Hacker News Reader

Comment by cubefox | Hacker News Reader

Competition with "mature nodes" is different in the sense that here one company (like TSMC) will be "competing" with itself. They will just stop building next gen fabs if their chips wouldn't sell.

> That's not strictly true, performance of a transistor still has value. Companies like Apple pay premiums to get in early on leading edge nodes, more per device than the mature nodes they move from.

Apple can't increase the price of their product arbitrarily. So if the price per performance increases, the new iPhone would be slower than the old one. Maybe people will still buy it if it has better power efficiency, but that is a trade-off which has its limits.

View on HN

> Apple can't increase the price of their product arbitrarily.

Not arbitrarily, but IIRC Apple's profit margin on iPhones is over 100% - the iPhone 14 Pro max is supposed to have a BoM cost of ~470 $ and retails for well over 1000$. That means Apple can both afford the high upfront premium/R&D cost of going to a smaller node and to eat up higher SoC costs and yet still have a profit per unit that would lead most other companies' CFOs to drool.

On top of that, even if the economics should not work out for mobile... a fully spec'd out M2 Ultra Mac Pro runs at ~14.000$, Intel ones IIRC could reach 50.000$. The crowd that pays such absurd prices has zero problems paying a grand or two more for higher performance.

> Competition with "mature nodes" is different in the sense that here one company (like TSMC) will be "competing" with itself.

No, why? Lots of foundries out there that don't compete on leading edge nodes.

> Apple can't increase the price of their product arbitrarily. So if the price per performance increases, the new iPhone would be slower than the old one. Maybe people will still buy it if it has better power efficiency, but that is a trade-off which has its limits.

That doesn't address what I said -- that price per transistor is not the single limiting factor. I never said any performance increase is worth infinite value.

> No, why? Lots of foundries out there that don't compete on leading edge nodes

The discussion was about Moore's law ("scaling down"), which is only about the leading edge.

The discussion moved to talking about is competing with mature nodes, where you said they'd only be competing with themselves (which doesn't seem to be right).

Well, it's right for the leading edge. The point is that they will stop scaling chips before technical limits are reached.

> Well, it's right for the leading edge.

No, the point was that the leading edge will stop advancing when it can no longer compete economically with companies that sell mature nodes. Which is obvious, but I was just being similarly reductive.

> The point is that they will stop scaling chips before technical limits are reached.

Sure, like most commercial ventures, cost becomes prohibitive at some point and overtakes benefits. As it always has been.

> No, the point was that the leading edge will stop advancing when it can no longer compete economically with companies that sell mature nodes.

The "mature node" here will just be the one before the first node that doesn't make economic sense anymore. And this will be from a leading edge company, most likely TSMC. Say, if 2nm is too expensive compared to 3nm, then TSMC will stick with 3nm.

Yep.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com