TSMC has received $4 billion from clients to reserve future manufacturing capacity

mongeese

Posts: 541   +111
Staff member
The big picture: TSMC, the world’s largest foundry, said in its most recent financial report that it accepted an unprecedented amount in advance payments for its future manufacturing capacity this year. Hopefully, that money will accelerate the construction of new equipment to build processors. As the public-facing computer manufacturers continue to fail to deliver hardware into the hands of consumers, the attention has turned towards the foundries for long-term solutions to the chip shortage.

In the past, the main way TSMC has allowed customers to reserve capacity was through "guarantee deposits," a one-time payment from that was refunded when the customer finalized their order.

TSMC is continuing to accept guarantee deposits; in fact, about two-thirds of the NT$642 (US$23) million of guarantee deposits that it’s holding were paid in the past nine months. But this year, the company shifted its focus onto "temporary receipts" for future capacity, which are effectively pre-payments.

TSMC signed deals for NT$106 (US$3.8) billion in temporary receipts this year.

Credit: Fritzchens Fritz

The money isn’t TSMC’s to keep until it’s met the "terms and conditions set forth in the agreements" with its customers, and hence there are rules about how it can be spent. But the idea is that TSMC will use it to create more manufacturing capacity for customers to buy.

TSMC’s report doesn’t disclose the details of the agreements nor does it say who the customers are. At a guess, the largest is probably Apple, which taps TSMC for all its iPhone and Mac SoCs. AMD could be close behind. Last month, AMD said that it had prepaid US$355 million to various foundries this year. Qualcomm is probably up there, too.

Neither Intel nor Nvidia rely heavily on TSMC at the moment, but both have reportedly been discussing the manufacture of their next-gen GPUs with the foundry. At some point in the future, TSMC might be the sole supplier of GPU chips.

Permalink to story.

 

Dimitriid

Posts: 1,506   +2,954
Since this numbers would necessarily need to be lowered down if Ethereum was to crash I think it's a good picture of why well, it will not: Cryptos have little by little eroded enough public confidence from morally bankrupt speculators that enable miners everywhere to thrive...Well for about 15 to 20 years or so after that the irreversible climate change catastrophe will inevitably slow them down because well what do you know: markets tend to slow down so to speak when civilization is collapsing, there's refugee crisis everywhere in the world and open war on said refugees and nobody cares about made up virtual coins anymore because they have no electricity or medicine or food.
 

Theinsanegamer

Posts: 2,987   +4,768
Since this numbers would necessarily need to be lowered down if Ethereum was to crash I think it's a good picture of why well, it will not: Cryptos have little by little eroded enough public confidence from morally bankrupt speculators that enable miners everywhere to thrive...Well for about 15 to 20 years or so after that the irreversible climate change catastrophe will inevitably slow them down because well what do you know: markets tend to slow down so to speak when civilization is collapsing, there's refugee crisis everywhere in the world and open war on said refugees and nobody cares about made up virtual coins anymore because they have no electricity or medicine or food.
So is this like the 1973 "irreversible climate change catastrophe" that would result in a new ice age, the 1983 "irreversible climate change catastrophe" that would result in no fresh water for 90% of the world by 1999, the 1989 "irreversible climate change catastrophe" that would result in florida being underwater by 2020? Just curious how many times this boy is gonna call wolf.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,995   +2,004
Intel is in the best shape here I believe.

-Intel is a node "behind" so that's extra time they may have if others struggle at smaller nodes. And they along with Nvidia have the most experience with getting the most out of one node. Nvidia with 28nm and Intel with 14nm. AMD lost a 3 year lead in 4 years using a different node for each generation. I said right after Zen+ AMD wasn't moving fast enough.

-Intel has their own fabs as well as using other fabs, including getting the remaining 3nm capacity at TSMC.

-They have the least to worry about if things pop off between China and Taiwan.
 

Nobina

Posts: 3,490   +3,626
There IS one silver lining to the chip shortage: less e-waste as consumers are forced to use their existing gadgets for longer. Its kind of absurd how little of what goes into our electronic devices is actually recyclable.
Think if crypto mining ever stops a lot of that hardware is going to ewaste which is by the way never going to be fixed.
 

umbala

Posts: 501   +844
So is this like the 1973 "irreversible climate change catastrophe" that would result in a new ice age, the 1983 "irreversible climate change catastrophe" that would result in no fresh water for 90% of the world by 1999, the 1989 "irreversible climate change catastrophe" that would result in florida being underwater by 2020? Just curious how many times this boy is gonna call wolf.
Looks like someone pulled out their Swiss army knife of climate denier talking points. Bravo!

