improvements into 2017 with iX-8*U CPUs — so 2013 and 2017. And as soon as their first Tick-Tock blip hit, it was clear to everyone that they don't have a clear path forward. In that sense, I fully expect the incumbent top fab to maintain the lead for a number of years even when a "sudden" competitor enters the market with clearer path forward.
samdjstephens 2y ago
It’s about demand isn’t it? TSMC have red hot demand, it’s not hard to understand their urgency in setting up new fabs, wherever they may be. Intel don’t have the same incentive - their incentive is to take the money (because, why wouldn’t you), build newer fabs and hope for some breakthrough in demand. The urgency is not there: being complete before there is demand could be detrimental
- ksec 2y ago
  >It’s about demand isn’t it? Yes. There used to be a saying the most expensive Fab ( or factory ) isn't the most advance Fab, but an empty Fab. You cant built without first ensuring you can fill it, you cant fill it without first ensuring you can deliver. And Intel has failed to deliver twice with their custom foundry. Both times with Nokia and Ericsson. How the two fall for it twice is completely beyond me, but then Intel are known to have very good sales teams. Intel will need another Apple moment that has huge demand, little margin, but willing to pay up front. On the assumption that Intel is even price competitive. The Apple modem may be it. But given the current situation with Intel as they want to lower Capital spending I am not even sure if betting on Intel is a risk Apple is willing to make. Comparing to a stable consistent relationship with TSMC.
  - donavanm 2y ago
    > On the assumption that Intel is even price competitive. The Apple modem may be it. Which is super interesting/ironic with the entire reason for an “apple modem” is due to Intels failure there a decade ago. Bonus irony for the subsequent acquisition.
    - zitterbewegung 2y ago
      Intel wasn't able to ship a competitive modem to Qualcomm and the whole point of the acquisition was to get rid of Qualcomm and even apple hasn't gotten a shipping version of a 5g modem for six years since the first intel modem started in 2018. This was really to vertically integrate the modem in all of the relevant Apple Silicon devices and it keeps going on...
amelius 2y ago
I thought Xnm was just a marketing term and not related to any physical measurements? How are they going to legally enforce this if foundries can just change the naming convention?
- rbanffy 2y ago
  Subjective enforcement is a great tool in cases like these. Not necessarily what’ll happen, but unclear criteria allows politicians to dictate what is “advanced”. The measurement is roughly equivalent to the density that feature size would allow in previous generations. Intel ditched the number anyway.

by ksec 2y ago

necovek 2y ago

If you believe you can consistently predict future like that, it should clearly guide your investment in stocks. However, just like how quickly and suddenly Intel lost the lead, things may turn around for TSMC too: at some point, their research hits a dead end and somebody overtakes them too.

ksec 2y ago
>If you believe you can consistently predict future like that, it should clearly guide your investment in stocks. Perhaps I should have written with Disclosures. For the record I did invest in AMD when it was below $3 and TSMC at below $400TWD. None of these are investment advices so take it what you will. ( You get much better return with Tesla and Nvidia in the same period of time but then investment isn't always about best returns. ) And I was waiting to invest into Intel, unfortunately Pat is gone. To my words I said this in April 2023 [1] "I am just worried if Stock price continue to fall, Pat may be forced out again by those stupid Board. And if Pat is out, I won’t invest in Intel at all." As you will read in my reply below, I have a very negative view on Intel's board for a very very long time. >However, just like how quickly and suddenly Intel lost the lead It wasn't quick or even sudden. I wrote about it in 2014 and got a death threat from Intel Fan boys then. I have been questioning about Intel's management on GPU, Fab capacity allocation, CapEX, dividends etc for a very long time. For another point, TSMC never wanted to be the most advance manufacturing Fab. Them having leading node is purely accidental and Intel's slip up. They have been doing Intel -1 node for most of their history and are doing just fine. Providing Pure Play Foundry Services with Industry wide support on Tools at a reasonable / acceptable price for Fabless players. And right now, they are firing on all cylinders. Again. None of these are investment advices and personal opinion only. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35722974 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35722974
- necovek 2y ago
  "Sudden" with big enterprises is still a span of multiple years: probably iX-4 series CPUs hit the wall on performance, with power efficiency continuing improvements into 2017 with iX-8*U CPUs — so 2013 and 2017. And as soon as their first Tick-Tock blip hit, it was clear to everyone that they don't have a clear path forward. In that sense, I fully expect the incumbent top fab to maintain the lead for a number of years even when a "sudden" competitor enters the market with clearer path forward.

samdjstephens 2y ago

It’s about demand isn’t it? TSMC have red hot demand, it’s not hard to understand their urgency in setting up new fabs, wherever they may be. Intel don’t have the same incentive - their incentive is to take the money (because, why wouldn’t you), build newer fabs and hope for some breakthrough in demand. The urgency is not there: being complete before there is demand could be detrimental

ksec 2y ago
>It’s about demand isn’t it? Yes. There used to be a saying the most expensive Fab ( or factory ) isn't the most advance Fab, but an empty Fab. You cant built without first ensuring you can fill it, you cant fill it without first ensuring you can deliver. And Intel has failed to deliver twice with their custom foundry. Both times with Nokia and Ericsson. How the two fall for it twice is completely beyond me, but then Intel are known to have very good sales teams. Intel will need another Apple moment that has huge demand, little margin, but willing to pay up front. On the assumption that Intel is even price competitive. The Apple modem may be it. But given the current situation with Intel as they want to lower Capital spending I am not even sure if betting on Intel is a risk Apple is willing to make. Comparing to a stable consistent relationship with TSMC.
- donavanm 2y ago
  > On the assumption that Intel is even price competitive. The Apple modem may be it. Which is super interesting/ironic with the entire reason for an “apple modem” is due to Intels failure there a decade ago. Bonus irony for the subsequent acquisition.
  - zitterbewegung 2y ago
    Intel wasn't able to ship a competitive modem to Qualcomm and the whole point of the acquisition was to get rid of Qualcomm and even apple hasn't gotten a shipping version of a 5g modem for six years since the first intel modem started in 2018. This was really to vertically integrate the modem in all of the relevant Apple Silicon devices and it keeps going on...

amelius 2y ago

I thought Xnm was just a marketing term and not related to any physical measurements? How are they going to legally enforce this if foundries can just change the naming convention?

rbanffy 2y ago
Subjective enforcement is a great tool in cases like these. Not necessarily what’ll happen, but unclear criteria allows politicians to dictate what is “advanced”. The measurement is roughly equivalent to the density that feature size would allow in previous generations. Intel ditched the number anyway.