China's Top Chipmaker Achieves Breakthrough Despite US Curbs (bloomberg.com) 76
Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp has likely advanced its production technology by two generations, defying US sanctions intended to halt the rise of China's largest chipmaker. From a report: The Shanghai-based manufacturer is shipping Bitcoin-mining semiconductors built using 7-nanometer technology, industry watcher TechInsights wrote in a blog post on Tuesday. That's well ahead of SMIC's established 14nm technology, a measure of fabrication complexity in which narrower transistor widths help produce faster and more efficient chips. Since late 2020, the US has barred the unlicensed sale to the Chinese firm of equipment that can be used to fabricate semiconductors of 10nm and beyond, infuriating Beijing.
A person familiar with the developments confirmed the report, asking not to be named as they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. SMIC's surprising progress raises questions about how effective export controls have been and whether Washington can indeed thwart China's ambition to foster a world-class chip industry at home and reduce reliance on foreign technologies. It also comes at a time American lawmakers have urged Washington to close loopholes in its Chinese-oriented curbs and ensure Beijing isn't supplying crucial technology to Russia. The restrictions effectively derailed Huawei Technologies's smartphone business by cutting it off from the tools to compete at the cutting edge -- but that company is now quietly staffing up a renewed effort to develop its in-house chipmaking acumen.
A person familiar with the developments confirmed the report, asking not to be named as they were not authorized to discuss it publicly. SMIC's surprising progress raises questions about how effective export controls have been and whether Washington can indeed thwart China's ambition to foster a world-class chip industry at home and reduce reliance on foreign technologies. It also comes at a time American lawmakers have urged Washington to close loopholes in its Chinese-oriented curbs and ensure Beijing isn't supplying crucial technology to Russia. The restrictions effectively derailed Huawei Technologies's smartphone business by cutting it off from the tools to compete at the cutting edge -- but that company is now quietly staffing up a renewed effort to develop its in-house chipmaking acumen.
The answer is no (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The answer is no (Score:5, Informative)
Indeed. Although they are not catching up to the US. The US (Intel) has its own problems getting this to work. China is catching up to Taiwan and South Korea.
Re:The answer is no (Score:4, Informative)
And they are all using ASML's technology, which is developed in The Netherlands.
There are plenty of places other than the US that they could have got this technology from, but it's also possible they developed it themselves. China has been investing heavily in chip fabrication for years, as a matter of national security.
Re: (Score:2)
And they are all using ASML's technology, which is developed in The Netherlands.
There are plenty of places other than the US that they could have got this technology from, but it's also possible they developed it themselves. China has been investing heavily in chip fabrication for years, as a matter of national security.
Fabrication, sure. Original development not so much, mostly derivatives of what they've stolen.
Re: (Score:2)
Underestimate China at your peril. They have a good university system and a lot of talented engineers.
If you assume you can get ahead just by preventing copying, you will rapidly fall behind. Look at what happened with 5G.
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention the huge incentive the US sanctions gave every technology company in China to wean themselves off anything the US can influence, which means develop for themselves the capabilities they used to depend on others for. Just like overuse of antibiotics bred superbugs, so Trump's idiotic sanctions are breeding Chinese high tech that will eventually sink us (and Biden isn't any better for continuing them rather than reintroducing China's dependency on the west for a lot of their tech).
It also mea
Re:The answer is no (Score:5, Informative)
Exactly, this is a real test of methodology here. The US due to it's political nature will try to build a domestic industry by subsidizing American firms but takes a rather hands off approach to the whole thing. We look at a company like Intel as the institution itself that just needs funding. As we have seen the track record has a mixed approach. If we are competing aainst China does the corporate welfare approach stand up?
China doesn't have to care about political optics, nobody is going to run a campaign against their candidate saying they are a socialist to disparage them. They are free to take a far more direct role in both funding and directives. They can tell a comoany SMIC what to focus on not just because of the nature of their government but the fact they own a portion of the company (both the military and the National Integrated Circuit Industry Investment Fund).
