This is the main point for everything... China need to manufacturer its own equipment. If china still use foreign equipment, it will never going further
Chinese semiconductor industry
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
- Status
@localizer what really surprises me is that Ms Tsai is willingly handed TSMC to the US on a silver platter, what kind of rational leader throw away your only insurance and prominence. Her hatred of China clouded her judgment. BUT I think Mr Morris Chang is not a idiot, he will retain the core group and he also know that within the time frame of Arizona Fab completion (2025?) 5nm will be mainstream and China will be able to produce the same Chip while producing the more advance 3nm and 2nm at Taiwan.
The latest from the Nikkei in Japan
Biden set to double down on China tech denial
China's hunger for technology has been on full display during the current Two Sessions meeting in Beijing. On Mar. 5, Premier Li Keqiang confirmed sharp increases in state spending for frontier areas such as semiconductors, as his administration grapples with crippling U.S. restrictions on Chinese tech companies.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Joe Biden launched a review of supply chain resilience last month, pledging a brisk 100-day rethink of semiconductor policies. One outcome is obvious: those in Beijing hoping the U.S. will ease its tech war will be disappointed. Instead, Biden is likely to push forward with an evermore Chinese-style industrial policy, as he seeks both to cajole global chip suppliers to shift to the U.S., and deny China access to that industry's most advanced products.
Global chip shortages give this review extra impetus, with U.S. automakers forced to stop or slow production. There is not much Biden can do about that, with supply delays reflecting a post-COVID bounce-back in chip demand. In the longer term, though, the U.S. faces dilemmas as it decides how to revitalize its own chipmaking sector and slow China's technology advance.
Around half of global semiconductor sales are still controlled by U.S. companies, although their technological lead is mostly confined to research and design. Over recent decades chipmakers like Intel outsourced much of their production to Asian giants including Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), alongside the likes of Apple, who design but do not make their own chips. U.S. strategists now view this as a mistake that leaves global chip manufacturing dangerously concentrated in Taiwan and South Korea, and thus vulnerable to Chinese interference.
Former President Donald Trump persuaded TSMC to set up what was originally slated as a $12 billion facility in Arizona, although media reports suggest it now could end up many times larger. Samsung Electronics is planning a $17 billion plant too, taking advantage of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tax breaks. More money is set to follow. Recent legislation offered up to $3 billion to any company planning a new U.S. fabrication plant. Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer has promised tens of billions more.
This financial splurge has its risks. Just as happens in China, the more the U.S. spends in sops, the more it is likely to waste, hence the downside of running an increasingly Chinese-style industrial policy. Even successful subsidies will take time. The new TSMC and Samsung factories are not likely to open until 2023. Any further new facilities would take even longer.
Biden then faces the more immediate problem of how to continue Trump's moves to stop China from accessing chips its own companies do not know how to make. Behind the new U.S. plants lies an unspoken arrangement that TSMC and Samsung will make their most advanced products in the U.S., starting with 5-nanometer chips. This will help U.S. supply chain resilience by ensuring that, in emergencies, U.S.-made chips end up with U.S. companies. But it is unlikely to satisfy those who worry about the security impact of China having those same advanced technologies.
The U.S. is now using its so-called entity list to deny sales to dozens of Chinese companies, including electronics giant Huawei Technologies and chipmaker Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp., better known as SMIC. But Biden's policy review looks likely to bring in more explicit measures aimed at sustaining his country's chipmaking lead. Eventually, the aim will be what Eurasia Group analyst Paul Triolo calls separate "blue," or U.S., and "red," or Chinese, semiconductor supply chains, forcing the likes of TSMC to decide which to join. Rather than denying access to specific companies, it will seek to deny advanced chip technologies to the entire Chinese economy.
Delivering this is not going to be easy. Extra money for domestic manufacturing is widely backed by U.S. technology companies. Limiting chip sales to China is not, given so many chipmakers sell to Chinese buyers. In the long-run, the measures may also be self-defeating, given they will spur China into evermore desperate catch-up investments, which eventually will probably be successful.
The U.S. will also have to persuade reluctant friends in Asia and Europe of the need for new restrictions. This might mean demanding Asian chipmakers stop manufacturing in China, for instance, or even using Chinese engineers. A small handful of European companies also play an important part in advanced chip manufacturing equipment, at a time when the European Union seems at best ambivalent about new moves that will antagonize China.
