US Officials Doubt the Performance of Huawei's Advanced Chip (yahoo.com) 54
An anonymous reader quotes this report from Bloomberg:
The U.S. doubts whether Huawei Technologies Co. can produce the advanced chip in its new smartphone at the scale or performance threshold necessary to meet market demand, a senior Commerce Department official told lawmakers Tuesday. "Neither the performance nor yields may match the market of the device," Thea Kendler, assistant secretary for export administration, said during testimony before a House Foreign Affairs Committee oversight panel.
"Moreover, the semiconductor chip that is inside that phone is a poorer performance than what they had years ago," Kendler said. "So our export controls are meaningful in slowing China's advanced technology acquisition...."
The [U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security] is under pressure from Republicans to be tougher on Huawei and its chipmaking partner Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp [or SMIC]. Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul and others have called for the Bureau of Industry and Security to fully cut off both firms from their American suppliers. U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo told Bloomberg News in a Monday interview that the U.S. will take the "strongest possible" action to protect its national security following the breakthrough, while declining to confirm the existence of an investigation into Huawei or SMIC.
"Moreover, the semiconductor chip that is inside that phone is a poorer performance than what they had years ago," Kendler said. "So our export controls are meaningful in slowing China's advanced technology acquisition...."
The [U.S. Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security] is under pressure from Republicans to be tougher on Huawei and its chipmaking partner Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp [or SMIC]. Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul and others have called for the Bureau of Industry and Security to fully cut off both firms from their American suppliers. U.S. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo told Bloomberg News in a Monday interview that the U.S. will take the "strongest possible" action to protect its national security following the breakthrough, while declining to confirm the existence of an investigation into Huawei or SMIC.
Re: (Score:2)
You sound crushingly lonely.
Re: (Score:1)
You sound crushingly lonely.
Do go on not really talking about the topic at all.
You'll show all the therapists of the future how to deal with Chinese microchips for sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, you sound like those things.
Re: (Score:2)
The curbs, tariffs, etc... have convinced the entire world that we need alternative sources for everything American. We were all happy buying American until Trump weaponized US tech against a friend. It was a short sited short term solution with massive repercussions.
The thing Trump and Biden missed is that they convinced us all to look more closely at Chinese tech since the US has publicly declared it as e
Re: (Score:2)
"Chinese tech is a better long term gamble than US tech"
ROFLMFAO. Sure, why wouldn't you want crappy tech from a hostile nation that actively engages in genocide against its own people?
Careful friend, we all know you are just jelly that 'the entire world' you are part of is so insignificant it isn't a real player and we are done bailing you out.
Re: (Score:2)
The Republicans thrive on the corrupt behavior of the Biden family?
Re: (Score:3)
We ELECT our REPRESENTATIVES to... REPRESENT US. And we ELECT a president to lead and follow what the REPRESENTATIVES SAY.
As such, Commerce dept DOES SPEAK for the ENTIRE FUCKING AMERICA.
Now, a55holes like trump and you can scream whatever you want, but NEITHER OF YOU speak for America, unless you are elected as president or a representative OR one of them s
Re: (Score:2)
^ This is what Chinese propaganda looks like. If that isn't obvious to you then you need to stop and realize that your insight almost certainly isn't that unique and is predictable among your demographic.
US Motivates China to Excel (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
They may not succeed with their current generation of fabs, but they almost certainly will with their next.
China couldn't bootstrap ballpoint pens until 2017. [buzzfeednews.com] But even if they are better at fabs than BICs, that's no reason to sell them the rope to hang us.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm cumming!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
BIC pens was not a huge thing for our society or future.
You can bet that China (government and private sector) is dumping billions of dollars on chip fabs to equal or better TSMC and the rest.
It may not get there in the next decade, but push China around, it will get there eventually (unless government there collapses, which may stop this push in China)
We did not ask (Score:1)
Who asked the Commerce department? I certainly didn't.
Re: (Score:2)
At least they work for us, not the Chicoms.
