6 ms·

What's worse is that the U.S prevented China from buying Intel chips to build their supercomputer with[1]. It was a huge order and probably had something to do

What's worse is that the U.S prevented China from buying Intel chips to build their supercomputer with[1]. It was a huge order and probably had something to do with the recent layoffs. [1] http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/05/us-supercomputer-chip-ban-delayed.html?m=1 http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/05/us-supercomputer-chip-ban-d...

bhouston 10y ago
The worst is yet to come. China's home grown chips may now spread out from China to undercut Intel at the end high cloud market if Linux-based software is easy to port to it. Intel's CPUs are way over priced and ripe for disruption if someone can get the required massive upfront investment to create a real competitor, and it looks like China is doing this. Repeatedly topping the supercomputer list is perfect marketing for introducing a new high performance CPU to the world.
- lallysingh 10y ago
  AFAIK, Chinese CPUs are MIPS and Alpha based. Both run Linux well.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    This post has a little more detail about the processors: http://www.nextplatform.com/2016/06/20/look-inside-chinas-chart-topping-new-supercomputer/ http://www.nextplatform.com/2016/06/20/look-inside-chinas-ch... Summary, it's a RISC architecture that resembles an Alpha but it's not a straight-up copy.
    - Brybry 10y ago
      I wonder what the process node size of SW26010 is and if the chips were actually manufactured in China or if they were manufactured by TSMC/Taiwan. I wasn't aware that China had competitive fabrication plants for processors. If they don't and they built these at say 40 or 45nm then wouldn't this design performance be even more impressive?
- melling 10y ago
  Sounds like a big win for consumers. AMD has not been very competitive. Intel needs to remember that "only the paranoid survive."
- Retric 10y ago
  CPU performance is not that important when building a supercomputer it's more budget * performance per node / price per node. Performance per node is useful as most workloads only scale so far.
  - bhouston 10y ago
    Yes, but that is exactly what people are generally looking for in cloud machines. But I guess we need a benchmark that is oriented to web application development such as serving N nginx/go/nodejs requests per second, or running a MySQL/Postgres/MondoDB server at a certain load.
- mtgx 10y ago
  A former NSA and CIA chief, wrote a post about stuff like this, before the US banned US chip makers from selling to China: > By the time I became NSA director in the late 1990s, however, the calculation was no longer that simple. We still wanted an MTOPS advantage, of course, but we were fast realizing that our preferred limits were undermining the global competitiveness of the U.S. computer industry — the very industry on which we relied for our success. It was becoming clear that the overall health of that industry was more important than any MTOPS advantage against a specific target country. We still insisted on limits with regard to places such as Cuba and North Korea, but we became far more forgiving elsewhere. This, of course, had a powerful, positive commercial impact, but the NSA didn’t flip its position for commercial reasons. We did it for security reasons. On balance, this change made us stronger, not weaker, over the long haul, since retarding exports would inevitably retard the technological progress that was both our economic and our security lifeblood. That early lesson has caused me to continue to challenge arguments that technological protectionism furthers national security. It might, but then again, it could have the opposite effect if it freezes development, alienates allies, feeds distrust or invites the creation of similar barriers abroad. I would recommend these broader considerations to those in the U.S. security enterprise with responsibility for evaluating these trade-offs today. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-let-america-be-boxed-in-by-its-own-computers/2015/04/02/30742192-cc04-11e4-8a46-b1dc9be5a8ff_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-let-america-be-... The whole post is worth reading. The same logic could be applied to US trying to put backdoors in its products for a specific national security goal, which will ultimately end up undermining US technological supremacy and national security as well. And yet the current CIA director just implied that US would be fine with backdoored products, because "where are people going to get their encryption from? The foreigners? Ha!" This sort of arrogance, which is the same type of arrogance that ended up banning chip sales to China last year, is what will make the US lose out in the long term. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160618/08022234741/cia-director-john-brennan-says-non-us-encryption-is-theoretical.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160618/08022234741/cia-d...
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Thanks for that article by Hayden. Wow. It echoed much of what Schneier et al kept saying to him. Shows that they're more honest, receptive, or both when they finally leave the job that forces them to BS for SIGINT gains. ;)
- KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
  Why is it bad if China wants to subsidize hardware for others?
  - bhouston 10y ago
    Well it is good for consumers, but it is clearly bad for Intel.
- peter303 10y ago
  I've hearing this for over three decades: "Country X is on the brinking of beating US general computing lead." I must have shuddered in over 60 pairs of boots since then.
  - mrb 10y ago
    Except it happened and you didn't even notice. Much computer electronics is designed and made in China. And today this: "China Tops U.S. in Supercomputers". What more evidence do you want?
winter_blue 10y ago
Why was China banned from buying Intel chips?
- detaro 10y ago
  > In a notice published online the US Department of Commerce said it refused Intel's application to export the chips for Tianhe-2 and three other Chinese supercomputers because the machines were being used for "nuclear explosive activities". http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/04/us-will-make-180-petaflop-supercomputer.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/04/us-will-make-180-petaflop-s...
  - mtgx 10y ago
    Oh no, they're using their supercomputers to do nuclear research? That's horrible. Who would do such a thing? The given reason is all bullshit, and they must think we're all morons if they expect us to buy it. If anything it's retaliation for some IP theft or some silent trade war going on between China and the US. It's certainly not because the US gov is "shocked" that China uses its supercomputers to do nuclear research.
    - zhte415 10y ago
      If you want to sell technology products in the China market, you need to transfer technology to China, such as setting up a R&D centre. Everyone answers to sales. Then comes Machiavellian management strategies that demonstrate large companies are not idiots, and withdrawal of such scheme 2-5 years later, while still holding sales lines in China. Source: Have worked on both sides of the technology transfer equation.
    - ams6110 10y ago
      Who said anybody was shocked?
    - schoen 10y ago
      Simulating nuclear explosions in software has been a major response to treaties that forbid nuclear tests. As I think you were ironically pointing out, it's common now. It might be hard for the U.S. government to effectively prevent the Chinese government from doing these simulations, but it's plausible to me that the U.S. government would still want to see the Chinese government hindered in nuclear weapons simulations.
mrb 10y ago
So let me get this straight: 1. Intel loses this business. 2. US employees lose their job. 3. China acquires skills designing the system themselves. 4. And they get to have their supercomputer after all. How can anyone not see how stupid these export restrictions are?
- angry_octet 10y ago
  More like: 1. China creates much slower CPU which they will be able to sell to absolutely no-one. 2. Augments slow CPU with impossible to programming Xeon Phi. 3. Spends significant effort achieving heroic linpack benchmark. 4. Researchers are unable to obtain real world fast compute. 5. Chinese programs for stealth, submarines, nuclear are significantly delayed. Expertise diverted into useless PR project. 6. PR backlash as US goaded to reinvest in next generation supercomputing, GPUs, etc. Mission accomplished.