Ultimately, though, the U.S. is likely to decide these costs are manageable. Its strategy of technological denial also has a good chance of succeeding, in the short term at least. Washington knows such actions can work, as Huawei's damaged business model attests. Faced with the choice between easing up on China and doubling down, Biden looks ever more likely to choose the latter.
Speaking in December the new U.S. President declared that dealing with China required "leverage," adding: "In my view, we don't have it yet." Semiconductors remain one of the greatest advantages Biden has over China's President Xi Jinping. And in a new Cold War, you fight with the weapons you have to hand.
Biden set to double down on China tech denial
China's hunger for technology has been on full display during the current Two Sessions meeting in Beijing. On Mar. 5, Premier Li Keqiang confirmed sharp increases in state spending for frontier areas such as semiconductors, as his administration grapples with crippling U.S. restrictions on Chinese tech companies.
Meanwhile, U.S. President Joe Biden launched a review of supply chain resilience last month, pledging a brisk 100-day rethink of semiconductor policies. One outcome is obvious: those in Beijing hoping the U.S. will ease its tech war will be disappointed. Instead, Biden is likely to push forward with an evermore Chinese-style industrial policy, as he seeks both to cajole global chip suppliers to shift to the U.S., and deny China access to that industry's most advanced products.
Global chip shortages give this review extra impetus, with U.S. automakers forced to stop or slow production. There is not much Biden can do about that, with supply delays reflecting a post-COVID bounce-back in chip demand. In the longer term, though, the U.S. faces dilemmas as it decides how to revitalize its own chipmaking sector and slow China's technology advance.
Around half of global semiconductor sales are still controlled by U.S. companies, although their technological lead is mostly confined to research and design. Over recent decades chipmakers like Intel outsourced much of their production to Asian giants including Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC), alongside the likes of Apple, who design but do not make their own chips. U.S. strategists now view this as a mistake that leaves global chip manufacturing dangerously concentrated in Taiwan and South Korea, and thus vulnerable to Chinese interference.
Former President Donald Trump persuaded TSMC to set up what was originally slated as a $12 billion facility in Arizona, although media reports suggest it now could end up many times larger. Samsung Electronics is planning a $17 billion plant too, taking advantage of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of tax breaks. More money is set to follow. Recent legislation offered up to $3 billion to any company planning a new U.S. fabrication plant. Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer has promised tens of billions more.
This financial splurge has its risks. Just as happens in China, the more the U.S. spends in sops, the more it is likely to waste, hence the downside of running an increasingly Chinese-style industrial policy. Even successful subsidies will take time. The new TSMC and Samsung factories are not likely to open until 2023. Any further new facilities would take even longer.
Biden then faces the more immediate problem of how to continue Trump's moves to stop China from accessing chips its own companies do not know how to make. Behind the new U.S. plants lies an unspoken arrangement that TSMC and Samsung will make their most advanced products in the U.S., starting with 5-nanometer chips. This will help U.S. supply chain resilience by ensuring that, in emergencies, U.S.-made chips end up with U.S. companies. But it is unlikely to satisfy those who worry about the security impact of China having those same advanced technologies.
The U.S. is now using its so-called entity list to deny sales to dozens of Chinese companies, including electronics giant Huawei Technologies and chipmaker Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp., better known as SMIC. But Biden's policy review looks likely to bring in more explicit measures aimed at sustaining his country's chipmaking lead. Eventually, the aim will be what Eurasia Group analyst Paul Triolo calls separate "blue," or U.S., and "red," or Chinese, semiconductor supply chains, forcing the likes of TSMC to decide which to join. Rather than denying access to specific companies, it will seek to deny advanced chip technologies to the entire Chinese economy.
Delivering this is not going to be easy. Extra money for domestic manufacturing is widely backed by U.S. technology companies. Limiting chip sales to China is not, given so many chipmakers sell to Chinese buyers. In the long-run, the measures may also be self-defeating, given they will spur China into evermore desperate catch-up investments, which eventually will probably be successful.
The U.S. will also have to persuade reluctant friends in Asia and Europe of the need for new restrictions. This might mean demanding Asian chipmakers stop manufacturing in China, for instance, or even using Chinese engineers. A small handful of European companies also play an important part in advanced chip manufacturing equipment, at a time when the European Union seems at best ambivalent about new moves that will antagonize China.
Ultimately, though, the U.S. is likely to decide these costs are manageable. Its strategy of technological denial also has a good chance of succeeding, in the short term at least. Washington knows such actions can work, as Huawei's damaged business model attests. Faced with the choice between easing up on China and doubling down, Biden looks ever more likely to choose the latter.
