12 ms·
Guangzhou Supercomputer Center Added to US Technology “Denial List”
- higherpurpose 12y agoThose Xeon chips are mainstream server chips, are they not? And this restriction seems to affect only a few Chinese entities. So what's to stop China from getting the same chips from Intel through another company? Is the U.S. just going to play whack-a-mole with them? Also, the reason given for this is so hilarious. China is using the supercomputers to "research nuclear explosions". China is doing WHAT?! Stop the presses! China is going to have a nuke! That said, I think this is a good outcome for China. It will just force them to build out their own chips (okay, on top of ARM, MIPS, OpenPOWER or even RISC-V - but why not?!). More competition for Intel is a good thing.
- dijit 12y agoI agree, we should be pushing for more dominant companies outside of the US, given how abhorrently hostile they are to "foreigners". Citizenship of the internet does not entitle you to the same rights as a US citizen, and we should stop acting like the US government gives a solitary fuck about anybody who wasn't born in the US, and protesting with our wallets doesn't work so well when there is no usable alternative. so yes, I applaud the idea of another country developing comparable silicon to Intel, and I applaud the idea of each country having it's own webmail provider. and every time the US government does something which treads on those who are feeding it money, it makes me a little happy that one day they'll annoy everyone enough to not put up with it.. even if the services are better.
- justincormack 12y agoThey already have a mips chip programme aimed at supercomputers, although they are not as performant as xeon.[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loongson#Supercomputers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loongson#Supercomputers
- kinghajj 12y agoWhy is the parent being downvoted? This post doesn't come across to me as off-topic or offensive in any way.
- adwf 12y agoYeah I was thinking much the same. I really do believe that we should just remove the downvote button entirely, too many people abusing it for the wrong reasons. An entirely upvote-oriented site would work reasonably well. You could still flag offensive comments if need be.
- trhway 12y ago>So what's to stop China from getting the same chips from Intel through another company? sometimes CBP/FBI/etc. happen to do their job :) http://www.fbi.gov/sanfrancisco/press-releases/2015/san-francisco-man-and-company-indicted-for-smuggling-sophisticated-electrical-components-to-russian-federation http://www.fbi.gov/sanfrancisco/press-releases/2015/san-fran...
- blackguardx 12y agoWow, he was busted for exporting FPGAs that were rated for the wrong temperature range. I'm not saying it wasn't nefarious, but it is crazy that Automotive grade is completely legal at -40C - 125C and but go a little colder to milspec (-55C - 125C) and you are going to jail.
- pc2g4d 12y ago> Also, the reason given for this is so hilarious. China is using the supercomputers to "research nuclear explosions". China is doing WHAT?! Stop the presses! China is going to have a nuke! The ability to computationally model nuclear explosions is strategically important. This permits development of new nuclear weapons designs without violating the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty.
- cefstat 12y agoTianhe-2 uses Xeon Phi, not the mainstream Xeon processors. By the way, even mainstream Xeons can have very different performance depending on the specific model.
- err4nt 12y agoIs the US slowly bowing out of the international tech scene? China is still going to get their processors from somewhere, the difference is if they don't get them from US companies then no money gets added to the US economy when they do buy their chips. This type of government interference doesn't hurt Chinese businesses at all, but could damage or destroy US-based businesses that may depend on foreign customers to stay afloat. This only serves to hurt US business and limit the amount of money being added to the US economy by Chinese consumers. It feels like a spiteful, self-destructive move to me.
- Kalium 12y agoIt is perhaps naive to assume that any given part can be had with identical properties and costs from American or non-American suppliers. Also, there are other considerations at hand, such as making life harder for foreign intelligence agencies.
- err4nt 12y agoFrom what I could decipher from the end of the article, it sounded like China has already migrated away from Intel's architecture and replaced it with a different architecture they could get their hands on more reliably—meaning even if the US were to reverse their decision about this denial list, the damage to Intel is already done. This may have killed the demand for Intel's products in China, even if they were free to sell them. If you owned a Volkswagen car and required specialized parts which were were denied to you, and you upgraded to a different make of car like Volvo, what good would Wolkswagen spare parts serve to you? You're not going to switch back to VW just because the spare parts are available on the market again…you've moved on by that point. As we say where I live: «L'avion c'est en vol!» (“The plane has taken off” ~= That Ship has sailed)
- S4M 12y ago"L'avion s'est envolé!"
