Tuesday, December 21st 2021

Foundry Industry Unlikely to Change Much Due to Cost of Cutting Edge Fabs

According to an article by DigiTimes, which kind of states the obvious, the foundry industry isn't likely to change much over the next few years, as the cost of building a cutting edge foundry keeps increasing, which means the competition isn't likely to catch up with the market leaders. The costs mentioned are estimates, but seem quite likely and explains why there's so little competition in the foundry business.

It's unclear if the costs have been inflation adjusted or not, but a 90 nm 12-inch fab that could output 50,000 wafers a month, is said to have cost US$2.4 billion to build when it was the cutting edge node. Once things moved on to 28 nm, the equivalent fab would've cost US$6 billion, whereas a cutting edge 5 nm fab today, comes in at as much as US$16 billion. These are obviously long term investments, as even today, 90 nm nodes are used for plenty of chips, but most of the nodes above 28 nm are today used for specialty products rather than commonly used ICs, unless we're talking about 8-bit microcontrollers or some simpler components which companies such as TSMC and Samsung wouldn't even bother making.
The article continues to mention that TSMC is set to re-invest around 54 percent of its revenue from this year into building new fabs and nodes. It should also be noted that TSMC is making some 52 percent of its revenue from its most advanced nodes, with 5 nm being around 18 percent and 7 nm 34 percent, according to Bloomberg. The last quarter of 2021, TSMC is expected to pull in a revenue of US$15.7 billion, which should be compared to Samsung's foundry business that isn't expected to break the US$15 billion mark this year.

DigiTimes seem to think that TSMC has an advantage over Samsung due to TSMC's much greater revenue, but seems to have forgotten that the Samsung foundry business has the rest of Samsung behind it as well and the company as a whole pulled in some US$63 billions in revenue in the third quarter of this year. Samsung might be willing to invest a fair chunk of that change into its foundry business to stay competitive, least not because Samsung is relying heavily on its own foundry business, not only for mobile SoCs, but also for its storage products. As to how much profit Samsung is earning on its third party foundry business at this point is unclear, but it seems to become increasingly important as Samsung moves to smaller and smaller nodes.

As to where things will end up, is anyone's guess at this point, but with these kinds of investments required for every cutting edge foundry, it's no wonder that these companies are looking for every bit of extra financial support that they can get when they're looking at where to build their next foundry. We're unlikely to see a move away from semiconductors any time soon and node shrinks are proving just as important as everything else that goes into making advanced chips, so as long as someone is willing to invest, we're going to continue to see regular node shrinks, although it's likely that the cost of new fabs are going to be the cause for a slowdown before we got to the point where the various technologies used to make chips are becoming the limiting factor.
Sources: DigiTimes, Bloomberg
Add your own comment

15 Comments on Foundry Industry Unlikely to Change Much Due to Cost of Cutting Edge Fabs

#1
Zsohi
...and today's chips are freaking huge. What if...
Posted on Reply
#2
ReallyBigMistake
If companies transition to 450 mm wafers would this make chip fabrication cheaper? I remember reading about 450mm waffers back in 2012 but it seems no company took the dive and we are stuck with 300 mm waffers for the foreseeable future.

Posted on Reply
#3
TheLostSwede
News Editor
ReallyBigMistakeIf companies transition to 450 mm wafers would this make chip fabrication cheaper? I remember reading about 450mm waffers back in 2012 but it seems no company took the dive and we are stuck with 300 mm waffers for the foreseeable future.
It's hard to handle large silicon wafers, which is the main reason why they never took off.
Posted on Reply
#4
windwhirl
TheLostSwedeIt's hard to handle large silicon wafers, which is the main reason why they never took off.
Also, the defect rate/yields wouldn't necessarily improve if fabs switched out to a larger wafer size, would they?
Posted on Reply
#5
iO
Nah, HVM of 450mm wafers won't ever happen. Simply because the entire production line is made for only up to 300mm, making it useless for those big wafers. So you would need to buy every single piece of equipment again. Compared to that giant investment, the gains of the increased surface area are almost tiny.


10 year old graph shows the trend of thinning out the cutting edge manufacturers. Even billions of subsidies and tax incentives won't change that. The only way we will ever see high end processes from fabs other than Intel, Samsung or TSMC would be if they grant licenses to others.

