A Samsung Foundry spokesperson has reached out to clarify several points. The disbanding of Samsung Foundry’s development division is part of normal business operations and does not suggest that the company is abandoning its progress.

Production of 2 nm and 1.4 nm technologies is still in progress, and the reported yield rates for 3 nm wafers are said to be unfounded rumors.

The original story from December 5, 2024 is below:

Samsung may have moved away from Exynos for the entire Galaxy S25 lineup, but the company is still attempting to make its in-house chips a competitive option. A prototype of the Galaxy S25 Plus, believed to be powered by the Exynos 2500 chipset, has appeared in a Geekbench listing. Let’s tackle the main issue first: Is it possible that Samsung could still release Exynos versions of its latest flagship models for specific regions? Personally, I don’t think so.

Not only are the S25 phones set to launch soon, but there has also been no indication from anyone in the industry that Exynos variants are in development. If that’s not enough, consider the benchmark scores of the S25 Plus Exynos variant.

The Exynos 2500 scored a disappointing 37 percent lower than the Snapdragon 8 Elite in single-core testing (2358 vs. 3230) and 29 percent lower in multi-core performance (8211 vs. 10617). Exynos Galaxy phones have historically struggled to compete with their Snapdragon counterparts, but this significant gap in performance suggests that the Exynos 2500 is not yet ready for release.

For those who may not be aware, Samsung Foundry has been facing challenges lately, struggling to enhance its yields. Reports indicate that yields have plummeted to as low as 10 percent, prompting the company to lay off 30 percent of its workforce before the end of the year.

Additionally, Samsung plans to shut down half of its foundry operations as soon as possible. In somewhat more encouraging news, Samsung has disbanded the foundry’s development division, reallocating affected employees to teams focused on yield improvement and mass production strategies. This shift may suggest that Samsung is temporarily abandoning its 2 nm plans to concentrate on enhancing its 3 nm yields first. In my view, this is the right course of action.

The transition from 3 nm to 2 nm is unlikely to yield the significant advancements that consumers might expect. It is far more prudent to refine existing in-house chip manufacturing before pursuing enhancements in processor technology.