TSMC continuously re-invests billions in its production facilities to sate the demand of a multitude of customers like Apple and Qualcomm to ensure that they receive timely shipments of their cutting-edge chipsets. It is no secret that these companies are in an endless race and will leverage the foundry’s next-generation architecture to gain a competitive edge. However, when it comes to modems, the same ferocity is not displayed by these firms, with 5G baseband chips like the C1 and Snapdragon X75 still relying on TSMC’s older 4nm process. One analyst provides some insight into why older manufacturing processes are utilized, and it is not just a cost-related concern.
Analyst points out that 5G modems like the C1 are not the most power-hungry components in a system, which is why companies like Apple and Qualcomm do not opt for the most advanced technologies
The biggest reason why Apple and Qualcomm have yet to introduce their 3nm versions of 5G modem is to lower cost. For some context, we reported that the tape-out cost for Apple’s M3, M3 Pro, and M3 Max, which were mass produced on TSMC’s first-generation 3nm process, also known as ‘N3B,’ was $1 billion. This figure alone suggests that it is expensive to design and test newer modems on these advanced lithographies. However, Ming-Chi Kuo points out in a post on X that the reasons for not pursuing newer processes go beyond just hefty sums of money.
For instance, he points out that the investment return on developing cutting-edge modems is not high, and switching to TSMC’s 3nm technology does not necessarily mean that these baseband chips will flaunt higher transmission speeds, as there is a whole new science to that. While transitioning to the more efficient manufacturing process for the C1 successor can potentially mean lowered power consumption, Kuo points out that modems are not the most battery-guzzling components, and parts like the display and SoC contribute immensely to increased power consumption, hence the need to use those advanced technologies for other components.
Bear in mind that, like the C1, Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X75 and Snapdragon X71 also rely on TSMC’s 4nm process, but somehow, Apple’s in-house solution is marketed to deliver better efficiency. This is probably because the C1 lacks mmWave support, as the high transmission speeds of the Snapdragon X75 and Snapdragon X71 will result in an increased power draw. Additionally, thanks to ample space available on the iPhone 16e, Apple had sufficient room to cram in a 4,005mAh battery, making it larger than the 3,582mAh cell running in the more expensive iPhone 16 Pro, making it last longer.
Qualcomm recently announced its Snapdragon X85 5G modem, and while the lithography details are not yet divulged, based on Kuo’s latest insight, it will not be surprising to learn that the San Diego firm’s flagship baseband silicon was mass produced on the 4nm node.
