I think realistically it'd be more fair to say that 3nm is coming in 2025 and there's a huge distance between 2025 and 2028 (when they'll start doing 3nm and 2nm in the US). Right now, AMD, Nvidia, and Qualcomm aren't doing 3nm. If the world lost 3nm today, it'd basically be Apple's products that would get hit. It'd definitely screw over Apple and it'd mess up the future plans for AMD, Nvidia, and Qualcomm, but it's not like the industry has been using 3nm for over a year. No, only Apple.
The big problem is that there's a big difference between "we'll be bringing 3nm to the US in early 2026" and "we'll be bringing 2nm and 3nm to the US in 2028". If they started making 3nm in the US in early 2026, that's going to be less than a year behind most companies using 3nm. Qualcomm and Nvidia will probably start shipping 3nm in February 2025 and AMD will probably start shipping 3nm in late 2025.
If TSMC's US fab were 12-18 months behind their Taiwan fabs, it wouldn't really be a problem, except for Apple. Everyone else is waiting 18 months for TSMC's latest gen stuff anyway.
The problem isn't that the US fab can't do 3nm today. TSMC's Taiwan fabs aren't doing 3nm at scale unless your name is Apple. The problem is that their US fabs won't be doing 3nm for around 3 years after the industry moves over to 3nm. If the US fab could satisfy 4nm demand and Taiwan disappeared today, it'd mostly hit Apple's product line. The issue is that in 2026 or 2027, every company will be relying on 3nm and if Taiwan disappeared then, it'd hit the whole industry's product lines.
But it's possible that Intel's 18A will do amazing and Intel will be able to manufacture at scale and a lot of TSMC's business will move to Intel. Then the US (Intel) would be manufacturing more advanced chips than TSMC in Taiwan. TSMC isn't expected to make the move to High-NA EUV for a few more years so Intel has some time when it could overtake TSMC.
The difference isn't revolutionary, but noticeable. Whoever has it will have a competitive advantage.
> I think realistically it'd be more fair to say that 3nm is coming in 2025
Almost everyone but Apple decided to skip N3B and wait for the later N3E. Intel decided to just be late with N3B, launching their laptop part in September and the desktop part in October. Apple, Qualcomm, and Mediatek all have N3E parts on shelves and in consumer's hands. 3nm is here, now. Two generations of TSMC 3nm have ramped to full production.
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2024/11/08/200...
The article mentions that Arizona was set to ramp 4nm, which is presumably what they have now.
TSMC's manufacturing process using ASML EUV machines is different from Intel or Samsung.
People think you just buy an EUV machine, and you can start printing money. Far from it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Administration_Regulati...
And in fact, the machines that make these chips are restricted by US export law:
https://www.asml.com/en/news/press-releases/2024/asml-statem...
>The Department of State: the ITAR administered by the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls relate to defense articles and defense services on the US Munitions List and section 38 of the Arms Export Control Act
>The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
>The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), which controls the export and re-export of commodities related to nuclear reactor vessels, per the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 The Department of Energy (DOE), which controls the export and re-export of technology related to the production of special nuclear materials, per the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
>The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), which controls the export of unclassified technology in the form patent applications or amendments, modifications, supplements, or divisions of patents. The BIS has delegated authority under the Export Administration Act to the PTO.
>The Department of Defense (DoD) and Department of State Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program: items that are sold, leased, or loaned by the DoD to a foreign country or international organization under the FMS program are subject to the Arms Export Control Act instead of the EAR.
the US is selectively getting involved in worldwide conflicts to deter China from invading China, and its awkward, with arduous contrived rationales to maintain its people’s support
and once we get stateside semiconductors at low enough nanometers we wont have to do any of that any more
I cant wait
good thing there are 185 other countries that could care if they really did. this wont be controversial to point out, in the future. it will be a time period that made little sense.
1. Taiwan is not China, any more than Ukraine is Russia, except if you believe all the propaganda coming from the mainland (or Russia). Ask any Taiwanese, and while many consider and appreciate a solid Chinese cultural heritage, they consider themselves independent and want nothing to do with China (except business). Newer generations of Taiwanese are even more independently-minded and consider themselves even more Taiwanese than the previous generations.
2. Even if for some reason you truly think that it is the same country or should be the same country, it is immoral to wish that a peaceful, independent, democratic, and open society like Taiwan's should be brutally attacked and absorbed by a war-mongering, authoritarian/dictatorial, opaque country. (Things could be different if mainland China was democratic, but it isn't, and won't be for a long time.)
