4 ms·

Testing a Chinese x86 CPU: A Deep Dive into Zen-Based Hygon Dhyana Processors

47 points by vanburen 7y ago

walrus01 7y ago
I really don't see the point to US federal export control regulations on high-end x86-64 processors. If somebody in a foreign adversary country (Russia? China?) were determined to build a really powerful supercomputer using the latest and great Intel or AMD CPUs, without sourcing them all in one batch officially, with sufficient financial resources and shell entities spread out around the world they absolutely could purchase enough processors by smurfing. Have dozens of small entities purchase small enough batches to fly under the radar. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smurf.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smurf.asp Or just set up a fake cloud/VM/web hosting operation in a friendly country and buy thousands of Supermicro, Quanta or similar barebones servers with CPUs already installed, and then divert them. It's just as futile as trying to stop people from buying high tech things in Dubai and shipping them to Iran.
- brutt 7y ago
  It buys time for three letter agency to counteract bad intentions.
  - walrus01 7y ago
    Based on the number of Chinese supercomputers in the public top500 list I don't see any effectiveness to it. https://www.top500.org/lists/2019/11/ https://www.top500.org/lists/2019/11/
    - klingonopera 7y ago
      If you look at the core count, you'll see a stark difference between the supercomputers in the West and China. For the same perfomance, a Western supercomputer probably fills a room, and a Chinese one the whole datacenter. Add to that, that the physical distance plays a big role in lantencies, and China may be able to do supercomputer, but it is probably very expensive and inefficient for them. I have never operated or seen a supercomputer, so all of this is speculation on my part.
    - skylanh 7y ago
      The top Chinese based supercomputer requires twice the power and 6 times the number of cores. The next requires three times the power and 3 times the cores to produce 60% of the number two supercomputer. Seems like it's a case of "increase operational friction".
      - walrus01 7y ago
        Compared to the amount of megawatt-hours being spent right now in China on bitcoin mining and cryptocurrency mining operations, the friction of having a slightly less efficient and more space hungry supercomputer seems slight... Considering the resources of the government entities that own and operate them.
  - baybal2 7y ago
    > It buys time for three letter agency to counteract bad intentions. I see zero basis in reality for this and much more "logical legitimisations" of much of cretinism of security bureaucracy. Public security is supposed to be ran by smart or at least above average intelligence people. They make every effort to demonstrate the opposite with their actions. Take a look at airline security, or, well, pretty much security at every public venue for that... What's the point of obsessive screenings in airports when at most they are guarded by 20-30 poorly trained security guards or low rank military officers who didn't make it to regular forces? Police in China is normally banned from carrying firearms, and a lot of public facilities are not guarded whatsoever in comparison to what you see in the West, yet you don't hear of sabotages happening every day.
    - gruez 7y ago
      >and a lot of public facilities are not guarded whatsoever in comparison to what you see in the West For example?
      - baybal2 7y ago
        Well, before 2013 a lot of airports and railway stations had civilian security guards, and often no more than a dozen of them. I once ended up mistaking one quite high up security establishment for an office building. It took me few minutes to realise where I am and get the fk out. Nevertheless, I haven't seen myself descended on by security. Some military installations used to not even have a fence. I do remember flying on civilian flights from Shadi airbase at around 2011. The terminal and the airfield were there in the open field.
- kube-system 7y ago
  Even if we assume it has zero effect on outcome, the obvious difference is that those activities are illegal and those who do them could face prosecution. See Huawei CFO.
- throwaway423423 7y ago
  China's fastest supercomputers uses a home-grown CPU, https://www.top500.org/system/178764 https://www.top500.org/system/178764 AFAIK, before the export ban, they were using Intel Xeon Phi's as an addon card.
blackhaz 7y ago
I wonder if anything more is known on the Sunway SW26010 260C 1.45GHz processor which powers world's 3rd best supercomputer: https://www.top500.org/system/178764 https://www.top500.org/system/178764
AtlasBarfed 7y ago
"Starting in 2015, AMD diligently and proactively briefed the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce and multiple other agencies within the U.S. Government before entering into the joint ventures. AMD received no objections whatsoever from any agency to the formation of the joint ventures or to the transfer of technology – technology which was of lower performance than other commercially available processors. In fact, prior to the formation of the joint ventures and the transfer of technology, the Department of Commerce notified AMD that the technology proposed was not restricted or otherwise prohibited from being transferred. Given this clear feedback, AMD moved ahead with the joint ventures." Is this basically a "give us a big fat contract or pay us to not do this" request that the US Government passed on?

