6 ms·

Well geopolitically it makes sense to some degree. Probably no other country would benefit more from RISC-V catching up with ARM/AMD64 than China (and unlike th

by qwytw 3y ago

Well geopolitically it makes sense to some degree. Probably no other country would benefit more from RISC-V catching up with ARM/AMD64 than China (and unlike those US won't have as much direct control over transfer/licensing of IP etc.) They seem to be extremely clear about motivations: > The intellectual property used to design semiconductor chips is currently dominated by western firms, including ARM, Intel, and AMD. The U.S. and other governments have typically required licenses for certain use and users of chip architecture, but RISC-V allows the PRC to use open-source architecture to develop advanced chips without needing a license from the U.S. government One might justifiable strongly disagree with that, I wouldn't it's "stupid", though.

api 3y ago
The US should make sure it has local fabs or fabs in very friendly countries that can meet demand, but the idea of preventing China from having its own cutting edge fabs seems completely absurd and impossible.
- marcinzm 3y ago
  That's a strawmen argument. It's not about preventing something but about delaying it or increasing the cost of it. Economic warfare.
  - OhMeadhbh 3y ago
    Can you expound on that?
rwmj 3y ago
> RISC-V allows the PRC to use open-source architecture to develop advanced chips without needing a license from the U.S. government I'm glad you highlighted that sentence from the statement because it is wrong in just about every aspect. Firstly the US government doesn't license chip designs. Secondly there are plenty of open architectures already (Loongson being just one). Thirdly the PRC doesn't need to copy an open source architecture, they could copy x86 without licensing if they wanted to. Fourthly it's open source so how would you realisticly prevent the PRC from getting it? - Even trying will mainly hurt developers in the US and make no difference for China. So yes, stupid. Edit: Although it can be both stupid and dangerous when you've got US representatives writing such rubbish. That's the worst kind of stupid unfortunately.
- qwytw 3y ago
  > Firstly the US government doesn't license chip designs I'm not sure if 'license' is the right word, maybe not, however the US government does pretty tightly control what technologies you're allowed to license/sell to foreign entities. > Secondly there are plenty of open architectures already (Loongson being just one) If Western companies don't invest into RISC-V that would slow down any meaningful progress in the ecosystem. Of course it might also mean that they will be left behind by Chinese companies. > they could copy x86 without licensing if they wanted to. They could, good luck selling it to anyone outside China. Also Chinese companies which did that would probably sanctioned to such an extent that they couldn't sell any of their products in half of the world (not just chips). > Although it can be both stupid and dangerous when you've got US representatives writing such rubbish Again. How is it stupid? I mean it's a blatant attempt at protectionism and (I'm not sure what the right word for that is, but something related to imperialism?). I don't think it's irrational, though. Unless you don't believe that RISC-V becoming more widespread posses a threat to the hegemony US/Western companies have in the highend chip market?
  - rwmj 3y ago
    It's stupid because RISC-V isn't a specific new technology, something like an EUV machine. You can control where those are shipped. It's also not really a new idea, like patenting a new method for speculative execution or somesuch. You could work with US industry to keep those a trade secret. RISC-V is an attempt to make a pretty boring but cross-industry standard architecture that doesn't need licensing. The fact that it doesn't need licenses is the giveaway that RISC-V isn't groundbreaking exciting new work, but more like Linux, a dull, but free, reimplementation of an existing idea. Ask yourself if the US can control Linux distribution, or if it would have been a good idea back in 1991 for the US government to support proprietary Unix and prevent US developers from working on Linux or BSD. How would that have gone do you think? Would we be in a better place now if US persons could not work on Linux and if the US was funding SunOS development? (And I say this as a big fan of RISC-V and the first person to work on the Fedora port to RISC-V).
    - qwytw 3y ago
zozbot234 3y ago
RISC-V is not a "chip architecture", it's just a standard instruction set. RISC-V International does not do "chip architectures", so open cooperation with RISC-V International doesn't actually help anyone design cutting-edge or "advanced" chips.
- qwytw 3y ago
  Yes, this is about 'RISC-V International' but at the same time they are sending an implicit message to western companies that they maybe shouldn't touch RISC-V if they know what's good for them (to some extent anyway). The less western companies invest into the ecosystem the longer it will take Chinese to design cutting-edge or "advanced" chips (which I don't think is an entirely unreasonable view)
  - zozbot234 3y ago
    > The less western companies invest into the ecosystem the longer it will take Chinese to design cutting-edge or "advanced" chips If by "ecosystem" you mean the actual RISC-V ISA this is quite wrong. The kind of IP that's actually involved in advanced chips has zilch to do with the ISA and is only minimally about the 'software-like' high-level microarchitecture; much of it is outright dark magic relating to the low-level physics of individual fabrication nodes. This is where China will always have the most trouble catching up with advanced, Western-aligned countries and where sanctions should be targeted. Anything else is just a pointless distraction and only hurts the West's ability to design cutting-edge chips.
    - qwytw 3y ago
      I don't necessarily mean the ISA. But imagine if an US company designs a highly competitive RISC-V even if they don't directly license it would that help Chinese companies either directly or indirectly (e.g. people will port their software to RISC-V, major companies might adopt it etc. which would increase demand for other RISC-V chips and Chinese companies will unavoidably end up getting a slice of that pie with x86 and to lesser extent with ARM that's not a threat). > This is where China will always have the most trouble catching up with advanced, Yes I agree, but when/if they do they certainly don't want to be reliant on IP directly owned by western companies.

