Zhaoxin KX-6000 CPUs Purportedly Match Intel's Core I5-7400 in Performance(tomshardware.com)
tomshardware.com
Zhaoxin KX-6000 CPUs Purportedly Match Intel's Core I5-7400 in Performance
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/china-zhaoxin-kx-6000-core-i5-7400,39694.html
12 comments
One thing I always enjoyed from Back to the Future 3:
DOC: (Inspects the failed circuit.) "Unbelievable that this little piece of junk could be such a big problem." (Turns it over.) "No wonder this circuit failed, it says made in Japan."
MARTY: "What do you mean doc, all the best stuff is made in Japan."
DOC: "Unbelievable."
DOC: (Inspects the failed circuit.) "Unbelievable that this little piece of junk could be such a big problem." (Turns it over.) "No wonder this circuit failed, it says made in Japan."
MARTY: "What do you mean doc, all the best stuff is made in Japan."
DOC: "Unbelievable."
I thought that was the first Back to the Future?
I feel like this is some kind of weird Berenstein Effect thing, because I distinctly remember that from the first movie (when they were discussing how to fix the DeLorean and get Marty back to 1985), and they definitely weren't wearing hardhats when the exchange took place.
Man, getting spontaneously dropped off in a parallel universe is confusing as hell.
Man, getting spontaneously dropped off in a parallel universe is confusing as hell.
>some kind of weird Berenstein Effect thing
You mean like when you remember things incorrectly?
You mean like when you remember things incorrectly?
Kinda, but a vivid mis-memory, and one that's shared by multiple people.
Quote: "And every time it's the same pattern. First it's "hah look they make these cheap inferior copies" then quality improves and gets on par so it changes to "well they just copy our products and then sell them for cheaper because labor costs are much lower" and then when they finally start to innovate and excel everybody is super surprised cause it was just stupid Japanese/Korean/Chinese copying our technology without really understanding it so how could they possibly make something on their own?"
This same pattern exists in Software too... Google with respect to the original Chrome version ("It's just a cheap knock-off of FireFox/Mozilla"), or Microsoft with the earliest versions of Word ("It's just a cheap knock-off of WordPerfect") or Excel ("It's just a cheap knock-off of Lotus 1-2-3"), or even the earliest versions of Windows ("It's just a cheap knock-off of Xerox Alto/PARC or Apple Lisa/early MacIntosh GUI").
History repeats itself in very predictable cycles...
On the flip side, Intel and AMD are sorely in need of some competition... Remember that AMD's constant competition with Intel is one of the key reasons why CPU technology (well, x86-wise!) advanced as fast as it did, and more competitors should mean more technology advancement...
This same pattern exists in Software too... Google with respect to the original Chrome version ("It's just a cheap knock-off of FireFox/Mozilla"), or Microsoft with the earliest versions of Word ("It's just a cheap knock-off of WordPerfect") or Excel ("It's just a cheap knock-off of Lotus 1-2-3"), or even the earliest versions of Windows ("It's just a cheap knock-off of Xerox Alto/PARC or Apple Lisa/early MacIntosh GUI").
History repeats itself in very predictable cycles...
On the flip side, Intel and AMD are sorely in need of some competition... Remember that AMD's constant competition with Intel is one of the key reasons why CPU technology (well, x86-wise!) advanced as fast as it did, and more competitors should mean more technology advancement...
I don't recall the early perception of Chrome being anything like that. Wasn't the innovation pretty obvious with separate processes for each tab? And I recall people being excited to see Google "finally" get in the browser game, which had been anticipated for a good while.
Chrome was essentially launched on V8. At that time, full JavaScript webapps were still pretty slow.
Neither MS, Mozilla, or Apple had a strategic interest in accelerating them by an order of magnitude.
And V8 begat Node.js, for better or worse.
Neither MS, Mozilla, or Apple had a strategic interest in accelerating them by an order of magnitude.
And V8 begat Node.js, for better or worse.
Chrome was initially perceived as innovative and more cutting edge than Firefox and IE, for its modern UX and superior architecture. It was objectively faster in benchmarks https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2008/09/hands...
