Elon Musk confirmed Saturday that discussions are underway with TSMC about Terafab, the planned chipmaking project associated with his companies. A collaboration could affect their future access to AI computing hardware, but Musk announced no deal or TSMC role. Terafab has not been established as an operating chip factory.
“Just discussions, but something may come of it,” Musk said in a response reported by Tom’s Hardware. His comment followed an Oct. 2 report by Tim Culpan’s Culpium newsletter that TSMC was exploring ways to work with Terafab.
Culpium cited unnamed sources for its report. One possibility it described was a new factory owned and operated by TSMC; other forms of cooperation were also under consideration, it reported. Those are reported scenarios, not arrangements announced by either party.
Musk’s response confirms the discussions, not Culpium’s account of what a collaboration might look like. The reported factory scenario has not been independently confirmed. Tom’s Hardware reported that TSMC had not commented.
What the TSMC talks do—and do not—establish
Musk did not identify work TSMC would perform, say whether it would operate a factory or describe a contract to make chips. His comment also set no construction or production schedule. The talks may produce an agreement, but his statement gives no basis for saying they will.
The distinction matters because the possible arrangements involve different commitments. Buying chips from a supplier would not be the same as having that supplier own and run a new factory. Culpium reported the latter as one possibility; Musk did not endorse it as a plan.
Nor does speaking with TSMC add manufacturing capacity on its own. For Tesla, SpaceX and xAI, which Tom’s Hardware identifies as Terafab’s intended chip recipients, the practical question is whether any agreement would result in usable supply, and when. No such terms have been announced.
Terafab’s plans and production targets
Musk announced Terafab with Tesla and SpaceX in March. On Aug. 6, SpaceX said the facility would be built in Grimes County, Texas. That announcement described a planned factory, not one already producing chips.
SpaceX also said Tesla had broken ground in April on a research fab at Giga Texas. It called that facility a precursor to Terafab. The research fab’s groundbreaking does not establish that construction or chip production has begun at the planned Grimes County site.
That describes the intended scope of the project. It does not show that those manufacturing capabilities are in place.
The companies’ stated rationale is future demand for compute—the processing capacity used to run AI systems and other workloads. SpaceX said it and Tesla estimated their combined chip demand would exceed one terawatt of compute. That is their projection, not an independently verified measure of demand.
Free newsletter
Get the morning briefing
Start each day with the AI stories that matter and why — a short, free email from our newsroom.
A SpaceX filing set out a long-term Terafab goal of one terawatt of annual compute production capacity. It did not establish that the facility has been built or that it can reach that target. The filing also said the companies expect to keep obtaining a significant portion of their compute hardware from outside suppliers.
That continued reliance helps explain why a possible relationship with TSMC matters even if Terafab proceeds. Internal manufacturing and purchases from other chipmakers are not presented as mutually exclusive in SpaceX’s plan. What TSMC might contribute to either route remains undefined.
Where Intel fits—and what remains open
Intel announced its involvement in Terafab in April. A later SpaceX filing described Intel as bringing expertise in chip design, fabrication—the making of chips—and packaging. The public description did not set out a detailed division of work between Intel and any other potential participant.
Musk’s confirmation of TSMC discussions says nothing about Intel leaving the project. It does not establish whether a TSMC role would complement Intel’s involvement, overlap with it or never materialize. Treating one company’s talks as a replacement for another company’s announced participation would go beyond what is known.
Important execution details remain unsettled in public. Brad Gastwirth, global head of research and market intelligence at Circular Technology, told CRN that available information left questions about the timeline for high-volume manufacturing, costs and expected yields—the share of manufactured chips that work as intended.
Those questions would still matter if TSMC and Terafab announced an agreement. A named partner would clarify who intends to do the work; it would not, by itself, show when a factory could produce chips at scale or whether the project could meet SpaceX’s target.
The next substantive development would be an account from TSMC or the project specifying whether the talks produced an agreement, what work each company would undertake and how that work fits Terafab’s planned chip supply.