If China is making inroads with this approach I don't think it's smart for the US to ignore the benefits it brings. It doesn't mean we become China but there is value to learning about what works elsewhere. For me personally I don't just want to fork over billios to the likes of Intel and hope they accomplish the domestic goals we need them to, i want us as the public to have a stake in Intel worth those billions of dollars so we can ensure it.
Re:The answer is pooh (Score:1)
China can't even keep it's bank depositors whole [voanews.com]. I don't think they're really as super powerful as you'd like them to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh yeah they are not as powerful as some act like but there are certain things they have and do exceedingly well and its best not to ignore that.
A situation like this is an example, they are able to in a way brute force themselves into building up an industry they need. They are able to cultivate and protect manufacturing processes and industries (rare earths as an example). Their infrastructure process is another big one, look at the rate they are able to build highways, railways, tunnels, bridges, city
Re: The answer is no (Score:2)
Re: The answer is no (Score:2)
Pure GDP isn't the only metric worth considering. We'd be very stupid not to see what they do right and what they do wrong and not learn from it.
There's no way to argue that China does some things very well. I mean we have a story here of China doing successfully a pretty specific thing the US is trying to do.
Re: (Score:2)
TSMC is gaining 3nm now, mass production is on 7nm and 4/5nm mostly. APPL is using 4nm and has already bought most of the 3nm production. NVDA and AMD are buying 5nm mostly.
SMIC at 7nm is so 2019, not that it isn't a leap, but it's the same leap TSMC did going from 14 to 7nm.
Intel 10nm is measured differently and is more similar to 7nm @ TSMC measurements.
This is China catching Intel, still, and Intel is still behind the curve on fabrication. I haven't paid attention to Samsung fabs but from last I h
Re:The answer is IBM (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
IBM was at 5nm sometime around 2017. INTEL joins Samsung in Licensing IBM's Technology.
You are confusing a lab demo and actual production ready tech. Easy mistake to make if you have no clue how things work.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
They've got 20% of the world's population
They've been in that ballpark for centuries. Totally irrelevant.
the ability to use them
Then why do they still depend so heavily on Western companies, and why is their wealth so heavily concentrated in special trade zones like Shanghai built specifically to attract foreign investment? Why are a few million foreigners more crucial to the Chinese economy than over half of their own?
the structure needed for top-down direction of long term goals
That's not a good thing. The inertia and opportunity costs they incur are overwhelming, the advantages fleeting, and the returns diminishing. By t
Re: (Score:1)
I won't dive into every point you made, but I disagree with you, primarily because these sound like points from years past - and they don't necessarily reflect China's current state. They're clearly actively working to divest themselves of dependence on Western companies - and this article is an example of them making progress. Significant progress.
The list of areas in which China is either on parity or leading is growing, and the idea of China as a technology leech that can't stand on their own feet is inc
Re: (Score:3)
They're clearly actively working to divest themselves of dependence on Western companies - and this article is an example of them making progress. Significant progress.
The devil is in the details. The method of seeking "independence" has clearly not been to energize the academic and entrepreneurial environments that produce progress, but to exert greater and greater levels of central control.
Re: (Score:2)
The method of seeking "independence" has clearly not been to energize the academic and entrepreneurial environments that produce progress, but to exert greater and greater levels of central control.
That's exactly what's been happening in the USA, too. And the USA has always depended on recent immigrants for a massive percentage of its scientific advancement. The central control in the USA is driven by the largest corporations, which write protectionist bills and hand them to congress for passage.
Re: (Score:2)
And the USA has always depended on recent immigrants for a massive percentage of its scientific advancement.
Absolutely. Xenophobes come and go, but this country's soul brims with the recognition that immigration is our lifeblood. I see no evidence that China understands the source of its strength.
The central control in the USA is driven by the largest corporations, which write protectionist bills and hand them to congress for passage.
There's nothing even resembling central control in this country compared to China. The US federal government is practically the UN compared to the relationship between Beijing and China's provinces.
Re: (Score:1)
"we need to outpace China in the technology development and make sure that they don't catch up."