That's totally true. The Chinese are also starting to aggressively go into distribution and finance. And unlike the Japanese and Koreans they aren't politically under the thumb of the US. They are big enough they can ignore the Washington Consensus.
That's where the big freakout is coming from.
That's where the big freakout is coming from.
The real freakout is that their government combines ruthless authoritarianism with suffocating surveillance technology, and they haven't even gotten started yet...
Lol, as if they have anything on the US wrt surveillance. They block more, but that's a heavy hammer to drop that the US doesn't need to do.
For me the scariest part is the demonstration that capitalism works better under an authoritarian regime.
I think it shows the Neo-Liberal/Washington Consensus to be an abject failure. Under that the west decided to forgo government imposed industrial policy in favor of disorganized looting.
The Chinese on the other hand imposed hard nosed industrial policies. Western economists have been saying that Chinese industrial/financial/developmental policy was going to result in collapse 'in five to ten years' for the last 30 years. And now it becoming obvious, it's not happening.
The Chinese on the other hand imposed hard nosed industrial policies. Western economists have been saying that Chinese industrial/financial/developmental policy was going to result in collapse 'in five to ten years' for the last 30 years. And now it becoming obvious, it's not happening.
They have not demonstrated that.
How? It didn't work until it became more free
Chinese authoritarianism has relatively little effect on its economic output, it's not run like the Soviet union
Chinese authoritarianism has relatively little effect on its economic output, it's not run like the Soviet union
The Soviets devoted an large percentage of their economy to military industrial goods and services instead of consumer ones. They were running a war command economy from 1940 to 1990.
China's military expenditures are small as a percentage of their economy. And unlike the US they have an functional industrial/labor policy apparatus. The US used to, but it was dismantled in the 1980's.
China's military expenditures are small as a percentage of their economy. And unlike the US they have an functional industrial/labor policy apparatus. The US used to, but it was dismantled in the 1980's.
Capitalism works well when resources are scarce enough that everyone is short on something, but not so scarce that there isn't enough to even trade goods. (At that point disaster management needs to be very authoritarian.)
Capitalism absolutely fails when there's "too much" surplus.
Social focused alternatives also fail to survive in to human implementation because power corrupts and greed ruins everything.
We need some benevolent dictators to do slightly wrong things for the right reasons, and a lot of right things for the right reasons, to break our cultures out of the insanity that infects them.
Or maybe someone can come up with a greed proof form of governance and resource allocation that can tolerate the inherent failure modes associated with using humans as cogs in the system.
Capitalism absolutely fails when there's "too much" surplus.
Social focused alternatives also fail to survive in to human implementation because power corrupts and greed ruins everything.
We need some benevolent dictators to do slightly wrong things for the right reasons, and a lot of right things for the right reasons, to break our cultures out of the insanity that infects them.
Or maybe someone can come up with a greed proof form of governance and resource allocation that can tolerate the inherent failure modes associated with using humans as cogs in the system.
Europe, and to a certain extent the, US seem to be doing fine, thank you very much -- without need for artificial scarcity or dictatorships.
Europe in particular, isn't, for the most part a "Failure of capitalism" -- people are living well enough, much better than in China for instance.
The problem here is that even though by most humane standards the average european or american could be better off than the average chinese, perhaps exactly because of this China will achieve more competitively. Maybe optimum standards of living doesn't coincide with optimum productivity. What then?
That's a problem for the US in particular because its core justification, so to speak, [for the American social-political-economic system] was this entire premise: 'More productive, more competitive, means ultimately means better in every way'. 'The US was more productive than the USSR, therefore Socialism is bad'; 'We win in competition therefore we have the greater future'. But if China, as a an authoritarian surveillance state is more productive than the US, how to sustain this thesis?
And how to deal with China if they may be bound to outgrow their peers in the future? What if they start spreading this cultural modus operandi justified precisely by economic productivity?
For me the answer is obvious: this thesis must be abandoned. There are two ways to deal with an enemy that is willing to sacrifice humanity in the name of slightly better performance.
(1) Through international law: make agreements and regulations demanding standards of living, democratic minima, etc. that apply globally.