- 12y ago
- nkurz 12y agoThis seems insane, but appears to be true. Here's an article with a little more supporting information: http://www.hpcwire.com/2015/04/08/chinese-supercomputing-orgs-placed-on-us-entity-list/ http://www.hpcwire.com/2015/04/08/chinese-supercomputing-org... While I'm excited that Intel may experience greater competition (resulting in lower profits and faster development) I wouldn't have expected this to be the mechanism.
- ryan-c 12y agoCan we get a title change? It's misleading. > ... Uncle Sam has put this supercomputer centre, together with National University of Defense Technology in Changsha, the system’s creators, and Tianjin centre, among others, on so a so-called “Denial List”, which prevents any high technology from the USA to be sold to these sites. If I understand correctly Intel can't sell them any tech nor can anyone else in the US.
- castis 12y agoLooks like its already been changed.
- sctb 12y agoThanks, we updated the title to something that's hopefully more accurate. We're open to suggestions for a better one.
- ethanbond 12y ago"US regulates high-tech exports on Chinese defense research." A lot less flashy and baity though.
- tomjen3 12y agoThen they are just going to sell it to some person in Europe who later sells them to the Chinese.
- rthomas6 12y agoI bet there's some secret info that we don't get to know that would make this bizarre move make more sense. Maybe China is using this computer to crack military servers or something.
- jeffbush 12y agoI'm not willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt anymore. I can't recall any instance historically where they have turned out to have been right based on some secret information, even though they often intimate that they have some.
- Kalium 12y agoIt happens quite a lot. The catch is that the whole thing end-to-end is secret, with the result being that you don't hear about it at all. All we really hear about on the outside is the screwups. The successes are silent.
- emn13 12y agoThis kind of ban was never going to be silent, so I don't think it's reasonable to a serious selection bias here.
- Kalium 12y agoI read jeffbush's comment as a broad one, rather than narrowly about trade restrictions. The government is often right based on secret information, but selection biases are strong.
- jeffbush 12y agoI agree about selection bias, although the magnitude of the screwups have been pretty enormous, so it's kinda hard not to.
- pedrocr 12y ago
- Igglyboo 12y ago> 'opened the kimono' Kimonos are Japanese, not Chinese. EDIT: I understand that 'opened the kimono' is already a phrase but it seems like it was used because the article is about china.
- me2i81 12y agoThis particular (and rather creepy) metaphor gets used by some business-side people and press in a general context, not just when talking about Japan. It's been around for decades.
- johngalt 12y agoIt's a figure of speech, not a cultural reference. It's a term used for pragmatic openness between companies. Avoiding secrets. I prefer using the term 'lay your cards on the table'. Less charged.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago> It's a figure of speech, not a cultural reference. Yes, but it looks like the author thought they were being clever by using that specific phrase, given the article was about China.
- KaoruAoiShiho 12y agoNot really it's an extremely common term that people use all the time. Has nothing to do with china or japan.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago...did you even read my comment?
- devy 12y agoAs others have already noted, "open kimono" is a business term. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/open-kimono.asp http://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/open-kimono.asp
- detaro 12y agoGuess the Chinese were on the right track when they started their programs for domestic CPUs and other computing parts. With a bit of luck, the rest of the world gets useable alternatives to Intel and therefore cheaper chips out of it.
- Guvante 12y agoIntel is only dominating the x86 scene and this article says that China is working on different architectures.
- duaneb 12y agoExcellent, finally a chance for some real competition with us chip makers.
- raverbashing 12y agoChina needs not to worry about this. And by the way few people do math "heavy lifting" with x86 CPUs today, they would rather do it in a GPU China has the fabs and the expertise (or at least it is getting there). It's a non issue. "They have taken the best that the USA has developed (some of key Alpha, GPGPU and MIPS architects left US over the course of past four years, a lot of them due to non-renewed visas) and discarded due to corporate shenanigans, and the continued developing it much farther than anyone expected both on hardware and software side. "
- pbsd 12y ago> And by the way few people do math "heavy lifting" with x86 CPUs today, they would rather do it in a GPU This depends on the workload, really; some workloads are quite GPU-unfriendly. In any case, the supercomputer in question---Tianhe-2 [2]---derives most of its computing power from the Xeon Phi [1], a x86-ish many-core vector processor which looks much like a GPU. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon_Phi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon_Phi [2] http://top500.org/system/177999 http://top500.org/system/177999
- CHY872 12y agoI can't help but feel that not supplying processors to the "National University of Defense Technology" is basically a textbook use of export regs? I don't really understand why people are complaining about this one?