3. Even if for some reason you are ok with the above, odds are that the difficulty and complexity of an attack on Taiwan would end up being extraordinarily costly for China (and Taiwan of course). It could lead to all sorts of escalations in the region, sanctions, the collapse of trade with China from the US and other countries, nuclear proliferation (see Ukraine considering developing nuclear weapons if they don't get security guarantees), and who knows what else.
Taiwan might be considered a de facto independent country, but according to most institutions it's officially part of China.
1. Taiwan's official name is Republic of China (ROC): it regards itself as part of China, and the sole legitimate seat of China's government. It's true however that "it has not formally renounced its claim to the mainland, but ROC government publications have increasingly downplayed this historical claim". [1]
2. In 1971, the UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 "recognized the People's Republic of China (PRC) as 'the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations'". [2]
3. Only 11 (tiny) countries officially recognize Taiwan as an independent country, i.e. maintain full diplomatic relations. [3]
4. The U.S. official position is that "The United States has a longstanding one China policy", and "we not support Taiwan independence". [4]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan#Foreign_relations_and_i... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembl... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Taiwan#Fu... [4] https://www.state.gov/u-s-relations-with-taiwan/
1. How the PRC (mainland China) regards Taiwan (or ROC).
2. How Taiwan regards itself. This has changed over time.
3. How third-parties play that situation.
Since Nixon's visit to China in the 1970s, the world recognized that it was pointless to deny that the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) ruled mainland China for good. From there, the PRC progressively got official recognition in institutions like the UN. In order not to inflame the PRC's leadership and keep access to mainland China, many countries state that they do not recognize or encourage Taiwan's independence. But note that they also maintain de facto diplomatic relationships, being careful not to use the name "embassy" or "consulate".
In reality, Taiwan has been absolutely independent since the 1950s. It's just that it's not officially recognized by most institutions and countries for diplomatic reasons.
I'll add that the "one China policy" is ambiguous by design. It doesn't mean that it must happen in the foreseeable future. It also doesn't mean that the PRC should be allowed to take over Taiwan through military might.
In the end, no matter what the various parties' policies are, almost nobody in Taiwan at this point believes that a peaceful so-called "reunification" is desirable or possible. I put the word "reunification" in quotes in particular because the CCP never controlled Taiwan, and also because in general the historical argument doesn't make any sense. Personally, I think that the principle of self-determination is what should apply here, for moral reasons. [1]
[1] https://asiatimes.com/2022/12/us-mulls-scorched-earth-strate...
Do you believe North Korea to be a democratic republic?
both entities would have territorial disputes with other neighboring regions, that we don't agree with, since we care about those region’s self determination too
some parts of the ROC have dropped claims to the mainland
and its all so hilarious that it reminds me how we, the US, shouldn't be involved, and wont be after the semiconductor problem is hedged
Whether the US should be involved or not is a valid question: moral, practical, diplomatic. A very recent parallel is that of the war in Ukraine: should the US be involved and be isolationist, or not? I for one think that a more than fair case can be made that holding the moral high ground will also, coincidentally, lead to more stability and more economic rewards. So it's a no-brainer and I don't share your isolationist view.
You should, incidentally, remember that US support for Taiwan goes back to a time when Taiwan didn't even have a semiconductor industry. It's unclear that US support would cease entirely if the US was fully independent in that industry, and it's also unclear whether that will happen in any short-term horizon, or at all.
Do you even realize that there are many other conflicts that also involve American values that we aren’t involved in?
Its hard to tell. Its a very selective morality as I already mentioned.
Regarding conflicts you care about subsidizing, there are 185 other countries that could as well. Go ask them and see how absurd it sounds, because the same standard actually applies to the US, you just aren't willing to see that.
And yes, the China situation is a mockery of the nation state concept and is hilarious to me and many others. What is happening in the east should be ignored until a nation state concept emerges that we can relate to.
Let me rephrase: thats whats going to happen after the semiconductor situation is hedged. Everyone knows it, TSMC knows it. Thats why TSMC drags its feet with many excuses about talent because they need to delay as well, for the current personnel’s entire lifespan to be honest.
The Chinese who ran from the communist revolution, invaded Taiwan, setup their own military dictatorship, and they were extremely brutal to the natives Taiwanese. (Sadly this has been their lot through several occupations by different entities.)
During more recently history they have been polishing more democratic values and life for the natives has improved.
