Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
China Intel Hardware

China Builds World's Fastest Supercomputer Without U.S. Chips (computerworld.com) 247

Reader dcblogs writes: China on Monday revealed its latest supercomputer, a monolithic system with 10.65 million compute cores built entirely with Chinese microprocessors. This follows a U.S. government decision last year to deny China access to Intel's fastest microprocessors. There is no U.S.-made system that comes close to the performance of China's new system, the Sunway TaihuLight. Its theoretical peak performance is 124.5 petaflops (Linpack is 93 petaflops), according to the latest biannual release today of the world's Top500 supercomputers. It has been long known that China was developing a 100-plus petaflop system, and it was believed that China would turn to U.S. chip technology to reach this performance level. But just over a year ago, in a surprising move, the U.S. banned Intel from supplying Xeon chips to four of China's top supercomputing research centers. The U.S. initiated this ban because China, it claimed, was using its Tianhe-2 system for nuclear explosive testing activities. The U.S. stopped live nuclear testing in 1992 and now relies on computer simulations. Critics in China suspected the U.S. was acting to slow that nation's supercomputing development efforts. There has been nothing secretive about China's intentions. Researchers and analysts have been warning all along that U.S. exascale (an exascale is 1,000 petaflops) development, supercomputing's next big milestone, was lagging.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

China Builds World's Fastest Supercomputer Without U.S. Chips

Comments Filter:
  • consequences... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, 2016 @09:04AM (#52351647)

    This happens when you don't allow export of your chips to someone who has the knowledge to design their own chips.
    It gives them the incentive to accelerate development and deployment of their homegrown designs.

    Not only do you lose a business opportunity, you're also in danger of losing your technology leadership.

    • Re:consequences... (Score:4, Informative)

      by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @10:44AM (#52352309)

      Using western licensed IP of course. These chips are based on MIPS.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        It always strikes me as a great irony that much of China's technical progress has been based on other peoples' work. The Soviets gave the Chinese nuclear technology before the big falling out, and much of China's technological advancement over the last four decades has been via Western technology, either legally obtained or via out and out theft.

        • by jovius ( 974690 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @12:58PM (#52353615)

          Every techonological advancement is based on 'other people's' work. That's the very nature of scientific research. Open communication, peer reviewing and co-development are hindered or led astray by nationalistic political interests, which are _the obstacles_ to overcome.

      • by kriston ( 7886 )

        That's not the architecture in these chips. You're referring to the older Loongson which was a licensed from a MIPS clone designer who had questionable patent situation concerning several patented CPU instructions. These instructions magically appeared in later Loongsons, but that's not the point of this article.

        The CPUs in this article are reported to be very similar to DEC Alpha 21164, and it has been reported that no such intellectual property license exists.

    • Re:consequences... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bigpat ( 158134 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @11:13AM (#52352557)

      This happens when you don't allow export of your chips to someone who has the knowledge to design their own chips.
      It gives them the incentive to accelerate development and deployment of their homegrown designs.

      Not only do you lose a business opportunity, you're also in danger of losing your technology leadership.

      Yes, penny wise, but pound foolish decision. China would never do the same to us because they want us to be dependent on their production.

      It is pretty idiotic that our foreign policy and military establishment seem intent on picking periodic fights with China over stupid little things rather than trying to elevate the relationship to become close allies. China and US economies are closely tied. We literally would not have Christmas without China. Much of our equipment is made in China. And for China they have the US to thank for much of their growth over the past 40 years.

      And they have a military that could hurt us quite a bit once they turn off our satellites and other technology. Or worse, use our technology against us after they infiltrate it.

      Despite fighting a proxy war with China in Korea sixty years ago, we don't have the kind of bad blood that especially poisons their relations with Japan, Vietnam or even Korea.

      For the sake of US prosperity and world peace it would be best to find the compromises that can keep us on good terms and get us to better relations and not push us further apart.

      As for Chinese human rights... well we are allies with Saudi Arabia which has the worst human rights record on the planet. And we are far less (indirectly) dependent on Saudi oil than we used to be.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, 2016 @11:27AM (#52352673)

        so you would just give them the south china sea uncontested in violation of all international laws and treaties?

        forgot tibet already?' tiannamen square ring a bell?

        no? ok lets just be friends yay!

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          How is being antagonistic going to resolve those issues? And do you think China has forgotten Guantanamo, Iraq, Iran-Contra etc?

          If you constantly bring up the other party's past you won't get anywhere. The way forward is to try to cooperate and effect changes in behaviour that way. You don't have to give them the South China Sea, but you don't have to go out of your way to piss them off either.

      • The USA has cognitive dissonance with China:

        i.e. We want your (cheap foreign) goods but you can't have our top (computer) chips ...

        Thankfully the economies are tied so it is everyone best's interest to keep both healthy.

      • Re:consequences... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by whodunit ( 2851793 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @03:02PM (#52354865)

        It is pretty idiotic that our foreign policy and military establishment seem intent on picking periodic fights with China over stupid little things rather than trying to elevate the relationship to become close allies.