Speaking in December the new U.S. President declared that dealing with China required "leverage," adding: "In my view, we don't have it yet." Semiconductors remain one of the greatest advantages Biden has over China's President Xi Jinping. And in a new Cold War, you fight with the weapons you have to hand.
the undercurrent tide is turning and US still Not aware yet.
The U.S. will also have to persuade reluctant friends in Asia and Europe of the need for new restrictions. This might mean demanding Asian chipmakers stop manufacturing in China,
I wish US can convince samsung and hynix, TSMC to close their fabs liquidate their assets. They are hogging up china market. Domestic players are waiting to pick it up.
Changchun Institute is in charge of the Optics development for the EUV.
From what i know the Optics they developed is quite similar in layout to current ASML Optics.
There are 4 Mirrors for Illumination Optics and 6 Mirrors for Projection Optics.
The entire System has been sucessfully Researched, Developed and Verified.
I will try to find out more about the Optics.
They have done research on Optics for a while.
The 2017 Changchun Inst EUV Prototype i think used 2 Mirror Projection Optics.
So they have the capability to develop such Mirrors and also have the Machine Tools to produce it.
Yes.....i think they should relax specifications as they have to ensure that the Semiconductor Equipment is available as well.
But they will most certainly try to develop a EUVL with Resolution of 5nm.
CAS has also recently created a EUV Alliance to ensure that interested parties can participate to create supporting Semiconductor Equipment to allow for the production of the Chips.
I think they will have to see what resolution they can achieve with the EUVL, then work around that with the Semiconductor Equipment.
Surprisingly they have already developed the Photoresist for EUV.
This high yield for 14nm is not surprising.
The SMIC "BossMan" Liang Mong Song was the person who created the 14nm FINFET process while he was working at TSMC.
He knows alot about the 14nm node and FINFET Chips design so he is the right person to take SMIC into FINFET 7nm.
their fab basically use similar equipment from SMIC, and its not the latest nor the greatest. Their best tech/equipment are in their homeland. so whats the point to force them to sell, when SMIC already got that. furthermore, this kind behavior will surely make other company NOT just those in IC business think twice about setup manufacture/fab in china . it also give US/EU/Japan more anti-china ammo regarding market access/ip etc etc, something company already wary of it. remember samsung/intel/MS/apple/qualcomm/micro etc etc want to do business in china, its big market for them, they are the one lobbying in the US/EU against the export restriction. Forcing them only push those company more in-line with US/EU. forcing those company out, only mean they setup shop in taiwan/SK/vietnam or other placet.
Last edited:
What's the benefit for China to have those companies bottle up China domestic companies
YMTC and CMXT ready to replace Samsung and hynix dram and nand output.
Why TSMC only setup a 16nm non EUV in China when SMIC already has 14nm and potentially 7nm. Why TSMC not willing to setup a 5nm EUV fab in China.
I see NO Value to keep them .
China does not need Samsung, hynix, tsmc, Qualcomm, micron or any US semiconductor companies. The sooner they close and liquidate the better.
US relax sanction temporarily on SMIC because Tesla, Ford , GM need chips for the car.
It has nothing to do with your mentioning of samsung/intel/MS/apple/qualcomm/micro etc etc lobbying. That's just false info. China trying to build it's own equipments. Once succeeded, even if US cancel export restriction, China still stop use those equipments. Lobbying for relax export restriction on China is gonna be USELESS in the near future.
Apple and Tesla , GM ford are Ok.they can stay in China.
Each company required case by case analysis. Lumping together and saying them all good for China is just misleading and inaccurate.
You lumping US and EU together also inaccurate. They have different mentalities. US trying to sabotage China EU just want to earn money.
Two completely different animals
Also even in 5 eyes alliance , each western country required different treatment. For example, Complete ban on Australia and all good with New Zealand.
Last edited:
Because of supply - demand.
The technologies of Samsung, Hynix, Qualcomm and the US companies (Nvidia, Intel, Apple) are all part of a huge network or ecosystem.
Demand for NVIDIA GPU leads to demand for Intel and AMD processors and Samsung Storage which also creates demand for Windows or vice versa. Thereby TSMC get to operate the fabs.
Suppose we just go with SMIC and kick the rest out - What is SMIC going to produce? Can it meet the demand of Consumer computing devices? Where's the ecosystem? What Architecture? Which OS? Who supplies the memory? Who supplies the GPU?
- Status