For context, each of the current EUV machines reportedly has over 100,000 components, and they take 40 freight containers or four jumbo jets to ship. They cost around $140 million each, according to reports.
Yeah, before your edit you asked what's the limiting factor. Aside the quote you now added there's also this:ASML's High-NA EUV lithography machine is set to transform chipmaking (cnbc.com)
Multi-Patterning EUV Vs. High-NA EUV (semiengineering.com)
Really enjoyed these articles.
WOAHHHHH, dude!
It's simply the very definition of high tech. Also constant improvements are being made, so these are the opposite of mass production.EUV machines take years to build and ASML can only ship so many of them in any given year. Last year, it sold just 31, according to its financials, and it’s made around only 100 in total.
Yeah. 100,000 components in an EUV machine means ASML is likely understaffed!Yeah, before your edit you asked what's the limiting factor. Aside the quote you now added there's also this:
It's simply the very definition of high tech. Also constant improvements are being made, so these are the opposite of mass production.
Both cases you describe there are the same issue.unless there are some components that can only be made or assembled by a small group of highly specialized employees.
More likely that some components are hard to make or source which creates a bottleneck for production.
Sorry, that's pure nonsense. Not every issue should be explained away with "they have no competition". ASML has a huge backlog, faster turnaround time would directly lead to much higher profit for them. The bottleneck is very likely a lack of highly specialized workers needed.Or they can't be bothered to speed things up since they have no competition.
Challenged by an analyst how ASML could be so sure the increase in demand will be sustained, Wennink answered that everything is “happening at a speed that we completely misjudged.” Yes, there’s a shortage and that will take time to resolve, but underneath, there’s also a very real growth trend, he said. “So we’ll build that capacity.”
And down stream supplier output limitations. Like the EUV optics from Carl-Ziess. They need to reduce their cycle times as well. Making nearly perfect EUV optical systems that have to handle high output EUV lasers - tough stuff to say the least.Both cases you describe there are the same issue.
Sorry, that's pure nonsense. Not every issue should be explained away with "they have no competition". ASML has a huge backlog, faster turnaround time would directly lead to much higher profit for them. The bottleneck is very likely a lack of highly specialized workers needed.
Every lack of supply is very likely due to wrong estimations. The big question is what caused the wrong estimations to begin with.Their estimation sucks. I think the major chipmakers are themselves to blame for letting one company become a roadblock in their progress.
ASML CEO: “We’ve structurally underestimated growth in the industry” – Bits&Chips (bits-chips.nl)
Their estimation sucks. I think the major chipmakers are themselves to blame for letting one company become a roadblock in their progress.
If anything Intel's 10 nm woes give me some hope. There will at some point be another wall, but this time the whole industry will hit it. However it's fairly clear that a lot of extra performance can be wrung out of an existing process if that becomes required.
That's why Gelsinger is in a panic running around the world trying to convince any leader/policy maker, etc., that Intel MUST survive. I think Samsung is worse off as they don't have that solid x86 volume, but I think their government is willing to throw allot more dollars their way than the US is willing to give Intel. As you point out, both need to attract more high volume customers to stay in the game. It will be interesting to watch, but sad when one ultimately drops out of the race. Both could linger on longer, out of 'National Security Needs' (US) and national pride (Korean).There's never been a time where the whole industry hit a wall, so I see no reason to expect that in the future. If one company hits a wall their chances of recovery and catching up become more dim with each cycle because missing out on that juicy early depreciation really hits the bottom line. I expect either Intel or Samsung to fall out of the race before the end of the decade, then we'll see what happens when it is down to just two.
What's the reasoning? Just probability since this is complex? Or because of the competition situation not allowing room for more? In the latter case it seems to me that demand for chips is ever increasing.I expect either Intel or Samsung to fall out of the race before the end of the decade, then we'll see what happens when it is down to just two.