They've got 20% of the world's population, the ability to use them, the structure needed for top-down direction of long term goals, and the willingness to invest heavily and with single-minded dedication in areas they deem important.
Good luck. In 10 years, it'll be China making sure the U.S. doesn't catch up.
Well, in plain English "the structure needed for top-down direction of long term goals" means "communist dictatorship". I would always bet on the free market system against a totalitarian regime. Competition and free market system have proven to be the most efficient system on the planet. Even if China surpasses US, which I doubt very much while they have totalitarian regime which you have described so nicely, market forces and liberal capitalism will make up the difference rather quickly, just as they did
Re: (Score:1)
China is an aggressive dictatorship
US sanctions intended to halt the rise of China's largest chipmaker.
I don't know, I'm also afraid of US. When they can and see a need, they apply crazy destructive sanctions to whole countries. US is an aggressive democracy, really.
Re: The answer is no (Score:3)
A campaign of aggressive sanctions against a tribe of nuclear-armed orcs is not a bad thing.
Whatever you do, whatever you think, whatever your plans in life, I don't think you'll fare as well in a world run by Russia. Or China for that matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your logical fallacy is Whataboutism [wikipedia.org]. Your argument is therefore invalid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The tech that most of the world (TSMC, Samsung, Intel and others) are using to hit these extremely small feature sizes comes from the Dutch company ASML. There IS no "American Tech" that they can buy here. Plus the US has thrown its weight around (as usual) and forced ASML not to sell this gear to China.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is to say ahead (Score:2, Insightful)
We squandered that edge in the 70s so we could open up China for access to cheap labor. Our voters allowed it because they were swayed by flashy campaigns, rallies and fun advertising. Reagan, Clinton, Bush Sr & Jr, even Obama and especially Trump made you feel good about voting for them without doing anything for you and often doing e
Re: (Score:3)
Everyone gets a trophy has a purpose (Score:2)
So teachers figured out kids were giving up. On everything. Tell a kid their a piece of shit long enough and they'll believe it. Even when it's not true. They'll start actively sabotaging themselves. Trying to fit into the mental image that t
Re: (Score:1)
All of which are societal problems driven ENTIRELY BY THE LEFT!
Its the left that is running around telling people there is some higher calling than having children and raising the next generation. Its the left that is telling women especially there is some greater contribution to be made than motherhood - their isnt. There is a literally nothing ANY woman has to offer society that is more valuable than being good mom to 2.3+ children and nothing a man can ever do that counts for as much; but being a good
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
we got a free boost after WWII because we were the only nation who's infrastructure wasn't blasted out to hell
Nothing was free about it; lots of American's lost their lives fighting authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and generally for justice and human decency in that war. We invested enormous amounts of wealth supporting the war effort as well. Next we invested enormous amounts of money rebuilding Europe.
Quite honestly we should have probably put a lot more strings on that investment
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This country is too busy worrying about what genitals a person has or how many brown people are on a tv show.
China is catching up because the US has slowed (Score:5, Interesting)
The real problem is much more terrifying.
The reason the Chinese are catching up is because the US has slowed or even ceased to innovate in a number of areas. There are too many MBAs, accountants and lawyers in charge who don't understand what is needed to support innovation and invention.
All of this blocking exports is really just misusing government for international competition in business. In addition to that capitalism has lead them to seek cheaper sources and even helped transition tech to Asia where cheap labour can produce the products. Realistically the only way to compete in tech is to continue to innovate. That requires long term strategic spending on R&D and product development. If your business model for competing has become to outsource to lower costs and litigate (patents / copyright) or lobby for protected markets then its only a matter of time before someone comes up with a disruptive technology and puts you out of business.
Much of the recent innovation in the US corporate world has all been about "rent taking", turning products into subscription services and turning customers into products (advertising, eg google and facebook). Amazon is basically rent taking for building an online catalog and delivery service (which brings some value), but there's limited or no invention there.
Greed and self enrichment has taken precedence over investing in the future for many US companies and share holders. The resulting loss of capability and talent has also hamstrung the US. Realistically you cant even produce complex products like the iPhone in the US anymore as the know how for manufacturing no longer exists here, you cant hire engineers that know what to do.