Re: (Score:2)
That is not the point. They aren't a propaganda agency.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but they are well equipped to answer this question.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any benchmarks.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't claim any.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.commerce.gov/about [commerce.gov]
"The Department of Commerce’s mission is to create the conditions for economic growth and opportunity for all communities. Through its 13 bureaus, the Department works to drive U.S. economic competitiveness, strengthen domestic industry, and spur the growth of quality jobs in all communities across the country. The Department serves as the voice of business in the Federal Government, and at the same time, the Department touches and serves every American every day.
The Depa
Re: (Score:2)
The House Foreign Affairs Committee oversight panel did
Re: (Score:2)
And the testimony included no technical data or comparisons whatsoever. It's fluff.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe those details aren't really fit for testimony or what they are asking the person to testify about. Maybe they just need an overview of progress to conduct, well, oversight. I can have an aide read up on the technical details. Your personal opinion on it's fluffiness is a different question then who asked for testimony.
I'll return to the semantics dome now.
Re: (Score:2)
The Commerce Department writes the export controls that are relevant here (the State Department handles export controls for goods and services with potential military use), so they should be evaluating whether the expert controls they wrote are doing what they intended.
of course they do . (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: of course they do . (Score:2)
Then show that the performance and yield of the chips can match the market of the device. Prove them wrong, just do it. It's in China's best interest. I won't hold my breath. It's not like it will remain a mystery, either they can and will or they can't or won't.
Re: of course they do . (Score:2)
Iâ(TM)m sure China will prove it. The restrictions have weakened when Biden took over, nVIDIA is allowed to sell them the latest and greatest with what basically is a software lock, ASML has been selling them their latest and greatest 3nm node. Iâ(TM)m sure has nothing to do with bag man Hunter and his father sitting together, not holding a grudge and getting millions from China.
Biden is actively trying to appease the terror state dictatorships of both Iran and Russia with gobs of money and techno
Re: (Score:2)
Benchmarks (Score:2)
It's unlikely I would ever buy a Huawei device in future due to being a citizen of a 5-eyes country but propaganda on both sides could be settled with running these chips through a test suite.
And if the Chinese aren't prepared to publish said results at this time, temper your anger. There is no need for the political class to spread FUD on, at this moment, vaporware.
I'm not sure what the point of these articles is other than to generate nationalistic ragebait.
Re: (Score:2)
As a U.S. citizen, Huawei devices are possibly the most appealing to me since the data they inevitably collect has the lowest chances of ending up in yet another unconstitutional spying program of a U.S. intelligence agency. It's especially good if you have absolutely no plans to ever enter, travel nearby, or fly over China.
Spin Inside (Score:2)
I doubt most of Intel's and AMD's new product claims also. Companies spin, whether in USA or China.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt all of Intel's claims. I only doubt AMD's claims that they have got the drivers right this time for sure, nothing up my sleeve.
The question is, can the Chinese already make high performance chips in volume or is that horse shit? And everyone involved has reason to lie about it.
About as good as USA could do (Score:2)
Let's note that all state of the art (3nm) "American" chips such as iPhone processors, NVidia GPUs and AI chips, AMD processors are all in fact manufactured by a Taiwanese company, TSMC, that relies on a Dutch company, ASML for the EUV equipment to make them.
The only major US company to make it's own processors is Intel, who embarrassingly are still stuck at same 7nm node size that Huawei are reporting here.
So basically when hit with sanctions the most we can do it retard China into making American quality
So that removes all doubt (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing economic involving China even approaches "free market" or "capitalist".
It's a totalitarian government with state-run and state-funded industry. The companies operate in a "competitive" fashion, but don't confuse that with capitalism. It has a closer resemblance to fascist economics, which were very effective in WWII for the Axis, and are/were considered (by fascists) as a stepping stone towards "true" communism. Turns out they're fairly effective on their own at economies of scale, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The real reason the USA is restricting exports & putting other trade restrictions on China is simply a trade war because US law makers are afraid of free market capitalism. They've made this absolutely clear now. It's got nothing to do with national security, hidden spy chips, or anything like that. It's purely anti-competitive.
I certainly think elements of this are true. Yet given China's active meddling in (e.g. Foxcon) and public threats of war against Taiwan during their elections it does not seem reasonable to assume it is purely anti-competitive.