So because you feel all those things you listed haven't happened yet, we can just keep doing everything we've been doing without any long term worries? This is like saying smoking doesn't cause lung cancer because YOU personally smoked for 40 years and never got lung cancer, therefore lung cancer caused by smoking must be a hoax.

I know it may seem like the earth will provide us with unlimited resources so we can just destroy and abuse whatever natural resources we have because it will never run out. Do you really think that cutting down millions of acres of trees every year, destroying natural habitats, mining every type of material out of the ground no matter how toxic, pumping millions of pounds of toxic fumes into the air year after year, etc. is something we can just keep doing forever without any long term consequences?
 

timljh

Posts: 36   +2
Think if crypto mining ever stops a lot of that hardware is going to ewaste which is by the way never going to be fixed.
It is weird for people to think that it is justifiable to use the hardware to play games but not so if they want to participate and secure a blockchain. Which one is actually producing some values out of the hardware?
 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 727   +534
So is this like the 1973 "irreversible climate change catastrophe" that would result in a new ice age, the 1983 "irreversible climate change catastrophe" that would result in no fresh water for 90% of the world by 1999, the 1989 "irreversible climate change catastrophe" that would result in florida being underwater by 2020? Just curious how many times this boy is gonna call wolf.

No group of scientists as a whole ever claimed these things - I been reading about climate change for 20 years . in the 70s it was known we were meant to be in a mini ice cycle . However it was also known the world has been warming post industrial age . C02 has known to be a greenhouse gas for over 100 years - no one has refuted that . There was uncertainty in the 70s as some types of pollution caused cooling . Eg super volcanic eruptions have caused ice ages in the past . The models in the 70s were not good - Nor data - think of all the layers in the atmosphere that are different . However a summary of models around about that time was most scientists though we would still be warming . Basing that argument on a Time magazine headline is not a good look . Those other claims are even more ludicrous - never even heard of them in the main science
articles .
We are currently in one of the fastest extinctions periods in our evolutionary history- Numbers are hard to prove - as how long must you not see a species to say it's extinct .
Mid November 43 degrees south saw some ripe sour cherries in the park - A whole month early.
Some temperatures in the Arctic last year - that would of frankly been unbelievable .
Heat domes , fire tornados , hot acidic low oxygen dead seas increasing ,
Nights 100F or 40C so the old , young and plants can not recover from stress heat .
Insects with associated diseases on the move out from equator .
Record floods, droughts made worse by human engineering .
How bad does it have to get to you can see a difference ? Most of us see in in less snow , frosts , daffodils flowering in winter etc - different bird migration times ?
Farmers almanacs are changing year on year
50C is the dead zone for most mammals including humans.
40C at 100% humidity is the deadzone for humans - babies and old are goners with out relief .
As for water has it working out for Texas, California ? hows those aquilfiers doing - See how salty , comminated some are - read about how much the land has dropped in certain growing areas - not 1 metre , not 10m .
yes all the scientist in the world from every country are in on the conspiracy . At University in you are smart and find out you are either paid untold riches to maintain the conspiracy against the good guys ( oil, coal etc ) or eliminated . In developing countries climate scientists are the riches people
 
Last edited:

captaincranky

Posts: 17,993   +6,806
The downside of this is, given TSMC's massive success, it will only make mainland China more eager to invade, just like they've done with Hong Kong.

The same holds true for South Korea. Kim Jong Putz has pissed all his country's money away building rockets, and nuclear bombs. In the meantime he's got sanctions up the wazoo. So the BS turns to propaganda, about wanting to "reunite family's Trouble is, far too many people are willing to fall for it.
 
Last edited:

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,956   +1,558
No group of scientists as a whole ever claimed these things - I been reading about climate change for 20 years . in the 70s it was known we were meant to be in a mini ice cycle . However it was also known the world has been warming post industrial age . C02 has known to be a greenhouse gas for over 100 years - no one has refuted that . There was uncertainty in the 70s as some types of pollution caused cooling . Eg super volcanic eruptions have caused ice ages in the past . The models in the 70s were not good - Nor data - think of all the layers in the atmosphere that are different . However a summary of models around about that time was most scientists though we would still be warming . Basing that argument on a Time magazine headline is not a good look . Those other claims are even more ludicrous - never even heard of them in the main science
articles .
We are currently in one of the fastest extinctions periods in our evolutionary history- Numbers are hard to prove - as how long must you not see a species to say it's extinct .
Mid November 43 degrees south saw some ripe sour cherries in the park - A whole month early.
Some temperatures in the Arctic last year - that would of frankly been unbelievable .
Heat domes , fire tornados , hot acidic low oxygen dead seas increasing ,
Nights 100F or 40C so the old , young and plants can not recover from stress heat .
Insects with associated diseases on the move out from equator .
Record floods, droughts made worse by human engineering .
How bad does it have to get to you can see a difference ? Most of us see in in less snow , frosts , daffodils flowering in winter etc - different bird migration times ?
Farmers almanacs are changing year on year
50C is the dead zone for most mammals including humans.
40C at 100% humidity is the deadzone for humans - babies and old are goners with out relief .
As for water has it working out for Texas, California ? hows those aquilfiers doing - See how salty , comminated some are - read about how much the 100 has dropped in certain growing areas - not 1 metre , not 10m .
yes all the scientist in the world from every country are in on the conspiracy . At University in you are smart and find out you are either paid untold riches to maintain the conspiracy against the good guys ( oil, coal etc ) or eliminated . In developing countries climate scientists are the riches people
That’s not true, several scientists have made bold and incorrect statements about climate change. And I think that most of them knew they were talking out of their bum holes when they said it. But they still said it because they were trying to get ensue panic in the population to make a change. The problem is that people aren’t as dumb as that and they remember. I remember watching an inconvenient truth in the cinema and they were saying that there would be no ice in the North Pole by 2020. What a crock of ****.

And this is the big problem with the climate change movement, they are losing the trust of the population with their wild claims. Or when they use a photo of a glacier in the summer and a photo in the winter and go “look what climate change has done to this glacier”. Their intentions are honorouble but their lies will drive people away. Same with their protests, it just puts the general population off you. In the U.K. climate change activists have managed to get themselves jailed for gluing themselves to roads and preventing traffic (including ambulances) from getting though and the public despise them.

In my opinion the best way to fight climate change is make it so that corporations and entrepreneurs can become stinking rich by selling climate friendly solutions. But most of the bloody climate change activists seem to be low IQ anti-capitalist types who outrage when a company profits from any environmental policy at all (IE Apple and it’s chargers).

We are screwed of course. And at this point it’s hard to blame the public for not listening to the lies and false doom that climate change activists and scientists have been touting for all these years, they are not trustworthy.
 

kiwigraeme

Posts: 727   +534
That’s not true, several scientists have made bold and incorrect statements about climate change. And I think that most of them knew they were talking out of their bum holes when they said it. But they still said it because they were trying to get ensue panic in the population to make a change. The problem is that people aren’t as dumb as that and they remember. I remember watching an inconvenient truth in the cinema and they were saying that there would be no ice in the North Pole by 2020. What a crock of ****.

And this is the big problem with the climate change movement, they are losing the trust of the population with their wild claims. Or when they use a photo of a glacier in the summer and a photo in the winter and go “look what climate change has done to this glacier”. Their intentions are honorouble but their lies will drive people away. Same with their protests, it just puts the general population off you. In the U.K. climate change activists have managed to get themselves jailed for gluing themselves to roads and preventing traffic (including ambulances) from getting though and the public despise them.

In my opinion the best way to fight climate change is make it so that corporations and entrepreneurs can become stinking rich by selling climate friendly solutions. But most of the bloody climate change activists seem to be low IQ anti-capitalist types who outrage when a company profits from any environmental policy at all (IE Apple and it’s chargers).

We are screwed of course. And at this point it’s hard to blame the public for not listening to the lies and false doom that climate change activists and scientists have been touting for all these years, they are not trustworthy.
least we agree it needs to be fixed - Al Gore was right if we started earlier - it would be less painful - a lot of people would not even notice some of the changes. Kids won't even remember plastic bags were given willy nilly at supermarkets /shops

Here's a link to support my 1970s claim

As for the Artic - Al Gore stuffed up - over egging it

I a bit pessimistic about it for the innocents ( nature. the havenots , children ) .

One of the arguments that man was not warming the planet was - man is small , planet is big ( reminds me of an African saying don't you have elephants in your country?) ie our output is puny and can not affect the earth - These same people see local effects every day , like cities hotter than surrounding countryside .
They also contrary to the above claim about man being puny - we could fix it with technology .

This is my hope + more trees, kelp farms , GE of plants/bacteria etc and machines, reflectors - whatever
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,956   +1,558
least we agree it needs to be fixed - Al Gore was right if we started earlier - it would be less painful - a lot of people would not even notice some of the changes. Kids won't even remember plastic bags were given willy nilly at supermarkets /shops

Here's a link to support my 1970s claim

As for the Artic - Al Gore stuffed up - over egging it

I a bit pessimistic about it for the innocents ( nature. the havenots , children ) .