(2) Though conflict/direct competition. If an authoritarian hegemony is expanding and threatening our core values, and there is no other way to stop, then you should do the necessary to stop them, degrading temporarily the standards of living to outpace them and override their doctrine in the expectation to restore to a more humane program afterwards. I don't condone the practices of the USSR (it was a very authoritarian and problematic regime on its own), but this is mostly their rationale through the Cold War; this aspect of their ideal at least seems very reasonable to me.
Let's hope that either
(a) China's approach ultimately doesn't actually show to be as effective as it seems;
(b) They fail to expand their regime/doctrine and collapse from internal democratic pressure (unlikely as control/surveillance technology expands);
(c) International treaties control the situation and enforce better human rights
Before the West needs to enter a conflict.
Note how this goes against Nature: we'd be refusing to let the most 'fit' nation out-compete and dominate others through some global coordination, and try to enter a suboptimal (in the competitive sense) quasi-steady-state. It isn't clear we can achieve this, but this would a most beautiful achievement of humanity. Finally taking destiny into our own hands free from the current make of A Blind Watchmaker. Being blind, those Watchmaker very often fail to prevent disasters stemming from their work, another significant sign of its troubles: with our inability, but also necessity, to achieve global coordination in sacrificing maximum naive development speed (but helping humanity's environment in the long run).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17572185
Europe in particular, isn't, for the most part a "Failure of capitalism" -- people are living well enough, much better than in China for instance.
The problem here is that even though by most humane standards the average european or american could be better off than the average chinese, perhaps exactly because of this China will achieve more competitively. Maybe optimum standards of living doesn't coincide with optimum productivity. What then?
That's a problem for the US in particular because its core justification, so to speak, [for the American social-political-economic system] was this entire premise: 'More productive, more competitive, means ultimately means better in every way'. 'The US was more productive than the USSR, therefore Socialism is bad'; 'We win in competition therefore we have the greater future'. But if China, as a an authoritarian surveillance state is more productive than the US, how to sustain this thesis?
And how to deal with China if they may be bound to outgrow their peers in the future? What if they start spreading this cultural modus operandi justified precisely by economic productivity?
For me the answer is obvious: this thesis must be abandoned. There are two ways to deal with an enemy that is willing to sacrifice humanity in the name of slightly better performance.
(1) Through international law: make agreements and regulations demanding standards of living, democratic minima, etc. that apply globally.
(2) Though conflict/direct competition. If an authoritarian hegemony is expanding and threatening our core values, and there is no other way to stop, then you should do the necessary to stop them, degrading temporarily the standards of living to outpace them and override their doctrine in the expectation to restore to a more humane program afterwards. I don't condone the practices of the USSR (it was a very authoritarian and problematic regime on its own), but this is mostly their rationale through the Cold War; this aspect of their ideal at least seems very reasonable to me.
Let's hope that either
(a) China's approach ultimately doesn't actually show to be as effective as it seems;
(b) They fail to expand their regime/doctrine and collapse from internal democratic pressure (unlikely as control/surveillance technology expands);
(c) International treaties control the situation and enforce better human rights
Before the West needs to enter a conflict.
Note how this goes against Nature: we'd be refusing to let the most 'fit' nation out-compete and dominate others through some global coordination, and try to enter a suboptimal (in the competitive sense) quasi-steady-state. It isn't clear we can achieve this, but this would a most beautiful achievement of humanity. Finally taking destiny into our own hands free from the current make of A Blind Watchmaker. Being blind, those Watchmaker very often fail to prevent disasters stemming from their work, another significant sign of its troubles: with our inability, but also necessity, to achieve global coordination in sacrificing maximum naive development speed (but helping humanity's environment in the long run).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17572185
Europe is doing well only because their population is limited and resources are plenty full.
Huge oil reserves with a country as small as Norway which has a tiny population.
And we can argue lots of these resources were acquired at the time when colonialism was a thing and rest all development is built upon surplus from that.
Maybe not all European countries were colonists but later they'll make a union and trade will be free in that union resulting in some countries losing their land and companies to foreign European countries (as happened in some East European countries)
So the union ensured that they'll be bailed out on the back of those powerful European countries.
Europe is a special case in a book with homogenous population, so religious or racial difference isn't resulting in serious disagreement and violence and this brings a lot of stability to it.
