Top
Best
New

Posted by elorant 11/4/2025

CPUs and GPUs to Become More Expensive After TSMC Price Hike in 2026(www.guru3d.com)
81 points | 80 commentspage 2
whatsupdog 11/4/2025||
[flagged]
tomhow 11/5/2025|
Please don't post off-topic, trollish comments on HN. The guidelines ask us to avoid generic tangents. Please also try harder to observe the guidelines in all your activity on HN. Some of your comments are positive contributions, but others are unsubstantive, and drag the overall quality of HN down. Please make an effort to cut out the guidelines-breaking stuff and just post the positively-contributing comments. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45816492 and marked it off topic.

drnick1 11/4/2025|
Thanks, TSMC.
dmitrygr 11/4/2025|
Absolutely nobody stops you from forming a competing company and charging less for equally good or better results
lillecarl 11/4/2025|||
Absolutely everything in the modern economy stops him from forming a competing company, this naive stupid market is the solution idea needs to stop being regurgitated, it's toxic to society.
nomel 11/4/2025||
I think most everything shows that it's just really hard (see Intel) and they're really good at it, so have a moat that they can take advantage of.
UpsideDownRide 11/4/2025||||
Chip making has very has barrier of entry. Between fab cost and access to talent you are really not looking at an enticing business opportunity.

Free market is not as free as the name would imply.

anon291 11/4/2025|||
Freedom refers to a potentiality. You are conflating a potential (freedom) for a hoped-for benefit (highly competitive). A free market is a means towards a competitive market because it lowers the artificial barriers to entry into the market. Those barriers imposed by the universe simply are and while we can invest into R&D and education, market forces cannot change the laws of physics.
bigbadfeline 11/4/2025||
> Freedom refers to a potentiality.

And tariffs and sanctions refer to what?

> A free market is a means towards a competitive market because it lowers the artificial barriers to entry into the market. Those barriers imposed by the universe simply are...

Are you talking about tariffs or about banning the sale of semiconductor equipment to China, so they can't compete in the market for high performance chips? Is that "a means towards a competitive market" or is it "barriers imposed by the universe"?

That's an interesting universe you live in.

anon291 11/5/2025||
Most free market types are against tariffs. You are strawmanning. China is free to develop its own euv machines
lotsofpulp 11/4/2025|||
High barriers to entry have nothing to do with free markets.

>In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market

As long as a buyer and seller can negotiate whatever number they want, or walk away, it is a free market.

MostlyStable 11/4/2025|||
From just a bit further down in your link:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market#Low_barriers_to_en...

lotsofpulp 11/4/2025||
I am not seeing the discrepancy:

> A free market does not directly require the existence of competition; however, it does require a framework that freely allows new market entrants. Hence, competition in a free market is a consequence of the conditions of a free market, including that market participants not be obstructed from following their profit motive.

The barriers to entry being referred to in the Wikipedia article are presumably government related. No government is stopping Intel or Samsung or any of the other chip makers from selling what TSMC sells, hence the “framework that freely allows new market entrants” is there.

And the subsequent paragraph seems to be exactly what is happening in the market of high end chips:

> Hence, competition in a free market is a consequence of the conditions of a free market, including that market participants not be obstructed from following their profit motive.

MostlyStable 11/4/2025|||
You don't see a discrepancy between your claim that free markets have nothing to do with high barriers to entry and your own link claiming free markets require free entrance to the market?

And no, it is not specifically referring to government related barriers, although those certainly count. Government is very often the thing that generates barriers to entry, but it is by no means the only barrier to entry. Any barrier to entry is, from a strict theoretical sense, a departure from a pure free market, although that's more in the "spherical cow" sense of the idea.

jltsiren 11/4/2025|||
You are using "free market" as a political term. In that sense, it refers to little more than to the absence of unnecessary regulations.