Cost. Cutting edge chip fabrication plants have been dropping like flies as the costs just keep going up.What's the reasoning? Just probability since this is complex? Or because of the competition situation not allowing room for more? In the latter case it seems to me that demand for chips is ever increasing.
TSMC can, their track record has been excellent, both technology wise and in wining extremely lucrative contracts. The problem is that it's a much harder sell for Intel & Samsung. Failing to deliver on time and on spec, unable to significantly expand their customer portfolios. Samsung blew wrt Apple - such a massive hit for them. I mean, Samsung puts allot of Qualcomm SoCs in their phones - real confidence builder.Sure the demand is there now. But can you guarantee to your investors that the demand will be there many years from now when you are online?
Yes, TSMC can. But that just reinforces the smaller and smaller group of cutting edge companies. The real question is can anyone not named in your post do so?TSMC can, their track record has been excellent, both technology wise and in wining extremely lucrative contracts. The problem is that it's a much harder sell for Intel & Samsung. Failing to deliver on time and on spec, unable to significantly expand their customer portfolios. Samsung blew wrt Apple - such a massive hit for them. I mean, Samsung puts allot of Qualcomm SoCs in their phones - real confidence builder.
What's the reasoning? Just probability since this is complex? Or because of the competition situation not allowing room for more? In the latter case it seems to me that demand for chips is ever increasing.
China is trying very hard and the government is putting in big bucks as well. Problem for them is that China has become so corrupt that the vast majority of efforts are just cons that fail.Yes, TSMC can. But that just reinforces the smaller and smaller group of cutting edge companies. The real question is can anyone not named in your post do so?
Its a lot easier for China just to take Taiwan, which they seem to be wanting to do. Then they'd have all the equipment, engineers, and chip designs they could need.China is trying very hard and the government is putting in big bucks as well. Problem for them is that China has become so corrupt that the vast majority of efforts are just cons that fail.
Despite their excellent industrial espionage efforts, developing workers with the necessary skill to build out their own EUV machines and the downstream supply requirements is much, much harder than just having good blueprints.
No, it is not *easier*. Not for by a long shot. The entire western world and friends would sanction their butts to the ends of the universe. Assuming we don't go to war over it.Its a lot easier for China just to take Taiwan, which they seem to be wanting to do. Then they'd have all the equipment, engineers, and chip designs they could need.
Its a lot easier for China just to take Taiwan, which they seem to be wanting to do. Then they'd have all the equipment, engineers, and chip designs they could need.
I'm not sure I'd classify Gelsinger's actions as panicked. It just might seem that way because we're unused to Intel having a competent CEO. Clearly Intel doesn't -need- the money in order to execute their plans seeing as how they still make more than TSMC. But why spend the company's money if the political environment means you can spend government money instead? Exact same approach that TSMC and Samsung take, we just normally don't hear as much about it because it's mostly been in their respective home countries.That's why Gelsinger is in a panic running around the world trying to convince any leader/policy maker, etc., that Intel MUST survive. I think Samsung is worse off as they don't have that solid x86 volume, but I think their government is willing to throw allot more dollars their way than the US is willing to give Intel. As you point out, both need to attract more high volume customers to stay in the game. It will be interesting to watch, but sad when one ultimately drops out of the race. Both could linger on longer, out of 'National Security Needs' (US) and national pride (Korean).
The first time I read about a fabrication plant was when it used to cost $1 or $2 billion and AMD had gone fabless and everyone said their days were numbered. At that time, few could have predicted that AMD was doing the right thing. Funnily, it took Intel's bungling of their process leadership to prove that AMD went in the right direction. It would be a very different world today if Intel had stayed on course and Alder Lake were on 7nm.
- Intel is spending $20 billion for two fab plants: https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...-innovation-product-leadership.html#gs.jb3i26
- Samsung spent $14 billion for one plant: https://www.eetimes.com/samsung-breaks-ground-on-14-billion-fab/#
- TSMC is spending $12 billion for a plant: https://www.anandtech.com/show/15803/tsmc-build-5nm-fab-in-arizona-for-2024