Slashdot Mirror


TSMC, a Company Few Americans Know, is About To Dethrone Intel (bloomberg.com)

For more than 30 years, Intel has dominated chipmaking, producing the most important component in the bulk of the world's computers. That run is now under threat from a company many Americans have never heard of. From a report: Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. was created in 1987 to churn out chips for companies that lacked the money to build their own facilities. The approach was famously dismissed at the time by Advanced Micro Devices founder Jerry Sanders. "Real men have fabs," he quipped at a conference, using industry lingo for factories. These days, ridicule has given way to envy as TSMC plants have risen to challenge Intel at the pinnacle of the $400 billion industry. AMD recently chose TSMC to make its most advanced processors, having spun off its own struggling factories years before.

TSMC's threat to Intel reflects a sea change in chipmaking that's seen one company after another hire TSMC to manufacture the chips they design. Hsinchu-based TSMC has scores of customers, including tech giants Apple and Qualcomm, second-tier players like AMD, and minnows such as Ampere Computing. The explosion of components built this way has given TSMC the technical know-how needed to churn out the smallest, most efficient and powerful chips in the highest volumes.

"It's a once-in-a-50-year situation," said Renee James, the former No. 2 at Intel who heads startup Ampere. Her company is less than two years old and yet it's going after Intel's dominant server chip business. That Ampere thinks it can compete is a testament to stumbles by Intel, and TSMC's ability to benefit from those mistakes. It's been a decade since Intel faced major competition and its 90 percent revenue share in computer processing will again deliver record results this year. But some on Wall Street are concerned, and rivals are emboldened, because TSMC has a real chance to replace Intel as the best chipmaker in the business. Last year, the Taiwanese company amassed a bigger market value than its U.S. rival for the first time.

13 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Chip Maker not Designer. by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Informative

    Intel Designs and makes their own chips. TSMC just takes your designs and makes the chips. Which is a perfectly fine business model, but comparing Intel to them isn't really the same. As Intel puts a lot more R&D in designing the chips then making them.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Chip Maker not Designer. by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nope, most of the R&D work is in the fab, not the microcode. Making the chips work reliably is the hard part.

      AMD is currently shipping 7nm chips thanks to TSMC, Intel is stuck at 10nm.

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:Chip Maker not Designer. by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Intel isn't even on 10nm yet, at least not in terms of having mass production of shipping products (I'm not even going to count the pathetic i3 they trotted out and relegated to the bottom end of the Chinese market). However, if you look at the characteristics of each process, it becomes pretty clear that TSMC is (and historically always has been) playing loose with their naming. Not that it really matters anyways since it's just a marketing term. Intel's 10nm has roughly similar characteristics to TSMC's 7nm process. Even that is bad for Intel though, as historically they tended to have at least a year (and more often two years) lead over the competition.

    3. Re:Chip Maker not Designer. by RhettLivingston · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are correct but you can compare Intel to TSMC plus its customers who are doing their own design work. The article did so.

      Historically, the company has squashed rivals using a research budget that dwarfed anything else in the industry. But TSMC’s approach is even undermining this advantage.

      While Intel still outguns TSMC in capital spending on new plants and equipment, the tables are turned when you combine the research budgets of TSMC customers like Qualcomm, Apple, Nvidia Corp. and Huawei Technologies Co.

      According to Goldman Sachs, the combined budgets of TSMC’s customers are not only larger than Intel but the gap is increasing. By 2020, they will spend almost $20 billion, according to its estimate, at least $4 billion more than Intel.

      IMO, the rise to dominance of TSMC's business model is inevitable and probably being driven by the industry's fall off of the Moore's Law curve.

      For decades, companies have been able to keep increasing the capabilities of their product by just buying the next-generation general-purpose chip. They got lazy in the process. I'd say this transition occurred in the '87-'97 time frame, a time when the need for engineers to design custom hardware plummeted in favor of buying COTS. But the general purpose approach is starting to fall short of the increases necessary to drive new consumer purchases.

      But innovation is still possible. Our laziness has created a deep untapped well of performance growth that can be had by equipping the domains to create domain specific designs. If we can reignite domain-specific engineering, many domains can achieve order of magnitude changes in performance by rolling their own designs.

      TSMC is enabling the larger of these domains to achieve purpose-built silicon designed by the domain's engineers for the domain.

    4. Re:Chip Maker not Designer. by Aighearach · · Score: 4, Informative

      Intel's "10nm" is the same as 7nm. In fact, one of the dimensions is even 7nm, and they could have just measured from that side and called it 7nm. The numbers don't have meaning.

      You're conflating chip design with process design. Obviously, the company that owns the fab has to do the process design. And that is separate from the design of the chips.

      You were wrong as soon as you decided to start with the word "nope." Obviously, Intel does R&D for process, and for the chips they make, so they're doing a lot more R&D than a company that designs a comparable process, but not the chips. The difference in business models, and the fact that they're both competing on the latest generation of process, guarantees that Intel must be doing more R&D.

      The mystery in your comment is why you single out microcode to represent the whole chip design process.

  2. Intel was always primarily a marketing brand by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Intel saw how Microsoft got PC builders to beat each other up to carry the One True Operating System, and decided to avoid that racket by building their own parallel brand: Intel Inside (with music) so that CPUs from AMD, etc. didn't push their pricing down. It largely worked, to the point where almost everyone in America knows who Intel is: "it's the guys who powered my Compaq 10 years ago - dun dun dun DAHN".

  3. It's not only chips by bogaboga · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Last year, the Taiwanese company amassed a bigger market value than its U.S. rival for the first time.