All I want to say is China does not have same advantages as European country so it might not work the way you imagine without Chinese Communist Party.
Huge oil reserves with a country as small as Norway which has a tiny population.
And we can argue lots of these resources were acquired at the time when colonialism was a thing and rest all development is built upon surplus from that.
Maybe not all European countries were colonists but later they'll make a union and trade will be free in that union resulting in some countries losing their land and companies to foreign European countries (as happened in some East European countries)
So the union ensured that they'll be bailed out on the back of those powerful European countries.
Europe is a special case in a book with homogenous population, so religious or racial difference isn't resulting in serious disagreement and violence and this brings a lot of stability to it.
All I want to say is China does not have same advantages as European country so it might not work the way you imagine without Chinese Communist Party.
> Europe is a special case in a book with homogenous population
Even Ukrainians and Russians can find a way to create an ethnic identity strong enough that it's worth going to war with each other. Or Serbs and Croats.
Europe has been at war with itself for 1000s of years. It only stopped when the wars became so bloody that everybody agreed to not do it again.
Even Ukrainians and Russians can find a way to create an ethnic identity strong enough that it's worth going to war with each other. Or Serbs and Croats.
Europe has been at war with itself for 1000s of years. It only stopped when the wars became so bloody that everybody agreed to not do it again.
China have only achieved this result using fundamental science, technology and engineering concepts that were invented in the US, Europe, and Japan, with the unfair advantage of ultra cheap labour costs. They have people working like slaves in factories using copied/outsourced/stolen ideas. There is no evidence that their regime could have matched what the Americans have invented from scratch.
Voted down. How exactly am I wrong? Even Chinese people agree. 60 million Chinese people were starved to death under the communist regime last century, while the Americans were inventing microprocessors and launching rockets to the moon.
Didn't downvote, but your argument is somewhat naive. Now a Chinese person could argue you Americans didn't invent paper but they did, so whenever you designed something on paper it was actually made possible by them. Or how after ww2 some of the brightest scientists from Germany were "taken" by the US and in exchange not persecuted for their involvement with the nazi party. These kinds of arguments just derail the conversation. Everybody is standing on the shoulder of giants in some way.
This is perhaps true, but the Chinese seem to have no concept of intellectual property: There is good reason to consider every product sent to made in China's design to be lost
Which is exactly the same situation as with Japan in the 50s. History repeating itself. And since it's apparently so crystal clear that they are that way, it seems companies still deciding to produce in China only deserve it?
You are totally confused. I'm not talking about Chinese as a race of people. I'm not saying that Chinese people are inherently incapable. I'm talking about the Chinese government REGIME and its inferior economic ideology. Their communist ideology has stifled true innovation. Western capitalism is blatantly, demonstrably superior.
.... Which has nothing to do with my initial argument, but is actually still wrong. Just looking at the inner Chinese market, there are way less regulations to a point where competition between companies is much stronger, almost ruthless, which ironically can be considered more capitalist than our overly regulated markets. But I understand that you're exactly the kind of person outlined in my original comment, just not wanting to see it and trying to invalidate the enemy in any way possible, as if that makes the problem go away. every county has at some point "stolen" technology from another, more or less directly supported by their government. But that doesn't change the situation we're in now.
Why are you projecting this hostility? I don't perceive China as an enemy. I live in New Zealand. China is a major trading partner. I'm just stating facts as I see it. China has made unprecedented economic growth by leveraging existing science and technology developed in western capitalist regimes. Virtually none of the science and engineering fundamentals were invented in China. They are catching up and may overtake at some point. All of this was explained to me by a Chinese immigrant (university lecturer) back in 2011.
I suggest you try read things more objectively. Filter out the unnecessary emotion from your interpretations.
I suggest you try read things more objectively. Filter out the unnecessary emotion from your interpretations.
I recall the CEO of Motorola in the early 2000s deriding Samsung as Same-sung because they just copied other people's ideas. But Motorola steadily lost marketshare and now exists in name only (except for the government business).
This is a "Chinese" chip only if you ignore 60 years of complicated geopolitics. It's a 16nm TSMC part.
