Wednesday, May 13th 2020

TSMC Says it Still Won't Build a Fab in the US

TSMC, as one of the largest silicon manufacturers in the world, has been subject to pressure from the Trump administration to build a Fab and manufacture silicon on US soil. The reasoning behind this is that the US government could order chips that are supposed to be used in military applications. For security reasons, they need to be manufactured on US grounds and "checked" by the US government. However, it seems like a Taiwanese company has no concrete plans to realize the building of the US Fab.

Thanks to the report of DigiTimes, TSMC has confirmed that they have resisted requests from the US government, and will not build a Fab on US soil for the government. They haven't dismissed the possibility of building one or silicon manufacturing facilities in the US completely. TSMC chairman Mark Liu has told DigiTimes previously that if the company wants to build a US Fab, it will do so because of consumer demand, not the government demand. And that is understandable. It is much easier to work with regular customers compared to the US government which would force a company to go through rigorous security levels to deliver chips.
TSMC HQ
Source: DigiTimes
Add your own comment

45 Comments on TSMC Says it Still Won't Build a Fab in the US

#26
Assimilator
techguymaxcSince the source article is behind a paywall, I don't know if the remarks in this TPU article are a quote from the head of TSMC, the opinion of the Digitimes author, or the opinion of the author of this piece.

If the government "demands" something, you don't have the option to say no. And guess what: the U.S. federal government can't "demand" a foreign company build a fab in the U.S.

Criticial thinking is sadly on the decline these days.
As is knowledge of the dictionary definition of words.
Posted on Reply
#27
ARF
R-T-B[Citation Needed]

Most of what I've seen pegs it around TSMC 7nm at best (optimistic)... and they still can't make enough to feed Intel, let alone others.
Citation is my own observations and impressions on everything that has passed through my reading.
There are Wiki articles which confirm, and they don't even include Intel's 10nm+.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_nm_process


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_nm_process
Posted on Reply
#28
Vayra86
ARFCitation is my own observations and impressions on everything that has passed through my reading.
There are Wiki articles which confirm, and they don't even include Intel's 10nm+.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_nm_process


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_nm_process
You're basing off incomplete AND pretty old information. Your source has data from 2018 when Intel was not or barely in volume production for 10nm and they have been tweaking it since. It does not contain the knowledge and use of EUV patterning - but what it DOES show, is that Samsung, who has an early EUV implementation can already get to the min. pitch value of Intel (36nm) and has a substantially lower fin pitch at 27nm. And note, that was 2 years ago.

Put two and two together and there is no way we can conclude that Intel's 10nm is now somehow better than 7nm TSMC, in fact, it is likely NOT to be. There are also real world products on 10nm and 7nm that are remarkably similar and we see power and clocking advantages for the 7nm versions. Architecture of course plays a role, but fact is, net perf/watt is strong on 7nm, and does not manage to scale well at 10nm. Otherwise Intel would never have respinned their 14nm for the umpteenth time. There is no tangible high performance CPU on 10nm available. The best they have is low power optimized.
Posted on Reply
#29
95Viper
Calm down people... discuss, do not call members names or insult each other.
Stay on topic and play nice.
Report problems... don't reply and become one.

Thank you,
Have a glorious day.
Posted on Reply
#30
ARF
Vayra86You're basing off incomplete AND pretty old information. Your source has data from 2018 when Intel was not or barely in volume production for 10nm and they have been tweaking it since. It does not contain the knowledge and use of EUV patterning - but what it DOES show, is that Samsung, who has an early EUV implementation can already get to the min. pitch value of Intel (36nm) and has a substantially lower fin pitch at 27nm. And note, that was 2 years ago.

Put two and two together and there is no way we can conclude that Intel's 10nm is now somehow better than 7nm TSMC, in fact, it is likely NOT to be. There are also real world products on 10nm and 7nm that are remarkably similar and we see power and clocking advantages for the 7nm versions. Architecture of course plays a role, but fact is, net perf/watt is strong on 7nm, and does not manage to scale well at 10nm. Otherwise Intel would never have respinned their 14nm for the umpteenth time. There is no tangible high performance CPU on 10nm available. The best they have is low power optimized.
AMD's chiplet has ~52.7 MTr/sq.mm, while Navi 10 has ~41 MTr/sq.mm.

