# HBM demand — X 热门讨论 (2026-10-11 12:21 UTC)
## @damnang2 (Damnang) · 10-11 09:20 · ♥47 ↻5 💬7 I demand a public explanation from @TechPowerUp and the author of the article, AleksandarK.
A publication specializing in computer hardware has a responsibility to accurately convey both the fundamentals of the technology it covers and the context of the reporting it cites.
Yet this article quoted portions of my expert call report without my permission, omitted an important qualification explicitly stated in the original, and added market commentary without providing supporting evidence.
As a result, my interview has been presented in a way that makes it appear to substantiate a company’s technological failure and weakening market competitiveness.
Other websites have already cited the article and repeated the same narrative. As the author of the original report, I am setting the record straight.
First, Samsung’s shipment of HBM samples using hybrid bonding was already publicly disclosed.
During its earnings call on January 29, 2026, Samsung stated that it had delivered HBM4 samples using hybrid copper bonding to major customers in the fourth quarter of 2025 and had begun technical discussions with them. This was also covered by the press at the time. It was public information well before my interview.
Second, why did you omit the qualification explicitly stated in my report?
I do not understand why you exaggerated the wording in my article to portray SK hynix as being so far behind technologically. My original article explicitly states:
“This is a judgment about sample development progress. The discussion also included reservations about the performance of Samsung’s samples, so I would not extend that judgment directly to an advantage in production yield or customer qualification.”
Did you actually read my article properly before citing it? Or did you simply take a short snippet from Twitter and let your imagination run wild without bothering to investigate? Is this really what passes for professional reporting at a publication specializing in computer hardware?
Third, what evidence supports connecting a gap in hybrid bonding development to current HBM market share?
HBM products currently being mass produced and sold do not use hybrid bonding. What, then, does a gap in hybrid bonding technology have to do with current market share? Why introduce market share figures toward the end of the article in a way that misleadingly suggests these changes are occurring because of a gap in hybrid bonding technology?
Which customer has required hybrid bonding for which specific HBM product? Is there evidence that orders or supplier allocations changed because a supplier could not meet that requirement? If you are discussing a future risk, shouldn’t you first explain the relevant product generation, the timing of adoption, customer requirements, and the limitations of existing processes?
It is reasonable to discuss whether hybrid bonding could affect competitiveness over the long term. But that does not justify presenting current market share figures as if they were evidence supporting that outlook. I would like to know the intent behind publishing an article like this, using a sensational headline and plausible sounding language while framing the claims as things that “could happen.”
I put the following questions directly and firmly to the author and the editorial team.
How thoroughly did you review my original interview report and the information publicly disclosed before it? How did you distinguish between the interviewee’s statements, my interpretation, and your own speculation? What reporting did you actually conduct yourselves? Why did you connect information about a technology’s development status to current market conditions in this manner?
In my view, the way this article is constructed distorts the context of my reporting and risks misleading readers. Do not use my name to lend credibility to your questionable interpretations that lack adequate support.
I demand a clear response from the author and the editorial team explaining why my reporting was reframed in this way. https://x.com/damnang2/status/2109212568816623739
## @tslaming (Ming) · 10-11 08:55 · ♥47 ↻3 💬8 Every Robotaxi and Optimus bot needs memory to turn AI models into real-world action. As Tesla scales production, locking down that memory supply is becoming a critical pillar of its manufacturing strategy—and that’s precisely why Terafab matters.
According to Counterpoint Research, DRAM demand for humanoid robot "brains" is projected to surge roughly twentyfold between 2026 and 2030, reaching 21,500 TB (21.5 petabytes). As robots grow more capable and production ramps up, robotics will emerge as another major demand driver for memory makers.
Autonomous driving adds even more pressure. Micron notes that Level 4 and higher autonomous vehicles typically require over 200 GB of memory—more than ten times what today’s Level 2+ and Level 3 vehicles use. Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs estimates the global commercial robotaxi fleet could reach roughly 1 million vehicles by 2030 and 6 million by 2035.
At an estimated 200 GB per vehicle, those fleets would represent about 200 petabytes and 1.2 exabytes of cumulative onboard memory, respectively. While that reflects total installed memory across active fleets rather than annual chip demand, it underscores the staggering hardware footprint underpinning autonomous driving.
Leading DRAM suppliers already operate at massive scale. SemiAnalysis estimates that Samsung, SK hynix, and Micron will close out 2026 with monthly wafer capacities of roughly 720,000, 595,000, and 385,000, respectively. Combined, that comes out to about 1.7 million wafers per month—or roughly 20.4 million a year.
Yet those same fabs must also supply AI data centers, smartphones, PCs, and the broader automotive market. Because High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM) consumes significantly more wafer capacity per bit than standard DRAM, competition for cleanroom space and production lines is fiercer than ever. Even with planned capex expansions, Micron expects memory supply to tighten further through 2027 and 2028.
Tesla’s internal targets illustrate just how high the stakes are. Its Q2 2026 update pegs installed Cybercab capacity at over 125,000 vehicles annually. For Optimus, Tesla has outlined an initial Fremont line slated for 1 million units per year, with a second-generation line in Texas targeting a long-term run rate of 10 million.
Delivering on those ambitions will demand a silicon supply chain capable of feeding millions of autonomous systems every year.
Terafab is engineered for that scale.
With a stated target of 1 terawatt of compute output annually, the project is designed to power both terrestrial and orbital workloads—explicitly earmarking AI5 for FSD and Optimus, AI6 for next-gen Optimus, and D3 for space-based computing.
By co-locating logic, memory, and advanced packaging under a single roof, Terafab would hand Tesla end-to-end control over the hardware stack powering its autonomous future.
Rather than competing with Big Tech for external fab allocation and packaging lines, Tesla could synchronize processor yields, memory procurement, and packaging directly with vehicle and bot production schedules—all while shrinking design-to-silicon iteration cycles.
If Tesla pulls this off, the payoff is clear: more Robotaxis on the road, more Optimus units on factory floors, and a vertically integrated silicon engine built to sustain them both. > 引用 @tslaming: Terafab could bring Tesla’s experience building custom factory equipment into one of the world’s most demanding industries 🔥
During the X Takeover talk, @elonmusk described how he wants to get there: start with conventional equipment, learn the process, then build custom machines designed for much higher wafer throughput 🔥
Elon sees an opportunity to bring Tesla’s experience with custom manufacturing equipment into an entirely new industry:
“I have no idea how to make chips, but we’ll figure it out. Got to start somewhere. I had no idea how to make cars or rockets as well.
[…] The equipment’s all pretty much coming from the same vendors.
[…] Whereas if you tour a Tesla factory, we got tons of custom equipment.
We’re gonna start with conventional equipment and then make custom equipment that allows for much higher throughput on wafers.” https://x.com/tslaming/status/2109206118039986540