I've often wondered the division of effort at a place like intel between the 'circuit design', and the 'physical stuff'.
This Chinese design effectively only does the circuit/logic and above.
This Chinese design effectively only does the circuit/logic and above.
Germany used to be the junk producer of 19th century.
Typically, India is 10-15 years behind China. India is currently undergoing the same software boom that China went through 15 years ago (with Baidu, Tencent, ...). Hardware manufacturing is now moving to India, and India already has a competent (though currently behind US, China) chip design. It is only a matter of time that India also starts making it's own [chips, hardware, software, services, devices]. And I bet a repeat of the exact same reactions from the west.
It has started happening already.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/16/trade-war-in...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/06/16/trade-war-in...
India has the advantage over China that it has a much friendlier relationship with the US and other Western countries than China has. There is a lot of national security concern about Chinese companies like Huawei having market share in sensitive sectors such as telecommunications infrastructure. An Indian equivalent to Huawei would be unlikely to face the same sort of concerns.
> An Indian equivalent to Huawei would be unlikely to face the same sort of concerns.
Learn history. When Japan's semiconductor industry did extremely well back in the 80s, it forced US to take actions under the name of national security [1]. Do you seriously believe that india's relationship with the west is better than the one enjoyed by Japan back in the 80s?
[1] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3014531/le...
Learn history. When Japan's semiconductor industry did extremely well back in the 80s, it forced US to take actions under the name of national security [1]. Do you seriously believe that india's relationship with the west is better than the one enjoyed by Japan back in the 80s?
[1] https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3014531/le...
Japan was an economic competitor to the United States, but not an ideological or military competitor. China is all three. Even at the height of US-Japan economic competition, they remained military allies, and Japan and the US both had democratic political systems. China and the US view each other as military competitors, and China's state ideology (that democracy is unnecessary for economic development, maybe even an obstacle to it) is diametrically opposed to that of the US.
By contrast, while India may in the future become a serious economic competitor to the United States, it shows no signs of being (or becoming) an ideological or military competitor. While the US and India don't have a formal military alliance like the US and Japan have, the US is very much interested in selling military equipment to India [1]. Unlike China, India is a democracy like the US, and while the US and India do sometimes have ideological disagreements (especially with BJP governments on the issue of religious freedom), those ideological disagreements are minor compared to those between the US and China.
[1] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-09/news-briefs/us-eleva...
By contrast, while India may in the future become a serious economic competitor to the United States, it shows no signs of being (or becoming) an ideological or military competitor. While the US and India don't have a formal military alliance like the US and Japan have, the US is very much interested in selling military equipment to India [1]. Unlike China, India is a democracy like the US, and while the US and India do sometimes have ideological disagreements (especially with BJP governments on the issue of religious freedom), those ideological disagreements are minor compared to those between the US and China.
[1] https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2018-09/news-briefs/us-eleva...
> Japan was an economic competitor to the United States, but not an ideological or military competitor.
That is my exact point - As one of the closest allies of the US, when Japan challenged the US with its rising semiconductor sector, US responded heavily under the name of national security.
> By contrast, while India may in the future become a serious economic competitor to the United States, it shows no signs of being (or becoming) an ideological or military competitor.
So you are trying to convince me that US is going to hand over its dominance of the world to another democracy.
That is my exact point - As one of the closest allies of the US, when Japan challenged the US with its rising semiconductor sector, US responded heavily under the name of national security.
> By contrast, while India may in the future become a serious economic competitor to the United States, it shows no signs of being (or becoming) an ideological or military competitor.
So you are trying to convince me that US is going to hand over its dominance of the world to another democracy.
> So you are trying to convince me that US is going to hand over its dominance of the world to another democracy.
