The latest IC Insight report shows the world's top-3 DRAM makers garnered a combined 95% global market share, with Samsung Electronics taking the lead with 44%, followed by SK Hynix with 28%, and Micron Technology with 23%. But can it be said that Samsung is really a global leader in the DRAM domain accordingly?

From the angle of market share, Samsung is undoubtedly the winner, but market share does not necessarily translate into actual profits, nor does it mean that the company still leads the trio in terms of profitability rate. Samsung's market share is about twice that of Micron, but their memory business operating profit margin shows a gap of only 3-10pp.

A SemiAnalysis report also indicates Micron has outraced rivals in the development of first-generation DDR5 products as it is able to deliver volume shipments of 15nm DRAM, while Samsung and SK Hynix still focus on 16nm offerings.

Additionally, Micron kicked off mass production of DRAM with a 1a-nanometer (14nm) process as early as the first quarter of 2021, ahead of Samsung by about one year. SK Hynix was also 3-6 months ahead of Samsung, mass-producing 1a-nanometer DRAM in the third quarter of 2021. What is the real significance of the process led by Samsung's rivals?

Lagging behind Micron in the 1a-nanometer process, can Samsung win back in 1b-nanometer (12nm) mass production? Samsung's senior management has recently dismissed rumors that it would skip 1b and go straight to the 1c-nanometer (11nm) process. The logic of Samsung's alleged corner-overtaking attempt is not surprising, but the question is, can Samsung make it?

Samsung said it took only six months from the development to mass production of its third-generation 1z-nanometer process node. But the corresponding time for its next-generation 1a-nanometer EUV process technology ran up to 18 months, allowing Micron to secure a solid win in 1a-nanometer DRAM production. So far, Samsung has not yet disclosed why it took 18 months from the development to volume production of 14nm DRAM chips, or what countermeasures it could take to meet competition in 12nm and 11nm DRAM chips. The company has only said it will continue to develop the 1b-nanometer process as planned, but it is completely silent about the current progress of the development plan.

In contrast, Micron has issued a public report to investors that its 1ß-nanometer DRAM has entered the yield ramp stage and is expected to be in mass production by the end of 2022. And the 1?-nanometer DRAM has also entered the yield enablement stage, with yield rates in the process of improving. Which of the two publicly listed companies performs better in terms of disclosure and accountability to shareholders can be easily judged.

Also, Samsung has repeatedly claimed its lead over TSMC in 3nm chip technology with its 3nm GAA process entering volume production in the first half of 2022, compared to commercial production of the Taiwan foundry's 3nm FinFET technology in the second half of the year. But if Samsung's 3nm GAA process can achieve a commercial volume production scale, why Apple still keeps its 2022 iPhone APs manufactured by TSMC with a 4nm node?

Usually, in examining whether an industry or technology process is leading the world, what should be examined first is if the comparative standards can comply with the industry's criteria for justifying commercial volume production. Furthermore, profit-seeking enterprises should highlight profitability as an even more important concern, and it is not a sustainable strategy to expand market share at the cost of losing money. Samsung continues to post profits for its DRAM business, but whether its profitability will be dragged down by delays in chip scaling process advancement remains to be seen. Market share alone cannot speak volumes in this regard.

By: DocMemory
Copyright © 2023 CST, Inc. All Rights Reserved