- icegreentea 12y agoDenying the chinese access to Intel chips for their flagship supercomputing facility only promotes indigenous Chinese chip manufacturing. Given that there's no reason why Chinese chip design and manufacturing could not match and/or exceed western designs, this choice potentially accelerates the rate at which Western dominance over high tech goods is eroded. Furthermore, by denying Intel chips in such a high profile manner, this will likely cause all sorts of antagonization, and reduce the ability to pressure/guide Chinese growth and development in directions that are more beneficial for American/Western interests.
- CHY872 12y agoThis wouldn't have been a surprise for the Chinese. Intel would have been told a long time ago, and so likely would the university in question. It also won't be a scenario that China hasn't planned for. The reason that China's been building up its chipmakers over the last few years is for precisely this scenario; reducing the reliance on American tech. They've been doing this quite successfully; Cisco now aren't able to do business with the Chinese government, iirc. Lastly, Tianhe-2 was a $400 million computer. The decision to block American collaboration on a project valued at a considerable fraction of $1 billion isn't made by some office clerk; it will have been considered at the highest levels of at least the military, but most likely the government in general. It's a diplomatic maneuvre specifically designed to hurt China. Intel's just been caught in the crossfire. They could easily be pacified (for example, by giving them a supercomputer contract in the US). In terms of the Chinese reaction, antagonization is probably the point.
- CHY872 12y agoet voila! http://investors.cray.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=98390&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2033626 http://investors.cray.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=98390&p=irol-newsA...
- orik 12y agoIt appears the US Government is making it up intel by having them use the chips in a new supercomputer for the department of energy. http://techreport.com/news/28092/xeon-phi-chips-will-fuel-180-petaflop-doe-supercomputer http://techreport.com/news/28092/xeon-phi-chips-will-fuel-18...
- junto 12y agoThe NSA are screaming 'nooooooooo' as they realise the backdoored Intel chips aren't going to be used by the Chinese!
- voidlogic 12y agoOr maybe they are arranging for a "special batch" of CPUs to make their way to China like they did with IBM 360s in the cold war. That only lead to oil pipeline failures...
- adrianpike 12y agoGot any more info on this? A quick Google didn't reveal anything.
- GabrielF00 12y agoI think he's referring to the 1982 Siberian pipeline explosion. (Not sure it had anything to do with IBM) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_Dossier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_Dossier]
- voidlogic 12y agoYes, I was referring to this, made possible by "special" IBM System/360s that the Russians thought were black market, but that they were intended to get...
- rurban 12y agoAnd about the Intel backdoor (AMT/ME): http://de.slideshare.net/codeblue_jp/igor-skochinsky-enpub http://de.slideshare.net/codeblue_jp/igor-skochinsky-enpub
- saganus 12y agoI know this is nitpicking but... I really hate when journalists who I would presume have some studies in literature, confuse "then" and "than". I'm not a native English speaker and I know the difference, and for some reason this particular mistake and "their/they're/there" makes me choke. Like I said, totally nitpicking on an otherwise interesting article but still... "...with true blue CPUs possibly faster per socket then even the next generation Xeon Phi..." /rant
- jjoonathan 12y agoThis kind of thing can creep up when you least expect it. I'm a native speaker, I've had a solid and reliable intellectual understanding of these distinctions since grade school, and yet somehow on a paper a few years back I substituted "weather" for "whether" throughout the whole thing. Not because I had forgotten the distinction, but because I just wasn't paying attention.
- saganus 12y agoI guess you have a fair point. And I'm certain I've made such mistakes as well, it's just that I can't stand those two particular errors for whatever reason :) Maybe I'm getting old...
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y agoIn some dialects, "then" and "than" are pronounced identically, so it is reasonable that they might be confused.
- saganus 12y agoReally? I did not know this. Interesting. What kind of dialects are you referring to?
