Ask HN: Why is TSMC so competitive in semiconductor fabrication?

[dead]

A recent interview with Shang-Yi Chiang, former Vice President of R&D at TSMC (also held positions at TI, HP, and SMIC) had insightful commentary on the speed of bringing up a new node.

"We all take two years to develop one generation, how come you guys can do it in one or one-and-a-half year?" And they asked if some of your customer transfer technology to you or what not? And I told him, "No," I told him that, "That's not true." I think he probably implied we steal technology from customer, the way he talk.

And I say, "I'll tell you why." I said that, "When we develop one node, basically you have some learning cycles. First, you do some simulation. And you have some idea, then you run wafers to prove that. So, you run a group of wafers according to simulation and you have some splits. The wafer runs through the fab, they come out and you measure them, you analyze them, and you try to improve and you run this again. This again, you run. So, this is learning cycle." At that time, "It takes about six learning cycle, roughly, to complete one generation." Of course, you had some short loops and not just one. I said that, "My R&D wafer in the fab run much faster than yours, because my R&D engineer works three shifts and you only work one shift. So, your R&D wafer move eight hours a day, my work/move 24-hours a day. So, my wafers go three times faster, even if you are twice smarter than me, I still beat you up."

https://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/10279267...

Because most of these books are actually generated?

Business schools teach efficiency. Efficient as in 'put in a dollar, what gets you the most back in the shortest time period?' It is oriented to appeasing stockholders (investors), who want to see earnings grow. If your company is losing money, cut cost centers and maximize revenue to up the profits for the quarter so that the stock doesn't go down. This usually means cutting jobs, defunding research, and making things cheaper. Another way to accomplish this is to sell off specialized parts of the company for a quick cash infusion. Another big thing is the need to quantify -- you need to be able to put the numbers on a chart and if you can't then it is worthless. R&D cannot be quantified like that so it, along with things like IT and information security are seen as cost sinks ready to be slashed.

All of these add up to have terrible effects on companies that rely on research and having a workforce of highly trained professionals who are entrenched in your institutional knowledge. For example, you can't just fire a materials science engineer who is a specialist in silicon crystal seeding to save money one quarter and then hire another one when needed.

TSMC shares deep history with ASML via Philips (Philips was the first investor in TSMC, and ASML was started off as a Philips spin off).

Most of today's advanced litho (EUV) was actually funded/developed in American labs (Berkeley lab etc). The US was ahead in litho for awhile...but GCA folded and ASML acquired Cymer (based in San Diego, develops light sources for EUV) and SVG.

TSMC has a couple of advantages: 1) Focus exclusively on manufacturing, not design, 2) Large volume customers/products (Apple, AMD, NVIDIA etc), but especially Apple/iPhone. The process technology /manufacturing is tightly coupled to design specs. This provides a faster manufacturing learning curve.

-Intel screwed up by missing mobile / pushing out EUV adoption. Since they also design their own chips, they compete with any potential foundry customers in several markets (ex: data center), which is why they haven't been able to grow their foundry services division that much. TSMC is friendly with everyone and does one thing: manufacture chips in the fab.

Intel is attempting to catch up now by placing several orders for the next version of EUV, High NA EUV. They've also stated that with their planned process innovations ("RibbonFET" and "PowerVIA"), they will have a better process than TSMC at the 18A node (1.8 nm).

-For Samsung, their core business is more memory/displays. Memory lags logic in process technology innovation.

On the logic side, Samsung has made the leap to Gate-all-around transistors (next evolution of transistor, succeeding FinFET) before Intel/TSMC but seems to be facing yield problems.

TSMC is the top dog now, but things are going to get interesting as we go <3, 2 nm...