by qwytw 3y ago

api 3y ago

The US should make sure it has local fabs or fabs in very friendly countries that can meet demand, but the idea of preventing China from having its own cutting edge fabs seems completely absurd and impossible.

marcinzm 3y ago
That's a strawmen argument. It's not about preventing something but about delaying it or increasing the cost of it. Economic warfare.
- OhMeadhbh 3y ago
  Can you expound on that?

rwmj 3y ago

> RISC-V allows the PRC to use open-source architecture to develop advanced chips without needing a license from the U.S. government I'm glad you highlighted that sentence from the statement because it is wrong in just about every aspect. Firstly the US government doesn't license chip designs. Secondly there are plenty of open architectures already (Loongson being just one). Thirdly the PRC doesn't need to copy an open source architecture, they could copy x86 without licensing if they wanted to. Fourthly it's open source so how would you realisticly prevent the PRC from getting it? - Even trying will mainly hurt developers in the US and make no difference for China. So yes, stupid. Edit: Although it can be both stupid and dangerous when you've got US representatives writing such rubbish. That's the worst kind of stupid unfortunately.

qwytw 3y ago
> Firstly the US government doesn't license chip designs I'm not sure if 'license' is the right word, maybe not, however the US government does pretty tightly control what technologies you're allowed to license/sell to foreign entities. > Secondly there are plenty of open architectures already (Loongson being just one) If Western companies don't invest into RISC-V that would slow down any meaningful progress in the ecosystem. Of course it might also mean that they will be left behind by Chinese companies. > they could copy x86 without licensing if they wanted to. They could, good luck selling it to anyone outside China. Also Chinese companies which did that would probably sanctioned to such an extent that they couldn't sell any of their products in half of the world (not just chips). > Although it can be both stupid and dangerous when you've got US representatives writing such rubbish Again. How is it stupid? I mean it's a blatant attempt at protectionism and (I'm not sure what the right word for that is, but something related to imperialism?). I don't think it's irrational, though. Unless you don't believe that RISC-V becoming more widespread posses a threat to the hegemony US/Western companies have in the highend chip market?
- rwmj 3y ago
  It's stupid because RISC-V isn't a specific new technology, something like an EUV machine. You can control where those are shipped. It's also not really a new idea, like patenting a new method for speculative execution or somesuch. You could work with US industry to keep those a trade secret. RISC-V is an attempt to make a pretty boring but cross-industry standard architecture that doesn't need licensing. The fact that it doesn't need licenses is the giveaway that RISC-V isn't groundbreaking exciting new work, but more like Linux, a dull, but free, reimplementation of an existing idea. Ask yourself if the US can control Linux distribution, or if it would have been a good idea back in 1991 for the US government to support proprietary Unix and prevent US developers from working on Linux or BSD. How would that have gone do you think? Would we be in a better place now if US persons could not work on Linux and if the US was funding SunOS development? (And I say this as a big fan of RISC-V and the first person to work on the Fedora port to RISC-V).
  - qwytw 3y ago

zozbot234 3y ago

RISC-V is not a "chip architecture", it's just a standard instruction set. RISC-V International does not do "chip architectures", so open cooperation with RISC-V International doesn't actually help anyone design cutting-edge or "advanced" chips.

qwytw 3y ago
Yes, this is about 'RISC-V International' but at the same time they are sending an implicit message to western companies that they maybe shouldn't touch RISC-V if they know what's good for them (to some extent anyway). The less western companies invest into the ecosystem the longer it will take Chinese to design cutting-edge or "advanced" chips (which I don't think is an entirely unreasonable view)
- zozbot234 3y ago
  > The less western companies invest into the ecosystem the longer it will take Chinese to design cutting-edge or "advanced" chips If by "ecosystem" you mean the actual RISC-V ISA this is quite wrong. The kind of IP that's actually involved in advanced chips has zilch to do with the ISA and is only minimally about the 'software-like' high-level microarchitecture; much of it is outright dark magic relating to the low-level physics of individual fabrication nodes. This is where China will always have the most trouble catching up with advanced, Western-aligned countries and where sanctions should be targeted. Anything else is just a pointless distraction and only hurts the West's ability to design cutting-edge chips.
  - qwytw 3y ago
    I don't necessarily mean the ISA. But imagine if an US company designs a highly competitive RISC-V even if they don't directly license it would that help Chinese companies either directly or indirectly (e.g. people will port their software to RISC-V, major companies might adopt it etc. which would increase demand for other RISC-V chips and Chinese companies will unavoidably end up getting a slice of that pie with x86 and to lesser extent with ARM that's not a threat). > This is where China will always have the most trouble catching up with advanced, Yes I agree, but when/if they do they certainly don't want to be reliant on IP directly owned by western companies.