Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/samsung-to-produce-tesla-chips-in-16-5-billion-multiyear-deal.23248/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Samsung to Produce Tesla Chips in $16.5 Billion Multiyear Deal

K

kevin01

Well-known member
TL;DR: Samsung Electronics secured a $16.5 billion semiconductor supply contract starting July 2025 through 2033, likely with Tesla for Full Self-Driving (FSD) chips. This deal strengthens Samsung Foundry's position against TSMC amid growing demand for advanced automotive chips in the evolving electric vehicle market.

Read more: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/1066...033-rumored-be-for-tesla-fsd-chips/index.html

 
I have to wonder, where is IFS?

This kind of chip can probably be manufactured on Intel 3 and 18A. Why did Intel not pursue it aggressively? Is it because: 1) Intel 3 and 18A PDKs are not suitable for this kind of chip, 2) IFS is not aggressive in terms of pricing, or 3) something else?

If I were IFS, I would offer a price that would allow me to barely make money to secure the first big customer. Foundry is a fixed-cost business; even if a contract doesn't make money, it at least pays the employees and keeps the factory running.
 
kevin01 said:
I have to wonder, where is IFS?

This kind of chip can probably be manufactured on Intel 3 and 18A. Why did Intel not pursue it aggressively? Is it because: 1) Intel 3 and 18A PDKs are not suitable for this kind of chip, 2) IFS is not aggressive in terms of pricing, or 3) something else?

If I were IFS, I would offer a price that would allow me to barely make money to secure the first big customer. Foundry is a fixed-cost business; even if a contract doesn't make money, it at least pays the employees and keeps the factory running.
Click to expand...

I am trying to remember my A-level economics , covering your fixed costs was the basics for a company to build from?

So as long as fixed costs were covered Intel , would Intel have "been laughing"
 
kevin01 said:
I have to wonder, where is IFS?

This kind of chip can probably be manufactured on Intel 3 and 18A. Why did Intel not pursue it aggressively? Is it because: 1) Intel 3 and 18A PDKs are not suitable for this kind of chip, 2) IFS is not aggressive in terms of pricing, or 3) something else?

If I were IFS, I would offer a price that would allow me to barely make money to secure the first big customer. Foundry is a fixed-cost business; even if a contract doesn't make money, it at least pays the employees and keeps the factory running.
Click to expand...
Maybe the profit margin isn't high enough, the CEO said IFS would not do anything if it didn't make them 50% profit margin.
 
Even if it is simply profitable or profitable, automotive semiconductors also need reliability that is different from ordinary semiconductors.
It's the same in the manufacturing process
Intel also needs to gain experience in manufacturing processes for high-reliability products

In the first place, it takes time for a vehicle with a Tesla chip made of that Samsung Fab to actually come out.
Really state-of-the-art new process nodes are not ready to be produced immediately

For example, let's talk about TSMC, do you know the process called TSMC N3A?
This is a variation of N3 nodes for automotive products and will be in production in 2026.
In 2026, nearly three years have passed since the first release of N3, and N2 has also appeared. and A16 is also in sight.
Anyway, in-vehicle semiconductors require reliability
 
1753690955672.png
 
tomatoma said:
Even if it is simply profitable or profitable, automotive semiconductors also need reliability that is different from ordinary semiconductors.
It's the same in the manufacturing process
Intel also needs to gain experience in manufacturing processes for high-reliability products

In the first place, it takes time for a vehicle with a Tesla chip made of that Samsung Fab to actually come out.
Really state-of-the-art new process nodes are not ready to be produced immediately

For example, let's talk about TSMC, do you know the process called TSMC N3A?
This is a variation of N3 nodes for automotive products and will be in production in 2026.
In 2026, nearly three years have passed since the first release of N3, and N2 has also appeared. and A16 is also in sight.
Anyway, in-vehicle semiconductors require reliability
Click to expand...
Well, even if a new advanced process emerges, it will take some time before it can be used for automotive products.
It's the same for any manufacturer
Moreover, long-term supply must also be provided.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top