On the 28th, Amazon unveiled two AWS-designed chips, Graviton4, a CPU propelling its AWS cloud services, and the second-gen AI chip Trainium2, tailored for large language models. Both chips boast substantial performance upgrades. With a positive market outlook, Amazon is intensifying its competition with Microsoft and Google for dominance in the AI cloud market. The demand for in-house chips is surging, leading to increased orders for key players like the wafer foundry TSMC and the silicon design and production services company ALCHIP, reported by UDN News.

According to reports, Amazon AWS CEO Adam Selipsky presented the fourth AWS-Designed custom CPU chip, Graviton4, at the AWS re:Invent 2023 in Las Vegas. It claims a 30% improvement in computing performance compared to the current Graviton3, with a 75% increase in memory bandwidth. Computers equipped with this processor are slated to go live in the coming months.

Trainium2, the second-gen chip for AI system training, boasts a computing speed three times faster than its predecessor and doubled energy efficiency. Selipsky announced that AWS will commence offering this new training chip next year.

AWS is accelerating the development of chips, maintaining its lead over Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud platforms. Amazon reports that over 50,000 AWS customers are currently utilizing Graviton chips.

Notably, Amazon’s in-house chip development heavily relies on the Taiwan supply chain, TSMC and ALchip. To produce Amazon’s chips, Alchip primarily provides application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) design services, and TSMC manufactures with advanced processes.

TSMC consistently refrains from commenting on products for individual customers. Analysts estimate that TSMC has recently indirectly secured numerous orders from Cloud Service Providers (CSPs), mainly through ASIC design service providers assisting CSP giants in launching new in-house AI chips. This is expected to significantly contribute to TSMC’s high utilization for the 5nm family.

In recent years, TSMC has introduced successive technologies such as N4, N4P, N4X, and N5A to strengthen its 5nm family. The N4P, announced at 2023 Technology Symposium, is projected to drive increased demand from 2024 onwards. The expected uptick in demand is mainly attributed to AI, network, and automotive products.

(Image: Amazon)

In the global landscape of self-developed chips, the industry has predominantly embraced the Arm architecture for IC design. However, Meta’s decision to employ the RISC-V architecture in its self-developed AI chip has become a topic of widespread discussion. It is said the growing preference for RISC-V is attributed to three key advantages including low power consumption, high openness, and relatively lower development costs, according to reports from UDN News.

Noted that Meta exclusively deploys its in-house AI chip, “MTIA,” within its data centers to expedite AI computation and inference. In this highly tailored setting, this choice ensures not only robust computational capabilities but also the potential for low power consumption, with an anticipated power usage of under 25W per RISC-V core. By strategically combining the RISC-V architecture with GPU accelerators or Arm architecture, Meta aims to achieve an overall reduction in power consumption while boosting computing power simultaneously.

Meta’s confirmation of adopting RISC-V architecture form Andes Technology Corporation, a CPU IP and Platform IP supplier from Taiwan, for AI chip development underscores RISC-V’s capability to support high-speed computational tasks and its suitability for integration into advanced manufacturing processes. This move positions RISC-V architecture to potentially make significant inroads into the AI computing market,  and stands as the third computing architecture opportunity, joining the ranks of x86 and Arm architectures.

Regarding the development potential of different chip architectures in the AI chip market, TrendForce points out that in the current overall AI market, GPUs (such as NVIDIA, AMD, etc.) still dominate, followed by Arm architecture. This includes major data centers, with active investments from NVIDIA, CSPs, and others in the Arm architecture field. RISC, on the other hand, represents another niche market, targeting the open-source AI market or enterprise niche applications.
(Image: Meta)

As the global semiconductor supply chain based on specialization, the design and development of Application Processors (AP) or System on Chip (SoC) for smartphones primarily fall under the responsibility of IC design houses. In the wake of Apple’s notable success in pioneering in-house chips, other smartphone companies are now emulating this trend.

Developing in-house chips poses a challenge for smartphone brands, involving not only significant initial investments but also the navigation of various modules and architectures on the smartphone’s SoCs, including ISP and Modem. Balancing performance and power consumption optimally in specific application scenarios tests the R&D skills of designers, presenting a particularly challenging task for brands lacking relevant technological expertise. However, fueled by the ambition to “product differentiation” and “have a say in the market,” smartphone brands remain enthusiastic about venturing into in-house chips.

Smartphone Brands and SoC Dilemma

In current specialization, smartphone brands typically purchase SoC chips from IC design companies like Qualcomm or MediaTek. While they can fine-tune chip performance to suit the brand’s needs after purchase, the room for modification is quite limited.

Currently, smartphone product development is reaching maturity, and the market lacks innovation. For consumers, in the intensely competitive landscape, smartphones equipped with similar-level SoCs from Qualcomm may only differ in terms of “pricing” as a determining factor for purchase. If the market shifts into a price competition, it becomes unprofitable for smartphone brands.