bhouston 10y ago

The worst is yet to come. China's home grown chips may now spread out from China to undercut Intel at the end high cloud market if Linux-based software is easy to port to it. Intel's CPUs are way over priced and ripe for disruption if someone can get the required massive upfront investment to create a real competitor, and it looks like China is doing this. Repeatedly topping the supercomputer list is perfect marketing for introducing a new high performance CPU to the world.

lallysingh 10y ago
AFAIK, Chinese CPUs are MIPS and Alpha based. Both run Linux well.
- ams6110 10y ago
  This post has a little more detail about the processors: http://www.nextplatform.com/2016/06/20/look-inside-chinas-chart-topping-new-supercomputer/ http://www.nextplatform.com/2016/06/20/look-inside-chinas-ch... Summary, it's a RISC architecture that resembles an Alpha but it's not a straight-up copy.
  - Brybry 10y ago
    I wonder what the process node size of SW26010 is and if the chips were actually manufactured in China or if they were manufactured by TSMC/Taiwan. I wasn't aware that China had competitive fabrication plants for processors. If they don't and they built these at say 40 or 45nm then wouldn't this design performance be even more impressive?
melling 10y ago
Sounds like a big win for consumers. AMD has not been very competitive. Intel needs to remember that "only the paranoid survive."
Retric 10y ago
CPU performance is not that important when building a supercomputer it's more budget * performance per node / price per node. Performance per node is useful as most workloads only scale so far.
- bhouston 10y ago
  Yes, but that is exactly what people are generally looking for in cloud machines. But I guess we need a benchmark that is oriented to web application development such as serving N nginx/go/nodejs requests per second, or running a MySQL/Postgres/MondoDB server at a certain load.
mtgx 10y ago
A former NSA and CIA chief, wrote a post about stuff like this, before the US banned US chip makers from selling to China: > By the time I became NSA director in the late 1990s, however, the calculation was no longer that simple. We still wanted an MTOPS advantage, of course, but we were fast realizing that our preferred limits were undermining the global competitiveness of the U.S. computer industry — the very industry on which we relied for our success. It was becoming clear that the overall health of that industry was more important than any MTOPS advantage against a specific target country. We still insisted on limits with regard to places such as Cuba and North Korea, but we became far more forgiving elsewhere. This, of course, had a powerful, positive commercial impact, but the NSA didn’t flip its position for commercial reasons. We did it for security reasons. On balance, this change made us stronger, not weaker, over the long haul, since retarding exports would inevitably retard the technological progress that was both our economic and our security lifeblood. That early lesson has caused me to continue to challenge arguments that technological protectionism furthers national security. It might, but then again, it could have the opposite effect if it freezes development, alienates allies, feeds distrust or invites the creation of similar barriers abroad. I would recommend these broader considerations to those in the U.S. security enterprise with responsibility for evaluating these trade-offs today. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-let-america-be-boxed-in-by-its-own-computers/2015/04/02/30742192-cc04-11e4-8a46-b1dc9be5a8ff_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dont-let-america-be-... The whole post is worth reading. The same logic could be applied to US trying to put backdoors in its products for a specific national security goal, which will ultimately end up undermining US technological supremacy and national security as well. And yet the current CIA director just implied that US would be fine with backdoored products, because "where are people going to get their encryption from? The foreigners? Ha!" This sort of arrogance, which is the same type of arrogance that ended up banning chip sales to China last year, is what will make the US lose out in the long term. https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160618/08022234741/cia-director-john-brennan-says-non-us-encryption-is-theoretical.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160618/08022234741/cia-d...
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  Thanks for that article by Hayden. Wow. It echoed much of what Schneier et al kept saying to him. Shows that they're more honest, receptive, or both when they finally leave the job that forces them to BS for SIGINT gains. ;)
KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
Why is it bad if China wants to subsidize hardware for others?
- bhouston 10y ago
  Well it is good for consumers, but it is clearly bad for Intel.
peter303 10y ago
I've hearing this for over three decades: "Country X is on the brinking of beating US general computing lead." I must have shuddered in over 60 pairs of boots since then.
- mrb 10y ago
  Except it happened and you didn't even notice. Much computer electronics is designed and made in China. And today this: "China Tops U.S. in Supercomputers". What more evidence do you want?

winter_blue 10y ago

Why was China banned from buying Intel chips?

detaro 10y ago
> In a notice published online the US Department of Commerce said it refused Intel's application to export the chips for Tianhe-2 and three other Chinese supercomputers because the machines were being used for "nuclear explosive activities". http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/04/us-will-make-180-petaflop-supercomputer.html http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/04/us-will-make-180-petaflop-s...
- mtgx 10y ago
  Oh no, they're using their supercomputers to do nuclear research? That's horrible. Who would do such a thing? The given reason is all bullshit, and they must think we're all morons if they expect us to buy it. If anything it's retaliation for some IP theft or some silent trade war going on between China and the US. It's certainly not because the US gov is "shocked" that China uses its supercomputers to do nuclear research.
  - zhte415 10y ago
    If you want to sell technology products in the China market, you need to transfer technology to China, such as setting up a R&D centre. Everyone answers to sales. Then comes Machiavellian management strategies that demonstrate large companies are not idiots, and withdrawal of such scheme 2-5 years later, while still holding sales lines in China. Source: Have worked on both sides of the technology transfer equation.
  - ams6110 10y ago
    Who said anybody was shocked?
  - schoen 10y ago
    Simulating nuclear explosions in software has been a major response to treaties that forbid nuclear tests. As I think you were ironically pointing out, it's common now. It might be hard for the U.S. government to effectively prevent the Chinese government from doing these simulations, but it's plausible to me that the U.S. government would still want to see the Chinese government hindered in nuclear weapons simulations.

mrb 10y ago

So let me get this straight: 1. Intel loses this business. 2. US employees lose their job. 3. China acquires skills designing the system themselves. 4. And they get to have their supercomputer after all. How can anyone not see how stupid these export restrictions are?

angry_octet 10y ago
More like: 1. China creates much slower CPU which they will be able to sell to absolutely no-one. 2. Augments slow CPU with impossible to programming Xeon Phi. 3. Spends significant effort achieving heroic linpack benchmark. 4. Researchers are unable to obtain real world fast compute. 5. Chinese programs for stealth, submarines, nuclear are significantly delayed. Expertise diverted into useless PR project. 6. PR backlash as US goaded to reinvest in next generation supercomputing, GPUs, etc. Mission accomplished.