47 points by vanburen 7y ago

I really don't see the point to US federal export control regulations on high-end x86-64 processors. If somebody in a foreign adversary country (Russia? China?) were determined to build a really powerful supercomputer using the latest and great Intel or AMD CPUs, without sourcing them all in one batch officially, with sufficient financial resources and shell entities spread out around the world they absolutely could purchase enough processors by smurfing. Have dozens of small entities purchase small enough batches to fly under the radar. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smurf.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/smurf.asp Or just set up a fake cloud/VM/web hosting operation in a friendly country and buy thousands of Supermicro, Quanta or similar barebones servers with CPUs already installed, and then divert them. It's just as futile as trying to stop people from buying high tech things in Dubai and shipping them to Iran.

brutt 7y ago
It buys time for three letter agency to counteract bad intentions.
- walrus01 7y ago
  Based on the number of Chinese supercomputers in the public top500 list I don't see any effectiveness to it. https://www.top500.org/lists/2019/11/ https://www.top500.org/lists/2019/11/
  - klingonopera 7y ago
    If you look at the core count, you'll see a stark difference between the supercomputers in the West and China. For the same perfomance, a Western supercomputer probably fills a room, and a Chinese one the whole datacenter. Add to that, that the physical distance plays a big role in lantencies, and China may be able to do supercomputer, but it is probably very expensive and inefficient for them. I have never operated or seen a supercomputer, so all of this is speculation on my part.
  - skylanh 7y ago
    The top Chinese based supercomputer requires twice the power and 6 times the number of cores. The next requires three times the power and 3 times the cores to produce 60% of the number two supercomputer. Seems like it's a case of "increase operational friction".
    - walrus01 7y ago
      Compared to the amount of megawatt-hours being spent right now in China on bitcoin mining and cryptocurrency mining operations, the friction of having a slightly less efficient and more space hungry supercomputer seems slight... Considering the resources of the government entities that own and operate them.
- baybal2 7y ago
  > It buys time for three letter agency to counteract bad intentions. I see zero basis in reality for this and much more "logical legitimisations" of much of cretinism of security bureaucracy. Public security is supposed to be ran by smart or at least above average intelligence people. They make every effort to demonstrate the opposite with their actions. Take a look at airline security, or, well, pretty much security at every public venue for that... What's the point of obsessive screenings in airports when at most they are guarded by 20-30 poorly trained security guards or low rank military officers who didn't make it to regular forces? Police in China is normally banned from carrying firearms, and a lot of public facilities are not guarded whatsoever in comparison to what you see in the West, yet you don't hear of sabotages happening every day.
  - gruez 7y ago
    >and a lot of public facilities are not guarded whatsoever in comparison to what you see in the West For example?
    - baybal2 7y ago
      Well, before 2013 a lot of airports and railway stations had civilian security guards, and often no more than a dozen of them. I once ended up mistaking one quite high up security establishment for an office building. It took me few minutes to realise where I am and get the fk out. Nevertheless, I haven't seen myself descended on by security. Some military installations used to not even have a fence. I do remember flying on civilian flights from Shadi airbase at around 2011. The terminal and the airfield were there in the open field.
kube-system 7y ago
Even if we assume it has zero effect on outcome, the obvious difference is that those activities are illegal and those who do them could face prosecution. See Huawei CFO.
throwaway423423 7y ago
China's fastest supercomputers uses a home-grown CPU, https://www.top500.org/system/178764 https://www.top500.org/system/178764 AFAIK, before the export ban, they were using Intel Xeon Phi's as an addon card.

blackhaz 7y ago

I wonder if anything more is known on the Sunway SW26010 260C 1.45GHz processor which powers world's 3rd best supercomputer: https://www.top500.org/system/178764 https://www.top500.org/system/178764

AtlasBarfed 7y ago

"Starting in 2015, AMD diligently and proactively briefed the Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce and multiple other agencies within the U.S. Government before entering into the joint ventures. AMD received no objections whatsoever from any agency to the formation of the joint ventures or to the transfer of technology – technology which was of lower performance than other commercially available processors. In fact, prior to the formation of the joint ventures and the transfer of technology, the Department of Commerce notified AMD that the technology proposed was not restricted or otherwise prohibited from being transferred. Given this clear feedback, AMD moved ahead with the joint ventures." Is this basically a "give us a big fat contract or pay us to not do this" request that the US Government passed on?