One of the arguments that man was not warming the planet was - man is small , planet is big ( reminds me of an African saying don't you have elephants in your country?) ie our output is puny and can not affect the earth - These same people see local effects every day , like cities hotter than surrounding countryside .
They also contrary to the above claim about man being puny - we could fix it with technology .

This is my hope + more trees, kelp farms , GE of plants/bacteria etc and machines, reflectors - whatever
The biggest barrier to progress against climate change is climate change activists. They call for reducing the amount of flights people can take despite all global aviation contributing less than 2% of global carbon emissions. However they will staunchly oppose nuclear power or tax incentives for corporations. From my experience most climate change activists are communists/socialists/anti-capitalists who are very interested in the authoritarian side of the argument to fight human nature. But care little for the environment. A good example of this is how little these activists focus on China producing more carbon than Europe or America but day in day out protest against western governments. Greta Thunberg said “How dare you” to Donald Trump, not Xi Jinping. These people should love Elon Musk for innovation in electric vehicles but they tend to hate him because he got rich doing it.

If we want to make a change we have to do so without expecting people to change the way they live. People should still be able to order junk on Amazon, eat meat, hang out Christmas lights, drive a car when they want and go on holiday when they want. If you try and change people, you’re going to lose, historically authoritarian revolution has always failed.

And all this is possible, meat will soon be grown like plants, cars will soon be electric and shipping and transport will also become environmentally friendly. However the caveat is that we have to keep capitalism, “inequality” and let some people and governments become stinking rich from the progress.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 639   +554
So is this like the 1973 "irreversible climate change catastrophe" that would result in a new ice age, the 1983 "irreversible climate change catastrophe" that would result in no fresh water for 90% of the world by 1999, the 1989 "irreversible climate change catastrophe" that would result in florida being underwater by 2020? Just curious how many times this boy is gonna call wolf.

All those were predicted by a minority of scientists (97% had already discounted global cooling by 1973, for instance), or using flawed assumptions due to a lack of data (for instance, scientists though the 90s vastly underestimated how much carbon the oceans could actually absorb). That doesn't change the fact the planet is clearly and provably warming, and the rate of warming is starting to increase.
 

gamerk2

Posts: 639   +554
The biggest barrier to progress against climate change is climate change activists. They call for reducing the amount of flights people can take despite all global aviation contributing less than 2% of global carbon emissions. However they will staunchly oppose nuclear power or tax incentives for corporations. From my experience most climate change activists are communists/socialists/anti-capitalists who are very interested in the authoritarian side of the argument to fight human nature. But care little for the environment. A good example of this is how little these activists focus on China producing more carbon than Europe or America but day in day out protest against western governments. Greta Thunberg said “How dare you” to Donald Trump, not Xi Jinping. These people should love Elon Musk for innovation in electric vehicles but they tend to hate him because he got rich doing it.

There's a reason to call out the US in particular: The US produces DOUBLE the carbon output per capita than any other country, including China. Yes, China has about 8x the population and have a larger overall number as a result, but the US is just outright wasteful in it's carbon output, and if the US was as efficient as China it's carbon output would be cut in HALF.
 

Shadowboxer

Posts: 1,956   +1,558
There's a reason to call out the US in particular: The US produces DOUBLE the carbon output per capita than any other country, including China. Yes, China has about 8x the population and have a larger overall number as a result, but the US is just outright wasteful in it's carbon output, and if the US was as efficient as China it's carbon output would be cut in HALF.
Calling people or countries out helps nothing. I’m not suggesting Greta or anyone should be condemning China or any nation state. This is my point, climate change activists right now are picking a fight with humanity and that’s a fight they will not win. It divides people, gives climate change a bad rep. What we should be doing is encouraging corporations and individuals to innovate, develop and find solutions that can replace existing ones rather than focusing on changing peoples behaviours. Are we really going to give up travel, energy round the home, ease of access to meat? I don’t want to and I don’t think youl ever realistically be able to do, we can’t even get everyone to take a mostly harmless vaccine, going down this route is ultimately self defeating.

Ironically it’s US corporations that are leading the fight against climate change. Governments should be providing financial incentive to get there and we are seeing that, look at Tesla stock now that governments have banned the future sale of electric vehicles in many western states for example. But yes, you are right per capita the US uses a very large amount of carbon. Still, without China on board, efforts to reduce global emissions will be massively hampered. The USA are attending the albeit rather meaningless conferences at least, where is China?

 

Nintenboy01

Posts: 136   +98
Wonder if one day Apple might just decide to spend the billions to build their own fabs. Or maybe even invest in Intel to improve their process technology and use them.