Economics is more concerned about whether "free market" is a useful description of the system. If there is nothing in principle to prevent the emergence of new competition, but barriers to entry (e.g. availability of capital / talent / machinery / raw materials, long-term contracts, or the time required to set up a new business) make it difficult in practice, the system may not behave like a market. Then you need to focus more on politics, both between and within governments and companies, to understand how the system is actually working.

KPGv2 11/5/2025|||
This is an overly simplistic view of what "free market" means in practice. The most obvious issue is that, in a free market economy, government protects private property, ensuring that any capitalistic definition of "free market" does, in fact, require government intervention into the expression of supply and demand.

And now that we've established that capitalism necessitates government intervention, capitalism is incompatible with such a simple definition of "free market." We can begin negotiating just how much government interference in the market is allowed before it's no longer a free market, but it's categorically impossible for a capitalistic free market to be pure expression of supply and demand.

denkmoon 11/4/2025||||
Yeah I'll get a loan off Dad for my first EUV machine and we'll snowball from there
tailrecursion 11/4/2025||||
Judging by the response to the parent come back, evidently TSMC deserves the high prices it will be charging. Why?

It's unrealistic to expect just anyone to start up a new fab. But if not one person among billions will start up a new fab it points to intrinsic difficulty or unpleasantness or lack of prestige in the task. A correctively high price has all kinds of advantages for the society.

I haven't seen any argument that difficult tasks shouldn't be priced high. Only name calling.

PaulKeeble 11/4/2025||
In this case its more its a 100+ billion investment to possibly produce a competing fab and its encumbered with many thousands if not more patents the likes of which will produce a minefield for any entrant. So far the silicon product market has just shrunk over the years with more and more failing to keep up with the latest process technology as the price of entrance and the patent warheads has risen.
marcodiego 11/4/2025||||
Entering a multi billion risky market is no easy task even if you have investira and teams with deep knowledge. That's the reason monopolise should be avoided.
umanwizard 11/4/2025|||
TSMC isn’t a monopoly, they are just better than all their competitors. Nothing forces you to buy TSMC; you can buy Intel, Samsung, SMIC, GlobalFoundries and various others.
jdiff 11/4/2025||
This is getting faded out, but this is absolutely right. For very few use cases do you truly need the bleeding edge. So many things do not have such strict requirements, and will meet all necessary requirements on an older node. An ATTiny85 is still an incredibly useful microcontroller even today.
lotsofpulp 11/4/2025|||
This monopoly is unavoidable due to the limited number of people in the world with the know-how to make these products, with the second constraint being that you need to risk $10B+ and 10+ years with a risk that you fail.

Edit: per link below, seems like you need $100B+ and 10+ years

jgeada 11/4/2025|||
For reference, TSMC's yearly capital investment budget is about $50B/year (https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2025/03/07/200...)

This business is expensive, making and running fabs is way way more expensive than most anybody thinks. There are very few companies able to do it profitably.

andrepd 11/4/2025|||
> due to the limited number of people in the world with the know-how to make these products

Absolutely nothing to do with this lol, and everything to do with it being ridiculously capital-intensive.

ux266478 11/5/2025||||
EUV manufacturing is a loadbearing piece of geopolitical leverage at the highest echelons of power. The assertion that you can trivialize one of the most important bargaining chips in the world and no one will stop you might just be the most naive thing I've read all year.
wmf 11/4/2025||||
I'm rooting for Rapidus. A lot of people will look foolish if they succeed.
Eisenstein 11/4/2025||||
Great idea. Can you lend me $10 billion?
jgeada 11/4/2025|||
Piddling sum in this domain, that amount won't even buy you enough for 1 production line, let alone where to put in, staff it and get all the necessary collateral to allow people to design to it.

And no amount of money will get you one of ASML EUV machines any time soon as the entire production line for the next handful of years has already been spoken for.

bluGill 11/4/2025|||
I think that is a on the cheap side. Unless you are content with 1990s node sizes
iwontberude 11/4/2025|||
Except for me. I am single handedly holding off all of these people from building a fab.