The Chinese on the other hand have people working hard to understand the technology, a strong focus on engineering, and considerable number of scientists and engineers in leadership roles. There are long term strategies for technical development and innovation. Unless the US seeks to change this its simply a case of the fact that accountants and lawyers will never and cannot out innovate scientists and engineers.
Frankly I expect the Chinese to copy stuff. This is nothing new. The US space program was built based on stolen tech (V2) and poached German engineers. The US is just crying because this time they are not doing the stealing but getting robbed instead.
The solution is real investment in R&D and innovation. Something quarterly Capitalist thinking is unlikely to do enough of, and government in the US is captive to the Military Industrial Complex (which is about finding excuses to turn US tax dollars into private profit) and isn't spending much money on real research.
There are some small exceptions... but the reality is in the west one needs to look to Europe (mainly Germany) for leadership in innovation at this point. I don't see it coming out of the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That question is more difficult to answer, but i tend to think 1 billion people will have over time more innovator than 330 millions.
By that metric, India is the super-power of the next millennium.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what democratic corruption is.
Impressive, and expected. (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems pretty clear you won't block China for long by trying to take your ball and go home. It's fine to deny them access to things you would rather they didn't have, but to think it's anything other than a temporary inconvenience for them would be naïve.
Increase pressure to evolve (Score:5, Insightful)
And look, they are evolving faster. No surprise to anybody with a clue. A bit of a surprise they did it so fast, but forget about trying to control export of equipment and remember that China can still hire people with skills and that they have quite advanced manufacturing capabilities themselves.
Of course, the very concept of "evolution" is largely unknown in the US (but not in China), so it is clear why some people in the US are now surprised by this happening. No, I am not a fan of the Chinese government either. I just believe that you should see things clearly to make competent decisions. Intentionally seeing an adversary as far less capable than they are is the height of wishful thinking and stupidity.
Re: Increase pressure to evolve (Score:2)
We have pressure to evolve too, yet are devolving. How does that work?
Re: (Score:2)
The pressure to evolve hasn't come home for real in the U.S. yet. There's an old men-vs-women statement that I think carries some truth. Give a man a compliment, and they'll believe it to be true indefinitely - long past the point at which it's longer applicable.
Large parts of the U.S. will continue to think they lead the world in everything innovative long past the point at which they're longer even close to being ahead. It's an extension of the "greatest country in the world" fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
The US still leads in research and development, by a pretty large margin, but most of it is in theoretical work. This means that the US is ahead of the curve on things like quantum computing (though that's decades in the future, realistically), though the near-term breakthroughs are in photonics (products starting to come out now).
The US is very, very good at moonshots, but has fallen behind in practical manufacturing.
The problem's end result is that the US immediately ships its IP off to China, and even wh
Re: (Score:2)
The US still leads in research and development, by a pretty large margin
Not really. The US is just good at grandstanding. Also, a lot of the research there actually is conducted by PhD students from abroad. That ressource is in the process of drying up....
Re: (Score:2)
We have pressure to evolve too, yet are devolving. How does that work?
Once degeneration has set in too far, evolution stops working.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I am not a fan of the Chinese government either. I just believe that you should see things clearly to make competent decisions.
This. This is what I've been banging on about here too.
So many lazy Americans on Slashdot so content to rest on post-Cold War laurels. They invent narratives to make themselves feel superior, in lieu of meaningful inventions.
Way too late (Score:5, Interesting)
Idiot western CEOs have been handing china their IP on a plate for 20 years now has allowed China to reach critical mass, and even the factories in Taiwan such as the one run by Apples beloved Foxconn were probably long ago infilitrated by mainland spies.
We sold western technological superiority down the river for what? A larger end of year dividend for shareholders and the CEOs profit bonus. Well I hope they're happy.
Re: (Score:3)
Well I hope they're happy.
Of course they're happy, they made buckets and buckets of money. Question is why we are letting such a small minority capture such a dispraportionate level of economic growth without a similar reinvestment in the domestic economy?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Way too late (Score:4, Insightful)
That type of thing is all very recent, I think the problem goes back decades further, the seeds were planted in how we approach domestic policy and taxes in particular.
