SMIC founder urges pragmatism over “blind pursuit” of 2nm hype

Warning from SMIC’s founder

Zhang Rujing (张汝京), the founder of Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation (SMIC, 中芯国际), has warned China’s chip industry against a “blind pursuit” of the most advanced process nodes such as 2nm. It has been reported that Zhang urged firms and policymakers to prioritise pragmatic breakthroughs — reliability, yield improvement and cost-effectiveness — rather than chasing the prestige of next‑generation nodes that are costly and technically demanding.

What he said — and why it matters

Reportedly, Zhang argued that concentrating resources on mature and near‑mature process nodes better serves China’s immediate semiconductor needs, including automotive, industrial and consumer electronics, where specialised performance and supply stability matter more than the smallest transistor size. Is chasing 2nm the best use of scarce capital and talent when the country still depends on imports for critical equipment such as EUV lithography machines? That question underpins his warning.

Geopolitics and industrial strategy

Zhang’s intervention comes as Beijing pours state support into semiconductor self‑sufficiency while the United States and its allies maintain export controls aimed at slowing China’s progress in cutting‑edge chipmaking. Those restrictions, and the high cost of developing and equipping fabs for sub‑5nm nodes, have prompted debate inside China about whether to attempt parity with TSMC and Samsung or to build depth and breadth in nodes where China can be competitive.

Implications for the sector

For Western observers used to a race to the smallest nanometer numbers, Zhang’s comments are a reminder that national industrial strategy can differ from commercial marketing. If Chinese players follow a pragmatic path — improving yields, diversifying supply chains and focusing on application‑specific chips — the result may be a more resilient domestic ecosystem rather than an immediate leap to the bleeding edge. It has been reported that industry insiders see this approach as realistic; others worry it may slow ambitions for long‑term technological leadership.