> my R&D engineer works three shifts and you only work one shift

> All RnD fabs move wafers 24/7

Are you talking about the same thing? It's one thing to let an experiment run overnight with three technician shifts. It's another thing to have three research shifts.

It could also be a metaphor for doing more research than the competition on how to best use the same equipment, so I wouldn't get too hung up on it.

I imagine moving the wafers means just that, the wafers don't stop or they become trash.

> Why did this “3x shift advantage” deliver gains only in the past 5 years?

Intel, and the US, had an enormous head start. Gordon Moore started at Shockley, which was founded in 1955. William Shockley was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1956 for inventing the solid state transistor. Moore then went to go help found Fairchild Semiconductor in 1957, which invented the CMOS process. Intel was founded in 1968. TSMC wasn't founded until 1987.

In 1968 when Intel was founded, Taiwan was a poor country with little capital. Its GDP per capita was around $300. Taiwan's GDP per capita in 1987 was $5,300 in today's money. The US's was almost four times higher at $20,000.

However, in the end stages of RCA, they engaged in a semiconductor technology sharing agreement with a consortium of Taiwanese companies (that did not include TSMC, which did not yet exist).

At the end of this agreement, UMC had better technology at higher yields than RCA.

This technology transfer had a profound impact upon Taiwan.

"Taiwan managed to persuade RCA to agree in 1976 to transfer semiconductor technology."

https://history-computer.com/taiwans-chip-industry/

There’s a lot of weird politics in that business.

I’m pretty sure the big players like Intel and Samsung put their r&d eggs into the G450C coalition to build bigger wafers. TSMC saw that as a threat, did not join and invested more on its own. In the meantime, the 450 thing collapsed for a variety of reasons and the billions of dollars invested went up in smoke and left Intel and other behind.

What would cause the VP of R&D to make such a false claim?

Also see his discussion of copper interconnects, which they delivered first, even before IBM.

He also concedes that Intel has led in "transistor performance," and they have never been equaled.

The interview also goes into the later scandal of his employment at SMIC, so he is a controversial figure, without doubt.

>What would cause the VP of R&D to make such a false claim?

Winning in a complex business environment is very frequently both intentionally and unintentionally misattributed by the winner.

Agreed, history is written by those who prevail.

It's not the whole story, sure, things are complex... but I think you calling it "made up" is a bit absurd. I'd attribute most of the lack of competition with Intel to a lack of capital; which, thanks to the success of TSMC's largest customers (who directly compete with Intel) Apple and AMD is no longer a problem.

Intel did have a huge advantage on everyone else 20 years ago, but ten years ago they more or less started sitting on their asses, and the rest of the world caught up and is passing them by. I don't know why something simple like running 24/7 R&D would not explain it.

I read it could also be volume. Higher volume means more data to learn from.

In one way, you are correct.

TSMC's decision to use "Black Diamond" CVD was driven by previous failures of "spin-on" dielectric that allowed them to deliver copper interconnects before anyone else.

However, the R&D cycle, which failed for "spin-on," otherwise allowed TSMC to deliver faster, as they ran in multiple shifts, allowing accelerated focus on the new node.

The others might move wafers 24/7 but they don't have three shifts of R&D scientists and engineers working to continuously analyze the results/improve yield/performance 24/7. TSMC does.

Maybe a leader in 14nm developments...