- humanarity 12y agoI find it interesting to consider valuations for the two costs in allowing the chips to be used. Intel chip revenue, and future business growth = +X Security concerns, and future security concerns = -Y I really wonder what the value of X-Y is, i.e., what's the net benefit? It's hard to reason about as a member of the public without inside information. Y is particularly opaque in this case. Also I really think the narrative of China versus or competing with the US is overcooked. It's my feeling that both countries have far more pressing domestic and regional concerns than each other, and could stand to benefit far more from mutual strength than from any adversity. I guess the narrative makes for compelling reading tho, on both sides, for public consumption. Maybe similar to how the West vs Russia narrative of the Cold War promoted scientific activity. I just think the world's substantially moved on from such binary narratives, because as countries have developed and strengthened economic relationships, they actually have less to worry about in terms of conflict with each other. Then again, I guess a lot of what happens is opaque to reasoning about form the outside. So perhaps this is not a US vs China thing at all. Maybe there's some other strategy at play.
- tete 12y ago> It's my feeling that both countries have far more pressing domestic and regional concerns than each other However domestic concerns that are hard to solve can benefit from (made-up) external concerns. It has also been used to enforce power internally. Other than that domestic concerns have the problem that solving them can change status quo and give the fact that such decisions of course are made by people that are currently in power it might play a role in keeping that power, also by distracting from the fact that it might not be to the benefit of the people. That of course doesn't have to be the main case and probably isn't here, but of course that is a pattern, basically like evolution or evolving systems (not just biologically). Status quo of being alive and dominant usually means that this dominance will be used to keep it, which often results in stagnation, which may lead to the benefit becoming a handicap later - like when you are too specialized to status quo. The US (government wise) seems to lately struggle a bit with the world being/becoming multi polar. Like not talking in a bad way, but of course one has to consider that we are basically just past a century that was basically about an unipolar world with the US as the only superpower and even if society and especially individuals change more quickly such a huge structure tends to be a bit slower, which is something we can see when we look for example at old/ancient laws, institutions, etc. that still exist. From a startup perspective: You might consider the old economy slow, but governments and especially the structures surrounding them are even slower. On the other hand it might also be related to something like "I am pissed at you, so you don't get it. Take that" things that sometimes happen, often causing big effects despite just being a temporal disagreement on some completely unrelated topic. After all there is just ordinary people working behind the scenes.
- tuan5 12y agoIt is interesting that even nobody think China should sue Uncle Sam at WTO. If it happened in the other direction, American will think go to court first for sure. just like the rare metal affair when China bannned it from US.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 12y agoNow china will have less intel.
- rodgerd 12y agoI wonder how long it is before someone decides to buy AMD with a view to evading these sorts of problems with an x86 license...
- ris 12y agoWhy in god's name would anyone want an x86 license? Even AMD are moving away from it where they can.
- im3w1l 12y agoAnyone have more details on these upcoming 64 core ShenWei Alphas?
- kevinchen 12y agoMeta: there's something funny about the very aggressive, sarcastic way the article is written. Not journalistic at all and pretty annoying to read even though there is good information in it. > You may think they are not up to the mark, but remember how fast British ARM architecture became the dominant processing architecture in the world. And this group doesn’t need to worry about the antiquated x86 ISA, worry about satisfying the dumbed down shareholder masses, or overpaying their marketing and sales staff, as well as the fat check, golden parachute-protected CxOs.
- Faint 12y agoDenying tech sales to China, at this stage is just causing minor nuisance. In not-so-far future China is going to be much stronger economy than US ever was. If they want the bigger computers, they will have the bigger computers. Just calculate any "damage" done with those export rules on Chinese military - is it $2B more that needs to be spent in order to get the same capability? Or $20B? You can just watch that money float right past you to their domestic HPC and CPU industries. In effect, US is trying it's damnest to make China competitive in the one major high tech export industry that it still has undisputed world leadership in. Only circumstance this would make any sense would be if you were sliding fast and inevitably to open conflict, and causing them setbacks worth of a few months to a couple of years would be vital. Since that is not the case, this has nothing but "strategic blunder" written all over it.
- acd 12y agoThen there will be a Chinese company like Intel. There is already the Loongson processor. Arm based?