No, what I'm saying is that no matter how big a threat to the US economy Japan was, or India may become, the US is always going to take a harder line against China than against either Japan or India, because China is perceived by the US to be a strategic threat, not just in an economic capacity, but also in an ideological and military capacity, whereas neither Japan nor India are seen as strategic threats in an ideological or military sense
No, what I'm saying is that no matter how big a threat to the US economy Japan was, or India may become, the US is always going to take a harder line against China than against either Japan or India, because China is perceived by the US to be a strategic threat, not just in an economic capacity, but also in an ideological and military capacity, whereas neither Japan nor India are seen as strategic threats in an ideological or military sense
> because China is perceived by the US to be a strategic threat
for the exact same logic, I am 100% sure that Mongolia and Kazakhstan are never perceived by the US to be a strategic threat, they undisputedly lack such ideological and military capacity. is that suddenly an advantage?
for the exact same logic, I am 100% sure that Mongolia and Kazakhstan are never perceived by the US to be a strategic threat, they undisputedly lack such ideological and military capacity. is that suddenly an advantage?
I think the main reason why the US doesn't perceive Mongolia or Kazakhstan as being a strategic threat, is their small population – Mongolia's is only 3.25 million, and Kazakhstan's is only 18.4 million. They lack the necessary population to be an economic or military great power (unlike China, India and Japan).
(The only way the US could ever perceive Mongolia or Kazakhstan as a significant threat, would be if they started building nuclear weapons or funding international terrorism; neither country has demonstrated any interest in doing that.)
(The only way the US could ever perceive Mongolia or Kazakhstan as a significant threat, would be if they started building nuclear weapons or funding international terrorism; neither country has demonstrated any interest in doing that.)
> I think the main reason why the US doesn't perceive Mongolia or Kazakhstan as being a strategic threat, is their small population
It has nothing to do with the population itself. Back in the 80s, when China had >1 billion population at the time, US didn't consider China as a strategic threat, it even offered to sell China all kinds of techs & military hardware. It all happened when China was far less open to the world and far more focused on its communist ideology stuff.
It has nothing to do with the population itself. Back in the 80s, when China had >1 billion population at the time, US didn't consider China as a strategic threat, it even offered to sell China all kinds of techs & military hardware. It all happened when China was far less open to the world and far more focused on its communist ideology stuff.
Back in time India tried making an atomic bombs but US used every trick in the book to prevent it from doing so. Where is the good relationship you talk about?
America has been supporting Pakistan untill last few years.
Few days ago they cancelled preferential trade agreement resulting in retaliation from India and imposing counter tariff on American goods.
As India gets more powerful, it will only make enemy with China or US and that's a guaranteed event.
Here I am waiting for the US to impose tariff on Indian software exports and this will make India change its way.
America has been supporting Pakistan untill last few years.
Few days ago they cancelled preferential trade agreement resulting in retaliation from India and imposing counter tariff on American goods.
As India gets more powerful, it will only make enemy with China or US and that's a guaranteed event.
Here I am waiting for the US to impose tariff on Indian software exports and this will make India change its way.
Hold on now.. Neither the article nor the article it links to have any details on what it means by matching performance. No benchmarks are given or even mentioned, only many words written about how it has a 3ghz clock speed and how 3ghz is an "international mainstream standard".. Given the nontechnical nature of the publication, I would not be surprised if the clock speed was the only thing they were measuring by.
There are some benchmarks available on Geekbench with some of their current CPUs: https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/compare/12754288?baseli...
Single core performance / IPC seems more comparable with Intel's Atom line, but that's still very impressive.
Single core performance / IPC seems more comparable with Intel's Atom line, but that's still very impressive.
[deleted]
Intel's monopoly handicapped Moore's law for a decade until competition reemerged.
Moore's law is about transistor density, and Intel is not responsible for its leveling-off; that'd be the order-of-magnitude increase in engineering challenge due to quantum effects at lower scales. There was plenty of competition to shrink die size (especially on mobile, a market Intel isn't even competing in) but everybody who got down to 10nm has just been stuck in the same molasses.
Intel is responsible for sitting on its laurels re: highly-multicore processors and total TDP, don't get me wrong. But neither of those have anything to do with Moore's law. Ryzen CPUs are as big as Texas; we're scaling "out" rather than "down" now.
Intel is responsible for sitting on its laurels re: highly-multicore processors and total TDP, don't get me wrong. But neither of those have anything to do with Moore's law. Ryzen CPUs are as big as Texas; we're scaling "out" rather than "down" now.
Anybody know if these chips require anything like Intel's IME or AMD's PSP? Could this be the answer Libreboot has been looking for?