Its simplistic but for me the nexus event that kickstarted a lot of this was really in in 1980. We did the very American thing of going through a bad event (70's stagflation) and overreacted in some of the worst ways possible (trickle-down policy, cutting welfare, cutting taxes, "the government is bad"). We did it again in the 2000's. Bad event (9/11) and overreact in just the worst way (Patriot Act, Iraq, police militarization).
Re: (Score:2)
We sold western technological superiority down the river for what?
For a slim chance to bring China around, to get them to ultimately embrace the concept of an open society alongside a free market economy.
Did it work? No. Was it ever likely to work? No. Was it worth the attempt? Hell yes.
Re: (Score:2)
"Was it worth the attempt? Hell yes"
No it wasn't. Until china became an economic powerhouse thanks to us it was a military and economic irrelevance. Yes it had nuclear weapons but conventionally its military was a joke. Well not any more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't really think that's true anymore. China's blue water navy is pretty darn good now. Their power projection is limited by their lack of bases, something they are trying very hard to fix, but still something that US allies have a huge advantage in, particularly in the Pacific. Other than EEZs, this is why the US, France, and Britain maintain their overseas territories and have so many base agreements in other countries.
That's why a potential Chinese base in the Solomon Islands has the west so worried.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They're now hopelessly dependent on foreign trade
What nonsense. China understand that the only way to get rich and powerful is with foreign trade. Trade relations has always been China's major soft power from ancient times to today.
Americans priding themselves on "self-sufficiency" is committing the SAME mistake that Qing Dynasty China did when it thought it didn't need to trade goods and ideas with the West.
This is good (Score:5, Funny)
* raise healthy kids in stress-free environments.
* educate their kids in effective public schools.
* ensure all the good students who want to go to college can afford to go.
Re: (Score:1)
* raise healthy kids in stress-free environments.
If both parents are engaged in work that pays the minimum wage, they're too busy to take care of the kids. Leaving kids to fend for themselves is hardly a stress free environment for kids. I would not class daycare as a stress free environment, either - none of those kids really want to be there.
* educate their kids in effective public schools.
Define 'effective'? I'll start off with No Child Left Behind (aka Common Core): Let's teach the same damn thing to kids up 15 different ways. When you test them, test them on the method only and NEVER their unde
Re: (Score:3)
The "common core" implementation was atrocious. The "No Child Left Behind" never even tried to live up to its slogan.
I don't know who thought those things were a good idea. I can't see than anybody besides the test vendors have profited from them. The slogans were great, but that's not at all what the programs did.
My guess is that the programs were pushed by people who had never set foot in a classroom (well, in the last decade or so). But that *is* a guess. Every teacher I knew hated the programs. Mos
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know who thought those things were a good idea.
People with bean counting mentality. They think they can just bureaucratize education and teachers and treat young people as machines.
Effective education requires being able to tailor for students' individual propensities that can't easily be captured by teaching to a test. But tests with a comforting number out of 100 gives these bean counters an illusion of peace and control.
It's not only about semiconductors (Score:2)
I've been hearing pretty persuasive arguments [youtube.com] that we're experiencing the death throes of globalization. Global supply chains will start getting smaller and smaller, and countries are already beginning to become more self-contained and self-reliant.
We're seeing that now with the re-shoring of semi fabs in the US, and, (see TFS above), with China's push to make sure it doesn't experience too much misery when the tech supply chains break down. But we're also seeing it in Germany's push to end its reliance on
If they did this (Score:2)
Or it means that from studying published papers and patents and hiring top talent, they managed to establish a full end-to-end 7nm capability.
Of course not all 7nm processes are equal and developing this sort of tech this quickly could have enormous yield problems, but it would suggest they are on track to scale production for 7nm and better.
If SMIC can fab at 7nm using ent
Re: (Score:2)
Of course not all 7nm processes are equal
That's what keeps coming to me. What does 7nm mean in this case?
No (Score:1)