But for Taiwan to be free, in any proper sense, the Chinese occupiers must leave.
We are not talking about remaking history here. We are talking about the present and the future of Taiwan. Its population and culture are what they are now.
Chiang Kai-shek's move to Taiwan and subsequent rule was indeed at times brutal, and the immigration massive in relative terms. But that move took place in the 1950s, and since that time amends have been made. You will see monuments and remembrance days related to those events. Taiwan is now a thriving (if at times feisty) democracy where minorities are protected.
During my last trip to Taiwan, I revisited the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall.[1] What struck me is the museum underneath. Here, for all to contemplate, is a documentation of Chiang Kai-shek's life and rule. The striking part is that the errors and brutality of his rule are also well-documented and preserved, officially accessible to all. Try to find anything like this kind of recognition of past mistakes in mainland China (hint: you won't find it).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek_Memorial_Hall
Per your argument this is so far in the past that the invasion and occupation doesnt matter anymore To the winner goes the spols right. The rights of the natives are well past their sell buy date.
How many years do you count from an occupation begins until it does not matter anymore how or what the nation was has no meaning anymore?
20 years? 40 years?
Do you care to then apply your time of expiration of a nation and its peoples to other conflicts we have had have had in the world?
Or is Taiwan a special case?
Regardless of whether you think it's a state, it is an entity with agency that makes its own rules that its companies (like TSMC) follow.
See also the US sanctions on SMIC.
(see the Santa Clara section here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_Cal...)
Furthermore, packaging and testing was largely outsourced and the domestic semiconductor industry imploded in the 2010s with IBM Micro and AMD's failures.
The same thing happened to Japan when they began offshoring Memory Fabrication to South Korea and Taiwan in the 1990s-2000s.
That said, from a NatSec perspective legacy processes (28nm, 48nm) and compound semiconductors would be much more critical (and a significant amount of funding has been devoted to that).
Yep. They still own the IP from the IBM Microelectronics days.
Much of the breakthroughs in EUV were done in Upstate NY (especially at SUNY Albany, SUNY Polytechnic, and RPI), and a lot of that was co-owned by IBM, ASML, and TEL.
> They just don’t want to assume the risks
The capex - and pretty much.
Semiconductor Fabrication is high cost, low margins, so it's difficult to spin up without industrial policy.
Albany deserves it's own special section of hell.
It was Japanese OSAT players like Hitachi that sparked the Penang packaging cluster in Malaysia in the 70s-90s and Japanese Memory firms like NEC+Hitachi that started South Korea and Taiwan's fabrication industries.
Taiwan didn't truly become a leader in the cutting edge fab space until the 2010s when US, SK, and Japanese players dropped the ball, and Apple chose TSMC in the 2010s due to their patent litigation with Samsung (nixing South Korea).
Intel did try doing this in the 2000s, but couldn't justify the resourcing needed for this due to x86 as well as their restrictive licensing of Intel Atom.
Meanwhile, ARM was fabless and just licensed to anyone (a major reason why Chinese challenger brands exist in the Chips space today)
Fundamentally, you cannot be both an IP creator (eg. Design) and chip fabricator, as both functions have different economics and competitive structures, and one BU inevitabely holds the other back.
> Samsung's foundry business probably would have been a bit better off, but overall it would still be TSMC as the leading foundry
Samsung, SK Hynix, and other Korean players dropped the ball due to the Apple lawsuit as well as the 2016-17 SK-China trade war (impacted SK exports to China - including intermediate parts) and the 2019-23 SK-Japan trade war (a number of critical components in fabrication are supplied by Japanese firms like Tokyo Electron and Nikon and were impacted by mutual tariffs)
Vertical integration can win too, it worked for Intel for decades.
Most players in the hardware industry try to specialize in one function and do that very well, as this builds your competitive advantage AND allows you to leverage partnerships to further enhance your moat by building an ecosystem.
For example, ARM is purely design driven - targeted specifically at low power compute usecases - and licensed it's IP out to just about any player, which allowed an ecosystem to develop.
Nvidia did the same thing by remaining fabless and only concentrating on GPUs.
TSMC concentrates only on fabrication and doesn't dare enter design because they know all their customers would leave overnight because they would not want to subsidize a potential competitor.
Intel was in too many segments, which meant it was inevitably competing with everybody, which forced everyone to leverage partnerships to challenge the big baddie.
A similar thing happened to Samsung to a certain extent as well.