Japanese chipmaker Rapidus to offer lower wafer pricing than TSMC — 2nm class silicon to be priced around $20 ⁠35%

By Anton Shilov⁠53%

7/10/2026, 12:56:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Pessimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 26.8% saturation with 149 hits. Analysis detected 1,318 faulty-reasoning hits from 557 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠35% (14,324 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.40% of the article peer group.

Japanese chipmaker Rapidus will try to lure customers away from TSMC not only by offering a different kind of service, but also by offering its manufacturing services at lower prices, chief executive Atsuyoshi Koike announced this week. 
The company's plan to rival TSMC in terms of pricing appears on the surface as a risky move, as the company moves to develop leading-edge process technologies . 
At present, Rapidus is looking at charging ¥3 million – ¥3.5 million ($18,550 - $21,635) per wafer processed using its 2nm-class fabrication process, which is significantly below TSMC's rumored quote of around $30,000 per N2 wafer , and is comparable to what Samsung is rumored to offer with its SF2 manufacturing technology , set at $20,000 per-wafer. 
Actual prices will depend on exchange rates, though Rapidus' general idea of offering significantly lower quotes than TSMC is immediately apparent. 
Rapidus plans to start high-volume manufacturing (HVM) using its 2nm-class fabrication technology by the second half of 2027. 
The ramp of a new fab will take some time, so expect meaningful volumes from Rapidus to only be produced in 2028, when TSMC's N2 will no longer be its leading-edge node. 
By the time Rapidus starts HVM at its IIM-1 in 2027, TSMC will have ramped production of chips using its performance-enhanced N2P manufacturing node, and the company will also absorb all the yield learning with gate-all-around the company will have with its N2 present at five fab modules . 
Furthermore, by the time Rapidus reaches meaningful volumes at IIM-1 in 2028, TSMC will have ramped up production using its advanced A16 fabrication process with Super Power Rail backside power delivery as well as a 3 rd -generation 2nm-class node named N2X. 
In addition to the vast 2nm-capable capacity and process maturity that should be kept in mind when comparing Rapidus with TSMC, there is another factor to consider. 
One of TSMC's major advantages over its rivals is its Open Innovation Platform (OIP) ecosystem, which includes comprehensive electronic design automation tools, silicon-proven IPs, even for the latest nodes, a host of contract chip designers, and advanced packaging services not only from TSMC but also from its partners. 
For now, neither Rapidus nor Intel and Samsung Foundry can offer anything close to TSMC's OIP. 
Given the advantages that TSMC will likely have over competitors with its 2nm-class fabrication technologies in 2028, lower pricing may be among the few ways to compete against the world's largest foundry. 
Rapidus' strategy of offering lower quotes while operating a single fab does not seem like the best way of earning money, but perhaps a certain way to lose it. 
However, Rapidus may have another ace up its sleeve with single wafer processing across all process steps . 
The approach will greatly speed up the production cycle, which will be its indisputable advantage over other chipmakers, albeit at the cost of tool usage efficiency. 
Will lower quotes and shorter production cycles be enough for Rapidus to win customers from TSMC? 
Only time will tell. 
Rapidus is reportedly negotiating with more than 60 potential customers, mainly overseas companies, which demonstrates the company's ambitions to become a viable rival to the global leader TSMC as well as contract chipmakers Intel Foundry and Samsung Foundry. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.8%Anton Shilov: 5.9%Tom's Hardware: 3.8%Confirmation Bias3.8%This article: 10.2%Anton Shilov: 2.0%Tom's Hardware: 2.3%Anchoring Bias10.2%This article: 10.2%Anton Shilov: 2.1%Tom's Hardware: 3.5%Availability Heuristic10.2%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 1.5%Tom's Hardware: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 1.2%Tom's Hardware: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Anton Shilov: 4.5%Tom's Hardware: 3.5%Overconfidence Bias4.7%This article: 3.4%Anton Shilov: 7.7%Tom's Hardware: 9.2%Framing Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.6%Tom's Hardware: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.7%Anton Shilov: 0.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.7%Status Quo Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.2%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.1%Anton Shilov: 10.3%Tom's Hardware: 6.0%Optimism Bias10.1%This article: 21.2%Anton Shilov: 4.5%Tom's Hardware: 2.0%Pessimism Bias21.2%This article: 10.1%Anton Shilov: 7.9%Tom's Hardware: 6.5%Negativity Bias10.1%This article: 6.8%Anton Shilov: 1.5%Tom's Hardware: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias6.8%This article: 5.2%Anton Shilov: 1.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error5.2%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.2%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Anton Shilov: 1.7%Tom's Hardware: 2.8%Halo Effect8.6%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.8%Anton Shilov: 1.9%Tom's Hardware: 2.0%Recency Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.2%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.3%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.8%Anton Shilov: 6.3%Tom's Hardware: 5.4%Appeal to Authority4.8%This article: 13.8%Anton Shilov: 2.7%Tom's Hardware: 2.0%False Dilemma13.8%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 2.8%Tom's Hardware: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.9%Anton Shilov: 7.1%Tom's Hardware: 6.1%Hasty Generalization19.9%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.3%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.6%Tom's Hardware: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 2.3%Tom's Hardware: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 8.4%Anton Shilov: 0.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.8%Begging the Question8.4%This article: 22.1%Anton Shilov: 5.9%Tom's Hardware: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)22.1%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 1.6%Tom's Hardware: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.6%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.6%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 1.2%Tom's Hardware: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.0%Anton Shilov: 6.5%Tom's Hardware: 3.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.2%Anton Shilov: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Special Pleading3.2%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 23.7%Anton Shilov: 2.3%Tom's Hardware: 2.4%Unattributed Quote23.7%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 1.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 26.8%Anton Shilov: 4.8%Tom's Hardware: 7.1%Biased Writer Voice26.8%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.3%Tom's Hardware: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anton Shilov: 1.2%Tom's Hardware: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

557 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.6%attributed speech520writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAtsuyoshi Koike • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 57 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Atsuyoshi Koike

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words100% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+81.7 ptsWriter: 18.3%Atsuyoshi Koike: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-28.7 ptsWriter: 28.7%Atsuyoshi Koike: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.