Posted on Reply
#6
looniam
spend money to make money.

business 101.
Posted on Reply
#7
TheLostSwede
News Editor
windwhirlAlso, the defect rate/yields wouldn't necessarily improve if fabs switched out to a larger wafer size, would they?
Well, they could over time, but it's also likely that a larger wafer will have more defects in and of itself. As the tradeoff is unknown and no-one is seemingly willing to move to larger wafers, I guess we won't know for sure.
looniamspend money to make money.

business 101.
Except in this case, we're quickly getting to a point where the investments are getting so high that the ROI is becoming so drawn out that most companies are calling it quits.
iONah, HVM of 450mm wafers won't ever happen. Simply because the entire production line is made for only up to 300mm, making it useless for those big wafers. So you would need to buy every single piece of equipment again. Compared to that giant investment, the gains of the increased surface area are almost tiny.


10 year old graph shows the trend of thinning out the cutting edge manufacturers. Even billions of subsidies and tax incentives won't change that. The only way we will ever see high end processes from fabs other than Intel, Samsung or TSMC would be if they grant licenses to others.

Very nice graphic, although it's missing the PRC contenders (for obvious reasons).
An updated version wouldn't look all that different.
Posted on Reply
#8
bug
Yeah, the ballooning costs if why I stopped building fabs in my backyard, too :p
Posted on Reply
#9
looniam
TheLostSwedeExcept in this case, we're quickly getting to a point where the investments are getting so high that the ROI is becoming so drawn out that most companies are calling it quits.
long term IS the way to invest. but i understand not everyone agrees.
Posted on Reply
#10
TheLostSwede
News Editor
looniamlong term IS the way to invest. but i understand not everyone agrees.
And when the income doesn't justify the investment?
Posted on Reply
#11
Minus Infinity
Maybe we should stop chasing smaller feature sizes for several years as the costs are insane. Better to consolidate at 5nm for at least 3-5 years and get rock-solid supply. Also many chips don't need any better than 12-14nm, how about repurposing some of those old FABS for automotive and other applications. The cost of the 1-2nm FABS will be ridiculous and so what, we get there in 4-5 years and then what, that's the end of silicon based IC's. And you cannot make features smaller after that with current tech.
Posted on Reply
#12
bug
looniamlong term IS the way to invest. but i understand not everyone agrees.
So... invest in 3nm now to break even in 2050? Do you think that's workable?
Posted on Reply
#13
looniam
TheLostSwedeAnd when the income doesn't justify the investment?
go big or don't go in at all. :)
Posted on Reply
#14
TheLostSwede
News Editor
Minus InfinityMaybe we should stop chasing smaller feature sizes for several years as the costs are insane. Better to consolidate at 5nm for at least 3-5 years and get rock-solid supply. Also many chips don't need any better than 12-14nm, how about repurposing some of those old FABS for automotive and other applications. The cost of the 1-2nm FABS will be ridiculous and so what, we get there in 4-5 years and then what, that's the end of silicon based IC's. And you cannot make features smaller after that with current tech.
Well, a lot of fabs are actually being updated to be able to produce the ever improving nodes, so it's not like there are a lot of "old" fabs sitting around underutilised.
That said, some of them are obviously being used exactly as you're saying.
At least part of the issue is that the fabless IC design companies are relying heavily on the node shrinks to be able to keep pushing for better and better performance, while remaining within a certain thermal envelope. We've obviously seen that it's possible to stay on the same node and improve both performance and thermals, courtesy of Nvidia, so maybe more work needs to be done on the chip design side so we don't need to move to new nodes on almost a yearly basis.
looniamgo big or don't go in at all. :)
As the person said above your comment, what is a reasonable ROI time?
Obviously TSMC has worked out a schedule that works for them, but we are going to hit a point sooner rather than later when things will change.
Posted on Reply
#15
looniam
TheLostSwedeAs the person said above your comment, what is a reasonable ROI time?
Obviously TSMC has worked out a schedule that works for them, but we are going to hit a point sooner rather than later when things will change.
idk, when can you tell someone is just yanking your chain?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 16th, 2024 17:57 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts