You have in a sense. When TSMC says hey when all is said and done this Fab will cost us x NTD. That is effectively a sum of lifetime deal values across construction and tool vendors. When ASML talks about their current order book for x type of scanner being however many billion dollars, that is literally lifetime deal value.
TSMC could easily calculate that. Every TSMC customer has a wafer deliver schedule. Sum all of the wafers across the lifetime of a contract. Multiply by the ASP, and bata bing bata boom lifetime deal value. Sum LDV across every existing contract and you have total LDV. It doesn't really make sense to report that since TSMC has tens of billions in revenue per year right now (what investors care about) and TSMC'S total LDV is likely in the trillions of dollars over their decade order book. Since much of TSMC's buisness is long term contracts their total LDV growth would presumably be much lower than the revenue growth in a given year, so it would look less impressive to focus on that than revenue/margin growth.
Doesn't seem like more than Intel since they would be doing 2 generations of client on 18A with supposedly even more internal content than Pantherlake. Meanwhile TSMC would be early in their non Apple ramp. Also just matching up the fabs, 2 N2 fabs is in fact fewer fabs than D1 pilot line plus 2-3 Intel Arizona fabs. 2027 TSMC will almost assuredly have more 2nm capacity than Intel though once you have all the mobile guys, AMD, and multiple generations of iPhone saturating the market. Counting the fabs, presumably smaller (or even no) D1 pilot line and 3 AZ fabs versus 4-5 N2 fabs.
I've been saying this for a long time. Back in their prime Intel couldn't even meet demand with over 100K WSPM (similar to the combined N5 + N3 capacity of Fab18 phases 1-6). To say Intel can't fill one fab would require Internal demand to be less 20% of what it used to be. Intel has fallen, but not that far.
MKW is right here. Because of how long it takes to go from ink to revenue, there would be no other way to show growing momentum than LDV. Intel could have theoreu won every fabless design post 2026 and IFS would have exactly as much revenue in 2025 as now. LDV also shows something of a 100% certainty lower bound for what returns will be made based on the current order book. As a bonus I feel like I have also seen LDV quoted pretty frequently for big projects/deals/partnerships that span over long time horizons as in addition to MKW's mention of a start up wanting to show their growth/momentum.
No. The current plan is to build the same number of fabs but slower. Now if Germany gets done this decade... Ehhh, we'll see since Ohio got pushed out towards the end of the decade. But as for 18A specifically they wanted to do 5 (not 6) and now they are doing 3 (not 1).
1) It is way to early to say that
2) We won't really see the impact of Tan until 2030 since everything before that was set in motion or mostly done under Pat. Just like how won't see the full impact of Pat until 2026, and how we have only started to see the impact of BS's decisions recently.
3) His claims and goals don't really seem all that different than Pat's. His demeanor may be different, but the content of what was said not as much
