Qualcomm is exploring a route that, if confirmed, could shift the power balance within Samsung and, in turn, influence costs in the high-end Android segment: manufacturing part of its upcoming Snapdragon chips using Samsung Foundry’s 2 nm process. The news, initially reported in Korea and broadly confirmed by Qualcomm’s CEO Cristiano Amon, is seen as an attempt to diversify dependence from TSMC and regain bargaining power at a time when prices for cutting-edge nodes have become a strategic factor.
Why Qualcomm is eyeing Samsung: diversification and cost control
In recent years, TSMC’s dominance in advanced manufacturing has pushed many chip designers to concentrate their orders with a single supplier. While this concentration offers advantages (performance, industrial maturity), it also exposes risks: limited capacity, production queue priorities, and rising prices as the industry shifts to more complex nodes.
In this context, Qualcomm might be considering a “dual foundry” strategy, with Samsung as a real alternative for certain generations or volume productions. Reuters reports that discussions focus on contract manufacturing at 2 nm, and that the design could be ready to market in the short term, according to statements from Amon cited by Korean press.
The major hurdle: performance (yield) and node maturity
The technical challenge isn’t just “having 2 nm,” but rather producing wafers with sufficiently high yields to keep the cost per chip competitive and ensure stable supply. Recent reports suggest Samsung’s yield for its SF2 (2 nm) process is around 50–60%, whereas TSMC’s figures for its N2 process are higher, approximately 80%. However, industry estimates can vary, and such data are not always publicly comparable.
If Qualcomm begins — even partially — producing 2 nm chips with Samsung, it sends a clear message to the market: Samsung Foundry aims to re-enter the “top tier” of advanced nodes. Additionally, the context favors Samsung: Reuters notes that the company has signed a $16.5 billion deal with Tesla in 2025 to bolster its foundry business with top-tier clients.
Collateral effect: what about Exynos within Samsung?
This introduces the “domestic” conflict. Samsung is both manufacturer (Foundry) and client (Mobile eXperience), and its traditional strategy has alternated between in-house Exynos SoCs and Qualcomm SoCs depending on regions, models, and generations.
An eventual agreement with Qualcomm on 2 nm could strain this balance for several reasons:
- Internal capacity competition: if Samsung Foundry allocates lines and resources to Qualcomm, it could pressure schedules and priorities for other chips (including Exynos).
- Market signal: if the SF2 node gains credible “production” status thanks to a client like Qualcomm, Samsung might be tempted to deploy more Snapdragon chips in its high-end range to reduce launch risks, which could undermine the Exynos narrative.
- Unit cost in smartphones: Exynos, by nature, reduces reliance on external suppliers; a higher share of Snapdragon chips tends to increase BOM (bill of materials) costs for models that previously relied on in-house chips, impacting margins if the extra cost isn’t passed onto consumers.
At the same time, Samsung needs Exynos to remain competitive to preserve technological autonomy and differentiation capabilities. In fact, specialized media have pointed out improvements in the performance of the 2 nm process, particularly with the Exynos 2600 chip, which is exactly the type of product Samsung aims to solidify to support its platform strategy.
Table: 2 nm in play (industry insights)
| Foundry / Node | Technology approach | Yields cited in press (approx.) | Implications for SoC manufacturers |
|---|---|---|---|
| Samsung SF2 (2 nm) | GAA (nanosheet) | 50–60% | Price potential if yield improves; needs sustained maturity |
| TSMC N2 (2 nm) | GAA (nanosheet) | ~80% | Reference for stability; wafer costs would be high |
| Intel 18A (second-gen 2 nm) | BSPDN / HPC focus | — | Emerging alternative, still to be validated at scale |
Note: Figures and comparisons depend on leaks and industry reports; they are not official, uniform metrics across companies.
What this could mean for end users
If Qualcomm manages to produce part of its 2 nm chips outside TSMC, the most likely impact won’t be “cheaper smartphones overnight,” but rather a combination of:
- Increased availability in the premium segment (fewer bottlenecks).
- Greater price elasticity over the medium term, as the “de facto capacity monopoly” for advanced nodes diminishes.
- More fragmentation in high-end Android ranges (different batches or revisions manufactured in different foundries), with subtle differences in power consumption and performance if design and manufacturing conditions are not identical.
For Samsung, the dilemma is twofold: a successful foundry business with Qualcomm would boost its reputation… but it could also force a redefinition of Exynos’s role to avoid relegating it permanently to a “Plan B.”
Frequently Asked Questions
What does it mean if a Snapdragon is manufactured in 2 nm by Samsung instead of TSMC?
It indicates that the same chip design could be produced in another foundry, with potential differences in cost, availability, and energy efficiency depending on the maturity of the process.
Could this impact whether a Galaxy S uses Exynos or Snapdragon in Europe?
Indirectly, yes. If Samsung prioritizes reducing supply risks or improving performance consistency, it might increase Snapdragon’s use. But this will depend on Exynos’s competitiveness and regional commercial decisions.
Why is “yield” (wafer performance) such a hot topic?
Because it determines how many valid chips are produced per wafer. Low yields make chips more expensive and complicate scaling to large volumes, especially for mass launches.
Will this have a real impact on the price of premium phones?
The effect, if it materializes, tends to be gradual: increased capacity and competition in advanced fabrication usually moderate price hikes, but R&D and packaging costs also play significant roles.
via: wccftech