That's how crowns change hands (or heads). They're stolen. It' been done by every major power before. And in case you're wondering, yes, the US did it too when the British empire haf that crown.
Coming back to the topic, when prices go down due to the increased supply I'm sure you'll be more than happy to finance "the wrong house".
Without doubt, the amount of stolen/unlicensed technology there is large.
But the sad thing is Intel only has its 14nm production-ready, as the yield on its "10 nm" does not reach economical/competitive with 14nm yet, and does not look good for the next few years either.
The hardest part is getting the yield, building more capacity is simply a money issues which isn't problem for SMIC. Assuming their 14nm are anywhere as good as TSMC 16nm, there will be huge shift towards SMIC 14nm within China.
I'm gonna call bullshit on "in house developed", and definitely on hitting 95% yield before starting mass production of their first 14nm FinFET design.
Good money says we will see a design that is very familiar, and that 95% is either the defect or parametric limited yield, but not the closed yield, unless they have absurdly lax process margin windows.
"Under the plan, government planners want to achieve a 70% chip self-sufficiency by 2025, which having a leading-edge fab will help with. However there's doubt among analysts doubt that it is possible. "
That's the difference between China and the US in one sentence: China reckons it's worth trying for a stretch goal, and that the results will be valuable even if the precise goal is not achieved (if they hit eg 60% rather than 70%). Meanwhile the "analysts" think it's not worth trying anything that might be difficult, and that might possibly fail.
One of these attitudes is likely to lead to better longterm outcomes than the other...
In ”communist” China government makes bets with taxpayer money. Maybe they get it right and SMCI benefits. Maybe they end up paying a fortune and failing miserably with 10nm or 7nm. Or arriving late to market unable to compete. They might waste billions (which is common for all countries and governmental projects) and get nothing in return.
Personally I don’t think it is right that governments makes these bets with taxpayer money. Give the money to the poor (or don’t tax it in the first place) and let people themselves decide if they rather invest in the schooling of their kids, healthcare or if they want to gamble in semiconductor market.
Looking on how high demand is for fabs, it seems they could have gone much worse with their money, unless some very big game changer comes they at least won't be on a losing side.
But you are right ofc, investment that would increase the knowledge level of their population would have much higher impact long term.
Note I intentionally say 'knowledge level'... paying money to print more uni diploma without actually increasing skills of your people would be wasting those funds even more than this 'bet'.
Making bets with other people's money is a cornerstone of capitalist society, too - it's just done by corporations that are effectively run as small dictatorships / oligarchies, and instead of "tax" they use profits garnered from things that people can't really avoid buying and/or have no real competitive choice in where they buy it from.
The point I'm making isn't "capitalism bad", though - it's just that you're criticising something (making bets with other people's money) and attributing it to one type of economy, when it's a nontrivial problem that we have in all existing economies.
Ideally we'd build economies and social systems where we can all have good schools, good healthcare and solid development in semiconductor technology.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
20 Comments
Back to Article
Marlin1975 - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link
"in-house developed"Haha... Yea maybe in house developed; but not their house I bet.
FreckledTrout - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link
Someone had to copy the designs in their house. That surely counts?Opencg - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link
china aint got nothing on USAs intel B1G D1X fab.close - Wednesday, February 13, 2019 - link
That's how crowns change hands (or heads). They're stolen. It' been done by every major power before. And in case you're wondering, yes, the US did it too when the British empire haf that crown.Coming back to the topic, when prices go down due to the increased supply I'm sure you'll be more than happy to finance "the wrong house".
jeremyshaw - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link
Well, if they conquer Taiwan by 2025, they can make their plan work, lol.twtech - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link
Setting up a scorched-Earth defense might actually be Taiwan's best way to maintain independence.Ie. as a last defense, we'd destroy our infrastructure and force you to rebuild it post-takeover.
limitedaccess - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link
There isn't a need for that. They're following the Samsung approach and hired the same guy that Samsung originally poached from TSMC.https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=133246...
I guess turn around is fair play though. Expect plenty of similarities of this 14nm process and Samsung's.
peevee - Monday, February 11, 2019 - link
Without doubt, the amount of stolen/unlicensed technology there is large.But the sad thing is Intel only has its 14nm production-ready, as the yield on its "10 nm" does not reach economical/competitive with 14nm yet, and does not look good for the next few years either.
ksec - Friday, February 8, 2019 - link
The hardest part is getting the yield, building more capacity is simply a money issues which isn't problem for SMIC. Assuming their 14nm are anywhere as good as TSMC 16nm, there will be huge shift towards SMIC 14nm within China.Arbie - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link
Are you sure they didn't mean Intel?Gondalf - Monday, February 11, 2019 - link
Smic want to torpedo Tsmc. Intel is not a foundry and never will be.ABR - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link
"SMIC is getting $10 billion to build capacity..." - where from? Gov't grant? Loan? That is a chunk of change.PeachNCream - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link
Most likely from Alphabet/Google.FullmetalTitan - Saturday, February 9, 2019 - link
I'm gonna call bullshit on "in house developed", and definitely on hitting 95% yield before starting mass production of their first 14nm FinFET design.Good money says we will see a design that is very familiar, and that 95% is either the defect or parametric limited yield, but not the closed yield, unless they have absurdly lax process margin windows.
name99 - Sunday, February 10, 2019 - link
"Under the plan, government planners want to achieve a 70% chip self-sufficiency by 2025, which having a leading-edge fab will help with. However there's doubt among analysts doubt that it is possible. "That's the difference between China and the US in one sentence:
China reckons it's worth trying for a stretch goal, and that the results will be valuable even if the precise goal is not achieved (if they hit eg 60% rather than 70%). Meanwhile the "analysts" think it's not worth trying anything that might be difficult, and that might possibly fail.
One of these attitudes is likely to lead to better longterm outcomes than the other...
zepi - Sunday, February 10, 2019 - link
In ”communist” China government makes bets with taxpayer money. Maybe they get it right and SMCI benefits. Maybe they end up paying a fortune and failing miserably with 10nm or 7nm. Or arriving late to market unable to compete. They might waste billions (which is common for all countries and governmental projects) and get nothing in return.Personally I don’t think it is right that governments makes these bets with taxpayer money. Give the money to the poor (or don’t tax it in the first place) and let people themselves decide if they rather invest in the schooling of their kids, healthcare or if they want to gamble in semiconductor market.
HollyDOL - Monday, February 11, 2019 - link
Looking on how high demand is for fabs, it seems they could have gone much worse with their money, unless some very big game changer comes they at least won't be on a losing side.But you are right ofc, investment that would increase the knowledge level of their population would have much higher impact long term.
Note I intentionally say 'knowledge level'... paying money to print more uni diploma without actually increasing skills of your people would be wasting those funds even more than this 'bet'.
Spunjji - Tuesday, February 12, 2019 - link
Making bets with other people's money is a cornerstone of capitalist society, too - it's just done by corporations that are effectively run as small dictatorships / oligarchies, and instead of "tax" they use profits garnered from things that people can't really avoid buying and/or have no real competitive choice in where they buy it from.The point I'm making isn't "capitalism bad", though - it's just that you're criticising something (making bets with other people's money) and attributing it to one type of economy, when it's a nontrivial problem that we have in all existing economies.
Ideally we'd build economies and social systems where we can all have good schools, good healthcare and solid development in semiconductor technology.
jjj - Monday, February 11, 2019 - link
This is likely about as fake news as it can get.Even if they start in H1, it's gonna be risk production.
Spunjji - Tuesday, February 12, 2019 - link
Source?