    I am afraid the USA is [quickly] becoming an entity of little consequence. It's sad. When we lost manufacturing to China, folks here were ebullient, saying we surrendered cheap labor intensive jobs to China. They were happy that when it came to technology, we are "up there."

    From this piece, it now appears that we're not safe. All our president can do is to apply sanctions - which hardly work by the way.

    Given that china still owns a significant amount of our debt, we're surely in trouble.

    Not so long from now, Russia and China will introduce the C929 . Then our serious remaining industry will be threatened.

    Suggestion: Let's stop fomenting chaos in far away lands and concentrate on making the USA a beacon of prosperity once again.

    1. Re:It's not only chips by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Meh. Airbus is a European company, and competes head-to-head with Boeing. The difference between one main competitor and two is not nothing, but it also isn't the end of the world. Besides, Boeing is also competing with companies like Bombardier (CRJ) and Embraer, with at least four more regional jet makers starting to gain popularity as well. Sure, those companies build only smaller, regional jets, but every one of those routes is one that could have been flown by a 737, but wasn't. The implication that Boeing is somehow going to go from no competition to crushing competition is kind of silly in that context. They have a *lot* of competition already, and one more player almost certainly isn't a big deal.

      Also, I've seen Russian manufacturing quality control, and I've seen Chinese manufacturing quality control, and I wouldn't fly on a plane built by either one of them unless there was an American company running the show, with employees doing random drop-in checks to keep them honest. I've seen way too much appallingly bad quality control (we're talking loose screws rolling around inside, unauthorized part substitutions causing a 70% DOA rate, premature failure caused by overheating critical components while soldering, etc.) out of Chinese manufacturers to trust them with my life. And Russian heavy industry seems to do well up until they start cutting back on the rate of manufacture, and then those last few off the line are death traps.

      If they make it fifty years without a significant uptick in crashes, I *might* start trusting them. And even then, it would still just be a "might", not a "will". And that's also true for any airline. They're going to be very wary of any new manufacturer until it has proven itself.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  4. Re:um... yeah... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

    if your chip designs are that sensitive for national security you better have your own Fab.

    ROC is a solid America ally, so there isn't much "national security" risk. American defense contractors can't afford their own fabs.

    Now the part that can be fixed with trade negotiations is to be sure that the company doesn't go ahead and make a spinoff product based off your IP.

    ROC does not require any IP sharing or joint ventures (ROC != PRC). If they are fabbing your chip, you give them your masks, not your VHDL/Verilog source. With the mask, they could make direct copies, but not "spin-offs".

    Of course, if they are caught ripping off their customers, their $190B market cap would quickly go to near zero. So they have a pretty big incentive to behave.

  5. Re:What did they expect? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is no historical evidence of the creative aggression of women on any level that has meaning in the large. Every device and entity that they occupy was created and pushed forward by men.

    You write this on a comment thread about the fab AMD is using? AMD, the company headed by Dr. Lisa Su? The company that's going to cause Intel to lose a double digit market share percentage in 2019? For the second time in the company's history? That AMD?

    She joined the company in 2012, became CEO in 2014, and is widely credited with driving the company to commit to and complete the Zen architecture. She took over from Rory Read, a business wonk who did businessy things... and drove AMD into the ground in the process by failing to invest in new development. She's a match for Dirk Meyer, the CEO prior to Rory Read who gave AMD their first big lead over Intel with the Athlon family.

    It may be that men have created more things this way than women, but it's not "creative aggression" so much as it is risk-taking. Men take more risks than women. They have to, to reproduce it nothing else. Many of them fail in their aggression. Enough succeed that stuff gets made. But across the spectrum of risk-takers, there are women right up there at the high end of the spectrum, right along with the men. Dr. Su is one of them. So no, not "every device and entity".

  6. Re:um... no. by dtmos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The "T" in "TSMC" stands for "Taiwan." We might worry that TSMC might share IP with the government of the Republic of China, for whatever good that would do anybody, but the odds of them knowingly sharing IP with mainland China (the PRC) is substantially zero. Not only for ideological reasons, but also because the PRC has SMIC and other TSMC foundry competitors. TSMC has a substantial lead over them at the moment, and would like to keep it that way.

  7. When is 10 nm smaller than 7 nm? by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative
    In the wonderful world of fab marketing.

    Each company seems to be measuring a different thing when they report a process is "x nm." So while you can compare nm within a single company's offerings, you can't compare them between different fab companies. TSMC and Samsung's 7nm processes leapfrogged Intel's 14nm process (37.5 million transistors per mm^2). But they're still behind Intel's 10nm process.

  8. Re:um... yeah... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The PRC might try to finish off the ROC before we can get a carrier there

    Taiwan already has WAY more airpower than a single American carrier, and islands don't sink.

    The main purpose of the carrier would be to act as a tripwire, ensuring American involvement if it is attacked.

    A sea or airborne invasion of Taiwan is far beyond the current capability of the PLA. It would have to be bigger than D-Day. In June 1944, 90% of the German Army was in Russia. Of their soldiers in France, most were focused on Calais. For the PLA, there would be no "second front" nor any deception about landing points. They don't have even 1% of the amphibious capability that the USA+UK+Canada possessed in 1944.

    Airborne invasions have a very poor track record. Crete was a pyrrhic victory, the Normandy jumps were successful only because they linked up with troops advancing from the beaches. Arnheim was a failure. So was Dien Bien Phu.

    China could go nuclear, but that would likely bring American retaliation. If Taiwan ever feels like they can't count on America, they could build their own nukes in, maybe, a month. Remember, every country that has ever made a serious attempt to build a nuke has succeeded on the first try. As one of the most technologically advanced countr^H^H^H^H^Hregions in the world, Taiwan would have no problem.