Intel states 100.8 MTr/sq.mm for 60/40 NAND+SFF logic.

newsroom.intel.com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/09/10-nm-icf-fact-sheet.pdf
Posted on Reply
#31
silentbogo
I doubt his earlier "wishes" of TSMC to stop doing business with Huawei helped in this regard.
This whole proposition smells of horse piss, cause in the long run US govt. can use that fab, or a threat of switching to Intel as a leverage whenever they need something from TSMC.
DoD contracts may be good and plenty, but the real agenda is too obvious.
Posted on Reply
#32
Vayra86
ARFAMD's chiplet has ~52.7 MTr/sq.mm, while Navi 10 has ~41 MTr/sq.mm.

Intel states 100.8 MTr/sq.mm for 60/40 NAND+SFF logic.

newsroom.intel.com/newsroom/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2017/09/10-nm-icf-fact-sheet.pdf
Don't mistake density for power efficiency or performance. Die size can vary within the same package no problem. Look at Ryzen. It uses many chiplets to get to a single CPU. That's more die sq.mm than Intel, but still efficient and performant.

Intel can produce a smaller die, and ever since they moved to 22nm there are consistent problems with heat captured inside that tiny die. They are fighting that problem to this day, forced to move to different solutions under the IHS to make it work. On 10nm, their high density does not translate to higher performance than the competition.

Density only really matters from a cost/yield perspective.
Posted on Reply
#33
evernessince
the54thvoidAverage annual wage in South Korea ( in US Dollars):

I didn't realise the average US wage is $56k (though the median income is $32k).

UK average is £30k ($36k). - so SK pays more (on average) than UK wage.

Point being - they pay higher than minimum wage.
Average wage in the US is misleading as the billionaires bring the average artificially up. Median wage at $32K is far more accurate in terms of what actual Americans are seeing, and the median is worse then a lot of other 1st world countries. There really isn't a single area America leads in not except completely excessive defensive spending.
Posted on Reply
#34
AsRock
TPU addict
AssimilatorAgent Orange has proven time and time again that no cows are sacred whenever he doesn't get his way. Taiwan is as likely to be thrown under the bus for no good reason, as any other nation that's nominally a US ally.
WTF dude, worry about your own country, you mean how the UK dropped Honk Kong in the shit all those year ago.
Posted on Reply
#35
the54thvoid
Super Intoxicated Moderator
AsRockWTF dude, worry about your own country, you mean how the UK dropped Honk Kong in the shit all those year ago.
It was on a two-hundred year lease. We had to give it back.

Sorry, 99 years.
Posted on Reply
#36
AsRock
TPU addict
Wasn't that after the treaty was changed ?, don't believe it was that originally.

anyways, all country's have a agenda and better support those who support you. And tbh i bet their is many reason's why they will not build another ? fab in the US. Their site seems to show they do have one in WA already how ever @R-T-B said one was in New York ?, which i remember being talked about some years ago.
Posted on Reply
#37
the54thvoid
Super Intoxicated Moderator
The actual piece is about a specific fab to build chips for the military. They are willing to build fabs for consumer and commercial products but going into a military contract creates huge ties and also, the aforementioned issue of global trust. It's not about having no fabs in the US.

From the OP:
will not build a Fab on US soil for the government. They haven't dismissed the possibility of building one or silicon manufacturing facilities in the US completely
Posted on Reply
#38
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
TSMC will lose some orders but the capital investment cost to build a fab in USA outstrips sales they'll lose from the US government. US government is a big purchaser, but TSMC competing directly with Intel on Intel's home turf...is a risky proposition.
Posted on Reply
#39
Imsochobo
FlankerI have a former colleague who used to work at TSMC as an engineer. Graduate jobs were said to be boring with long ours with occasional night shifts. A common complaint was that people with Masters and PhD were hired to do really simple jobs. The pay is really good though with some nice perks. If he stayed there for a couple more years his salary can reach six figures in USD.
and that's how you get a company to perfection, over education everywhere, every step is looked at with educated eyes :D
R-T-BWe protect Taiwan for a lot more than just TSMC...
True, But saying from Taiwan and TSMC's standpoint increasing reliance on Taiwan is in their best interest.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 24th, 2024 14:17 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts