TSMC is on EPYC, TSMC is the first customer. If TSMC doesn't like it, they will cancel.
So, you're saying that TSMC, is not only fabbing the processors, they are also a processor customer? And they have attached stipulations in their fabbing contract with AMD, specifying features that the processors must have, for them to be a processor customer, AND fab the processors? That sounds down-right unethical to me.
If TSMC gets a paying customer who wants them to fab a chip, and TSMC wants to use those customer's chips internally, then to me, that seems like they should be separate deals.
Edit: So what you are telling me is, that TSMC is threatening a paying customer, with not fabbing their chip, unless their demands on the chips final designs are mandated from the chip designer?
What if TSMC wanted Apple's A13 CPUs to contain a back-door that TSMC and their gov't could use to access all of Apple's customer's iPhones, before TSMC would fab their chips for them. Do you think that would somehow similarly be ethical business behavior?
Edit: And is TSMC refusing to fab any ARM-architecture-derivative CPUs, that don't contain appropriate DL/ML opcodes? If not, then that sets up a pretty clear case of non-fab-related discrimination against their own customers. I would think that would go over like a lead balloon.
How many 3rd-tier ARM CPUs are fabbed by TSMC for cheap Chinese low-end Android phones? Are they refusing to fab those chips (probably on something older than 7nm), if they don't customize their "stock" ARM CPU designs, to add DL/ML opcodes just for TSMC to utilize, if they so wish? Or insert backdoors, as another example?
Pardon me while I get my larger salt-shaker.
Edit: I guess that I really don't like the concept, that a foundry, would get actively involved in architecture design for the products being fabbed, other than things like cell support, and fab process constraint-related issues. That just rubs me the wrong way round.