I highly doubt one of the most authoritarian governments is going to produce a chip the libre community would use
I live under authoritarian government. The basic idea everybody here adheres to goes something like this: as long as you're going to be spied upon (and you are), it might as well be a country on the other side of the globe. We're in much greater danger from the shadowy types who are supposed to be protecting us from foreign actors (heh), than from the NSA. That's one reason why we proxy everything through US servers. So who knows…
I buy that logic so long as you:
1. never travel overseas.
2. the authoritarian govt doesn't run low on cash and start selling all this data to the highest bidder. very similar to fears about the Soviet nuclear stockpile after the fall of the Soviet Union.
1. never travel overseas.
2. the authoritarian govt doesn't run low on cash and start selling all this data to the highest bidder. very similar to fears about the Soviet nuclear stockpile after the fall of the Soviet Union.
Well they can't use Intel or AMD so the options are kind of limited. If they can get full control over the rest of the platform then they can make it more difficult for a compromised chip to remain undetected.
And you won't be able to buy it outside China.
as I posted under https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20238207 you wont be able to buy them full stop. They are samples (if they ever existed at all). Afaik not a single device shipped with those CPUs ever. They are the product of: "National IC Investment Fund (called the "Big Fund") will mainly focus on three key sectors in the coming years, including memory, SiC/GaN compound semiconductor, and IC design with its application in IoT, 5G, AI, smart vehicles, etc."
~$75 billion by 2017
https://press.trendforce.com/node/view/3025.html direct non-repayable cash money funds up for grabs to anyone showing something on paper.
~$75 billion by 2017
https://press.trendforce.com/node/view/3025.html direct non-repayable cash money funds up for grabs to anyone showing something on paper.
> direct non-repayable cash money funds up for grabs to anyone showing something on paper
If it is indeed that useless and wasteful, why the US is forcing China to stop such state funded initiatives? It is so far one of the key issues blocking the China-US trade talks.
Using your logic, US should just relax and sit back to watch China waste all its limited money on such highly corrupted projects and to have itself destroyed.
If it is indeed that useless and wasteful, why the US is forcing China to stop such state funded initiatives? It is so far one of the key issues blocking the China-US trade talks.
Using your logic, US should just relax and sit back to watch China waste all its limited money on such highly corrupted projects and to have itself destroyed.
I have a feeling this is the 80/20 rule. It's fast now, because it doesn't actually do everything, it's a sample.
Once they actually implement that final 20%, they'll realize it's harder than it looks, i.e. it's slower than before.
Things like cache coherence, thread isolation, hard stuff like that.
Once they actually implement that final 20%, they'll realize it's harder than it looks, i.e. it's slower than before.
Things like cache coherence, thread isolation, hard stuff like that.
If they keep up that pace they'll soon catch up fully
Question... does Zhaoxin allow the public to audit their x86 microcode updates; that is, is/are their microcode/microcode update format(s):
a) Documented
b) Publicly Available/Transparent -- no NDA or paywall
c) Auditable
?
a) Documented
b) Publicly Available/Transparent -- no NDA or paywall
c) Auditable
?
My take on the headline was that Intel's I5 was copied exactly. Not the case. "Performance on par with..."
Mine as well, I believe it was intentionally click baitey.
However, it looks like they developed the tech in house, which is a testament to China's advances in R&D. I've long worked at semiconductor companies where employees wrote off Chinese tech as incompetent, but their ignorance and hubris was the thing China was relying on to move up the value chain organically.
However, it looks like they developed the tech in house, which is a testament to China's advances in R&D. I've long worked at semiconductor companies where employees wrote off Chinese tech as incompetent, but their ignorance and hubris was the thing China was relying on to move up the value chain organically.
And every time it's the same pattern. First it's "hah look they make these cheap inferior copies" then quality improves and gets on par so it changes to "well they just copy our products and then sell them for cheaper because labor costs are much lower" and then when they finally start to innovate and excel everybody is super surprised cause it was just stupid Japanese/Korean/Chinese copying our technology without really understanding it so how could they possibly make something on their own?
(yes, obviously not everybody, but this is pretty much a simplified/exaggerated version of the overall sentiment)