Moreover, without the ability to develop in-house SoC, smartphone brands become dependent on IC design companies. If IC design companies alter their fee structures or take measures such as raising prices or adding licensing fees, brands have little choice but to comply, significantly impacting their profits.

As the central component of smartphones, if brands can design everything from scratch, it enables them to create product differentiation and gain a competitive edge. Although the initial investment is substantial, in the long run, it allows smartphone brands to have a say in the market.

Apple’s in-house SoC chip has become a significant standard for other smartphone brands in shaping their strategies. Examining Apple’s development trends, the success of the iPhone is largely attributed to Apple’s creation of powerful and efficient SoC chips.

Apple’s decision not to rely on IC design companies but to design chips in-house allowed iPhone to surpass other competing smartphone products. The key lies in Apple’s ability to plan for hardware and software from the ground up through its self-designed SoC architecture, achieving a high level of product differentiation. In addition to creating the most suitable SoC for the iPhone, it also solidifies a unique competitive advantage for Apple.

The Costly Pursuit on SoC          

However, venturing into in-house chips poses formidable challenges for smartphone brands. The primary hurdle lies in the necessity for a substantial financial investment. According to statistics from The New York Times, Apple invested about US$10 billion in developing the A4 chip, while Apple’s revenue at that time was approximately US$65 billion. At that time, the smartphone market was not saturated at that time and was still in the development stage, providing ample room for Apple’s growth.

Focus on the data, from 2010 to 2011, Apple’s revenue generated from selling iPhones grew from about US$25.2 billion to approximately US$45.9 billion, with a growth rate of about 82%. Apple’s revenue scale surpassed US$100 billion in 2012. With a huge and sufficient revenue scale support and the market still having growth potential, although self-developing chips require a large amount of investment, it is indeed feasible for Apple, whose iPhone business is thriving.

In the current mature and competitive smartphone market, creating product differentiation is the only way to break through. As most Chinese smartphone brands lack the technology to develop SoC, it becomes trending to adopt new strategy of developing in-house chips. Apart from self-developing SoC, some brands also choose to enter from the “specific function chip” on the smartphone.

Next Challenges in Plateauing Market

However, compared to the smartphone market situation when Apple initially turned to in-house SoC, current market has entered a plateau phase from the previous golden growth period. Brands find it difficult to generate sufficient revenue scale to support the high cost of in-house chips in the saturated and competitive market.

Moreover, with the continuous advancement of semiconductor process technology, the current cost to enter is much higher comparing to the past. Even with funds. Achieving in-house SoC involves a significant technical threshold, and it is challenging to bypass patents, especially when competitors have accumulated decades of experience.

Therefore, while the strategy of brands choosing to self-develop chips is likely to impact IC design companies like Qualcomm and MediaTek, its effects are expected to be limited. The reason is that for IC design companies like MediaTek and Qualcomm, they already occupy a place in the market with exclusive key technologies and accumulated intellectual property rights (IP), making it challenging for smartphone brands’ in-house chips to completely replace MediaTek and Qualcomm products.
(Image: Apple)

As reported by Jiwei, Beijing Xuanjie Technology Co., Ltd. has recently been established, and its legal representative is Xuezhong Zeng, who holds the position of Senior Vice President at Xiaomi Corporation. The company has registered capital amounting to 3 billion Yuan and is involved in activities related to IC design services and product sales, among other areas.

This marks the second “Xuanjie Technology” venture within the Xiaomi family. Back in December 2021, Shanghai Xuanjie Technology Co., Ltd. was established, also under the legal representation of Zeng. The company’s scope of operations encompasses technological services in the semiconductor field, integration of information systems, IC design and service related, and product sales. All of these are fully owned by X-Ring Limited.

Xiaomi, alongside OPPO and VIVO, among other Chinese smartphone brands, often find it challenging to independently develop advanced system on a chip (SoC) due to constraints in technical expertise and financial resources. Consequently, their primary focus on developing specialized chips like power management integrated circuits (PMICs) and Image Signal Processor (ISP), based on their collective experience in chip development.

Xiaomi stands out as the sole Chinese brand among these peers, having successfully launched its self-developed SoC in 2017, known as the “Surge S1,” which was integrated into the mid-range Xiaomi 5C. Nevertheless, the Xiaomi 5C fell short of expectations, mainly due to the absence of distinguishing features in the “Surge S1.” Many reviews highlighted subpar real-world performance of Xiaomi phones equipped with the S1 chip.

Subsequently, Xiaomi did not introduce a successor chip. In 2021, they introduced the ISP chip “Surge C1” and the charging chip “Surge P1.” In 2022, they rolled out the PMIC G1, emphasizing its significant potential in enhancing battery health, accurate battery life predictions, and overall smartphone battery performance.

Xiaomi’s President, Weibing Lu, has previously reaffirmed the company’s unwavering commitment to developing in-house chips. They fully acknowledge the long-term and intricate nature of chip development, respect the established development patterns in the industry, and remain prepared for a long-term strategy, all with the ultimate goal of enhancing the competitiveness and user experience of their end products.
(Image: Xiaomi)