        Have you been living under a rock for the last several years? The Chinese have been using dredgers to build artificial islands [time.com] atop coral reefs in the South China Sea, and these islands are now equipped with huge runways for operating military craft from fighters to patrol aircraft to medium bombers; all so they can project firepower over the entire South China Sea. To simply claim the entire Sea right up to the coasts of their regional neighbors as their own [puu.sh] is one thing, but China has invested in a massive military build-up to back up their claims with raw force. Many of those nations are our regional allies, especially the Philippines. And if that's not enough, the Chinese have long engaged in hostile cybercrimes against the United States, not only hacking critical military defense information (like the information on the F-35 they stole) but also an ongoing government-ran campaign to steal American commercial trade secrets [cnbc.com] that mirrors their complete and utter disdain for Western Intellectual Property rights.

        And you're going to tell me that America is the one "picking fights" because we dared sail a ship too close to a few of their sand-castles? Freedom of Navigation exercises are run frequently, all over the globe, and are NOT mutually exclusive with traditional diplomacy. [foreignaffairs.com]

        I understand that some people are deeply suspicious or even disdainful of America's role in world politics; but when you try to make out the 800 pound gorilla of Asia - who's busy mugging everyone it can get its hairy paws on - as the poor victim here, you just come across as a moron.

  • Finally, (Score:5, Funny)

    by LichtSpektren ( 4201985 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @09:06AM (#52351653)
    a machine that can play Crysis on medium settings. The world waited with abated breath.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    How many nude photo's did they have to send in to get the loan to built that thing?

  • Is it really "not U.S. chips" if they completely reverse engineered the Alpha and started developing it again?

    • by myowntrueself ( 607117 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @09:20AM (#52351747)

      Is it really "not U.S. chips" if they completely reverse engineered the Alpha and started developing it again?

      Hopefully they reverse engineered out all the spy shit that gets built into anything made by a US company (who can be served a national security letter demanding they insert backdoors and not tell anyone about it). Not saying the Chinese won't build their own spy shit into their own chips, but it only makes sense to drop products made by US companies.

      On the other hand, aren't all the 'US made chips' actually made in China anyway, and its really just the intellectual property that is US? And the Chinese don't really give a shit about US intellectual property ownership anyway?

    • by kriston ( 7886 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @09:34AM (#52351839) Homepage Journal

      The older systems, like Longson, are MIPS using a questionable license with patent problems.

      These systems are directly derived from DEC Alpha.

      So, not homegrown, more like "homecloned" from US chips and then enhanced.

      In other words, the hard work was already done, and they just took it.

      • by 4im ( 181450 )

        These systems are directly derived from DEC Alpha.

        I seriously wonder where they got the Alpha stuff from. Did HP (after the DEC merger) sell it off (Carly?), was it stolen outright?
        I for one mourn the Alphas, they packed serious punch. If only HP had kept those on instead of Itanic... we might be seeing a
        bit more diversity in CPUs than what's essentially a duopoly x86 / ARM (yes, I know there's still SPARC etc., but seriously...).

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, 2016 @10:28AM (#52352205)

          > was it stolen outright?
          About 20 years ago, our IT manager at DEC noticed an extremely large download being made to the office in Japan over the weekend. He killed the connection and investigated. They were accessing the Alpha design docs and got away with pretty much everything. They were just starting to download the process docs and didn't get very far. So we at the time knew we'd see something Alphaish popping up in China about a decade later. In 2006 the ShenWei appeared on the scene and it bore striking resemblance to the Alpha 21164A, the processor design docs that happened to be downloaded that weekend long ago.

        • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

          There is also PowerPC but again not all that common.
          I remember seeing the Alpha when it first came out and thinking wow that is cool, too bad it will be a really big hit. I kept asking the rep about mass market products that would use it and they looked at me like I was nuts.

      • by neilo_1701D ( 2765337 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @10:33AM (#52352239)

        So, not homegrown, more like "homecloned" from US chips and then enhanced.

        In other words, the hard work was already done, and they just took it.

        Think back to when Chips & Technologies made their own IBM PC-AT chipset (5 chips replacing the 63 the PC-AT used). It was nothing more than a clever clone... but once the clone happened it set in motion companies other than IBM to develop the standard. Think, for a moment, of the first 80386 system: the Compaq DeskPro 386. That was an original design, not cloned from IBM.

        Yes, I completely agree. This is a "homecloned" system - for now. The next version is likely to have some innovations; the version following even more. Within 5 generations it will be it's own system.

    • by slack_justyb ( 862874 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @09:38AM (#52351863)

      It really is non-US chips no matter how they got the original blueprints. The notion of US intellectual property in China is laughable at best. Additionally, China may not have a lot of folks that can invent, and that pretty much goes for all other countries because Intel is actually that good at being a brain drain but I digress, but they are incredibly good at trial and error/educated guessing on quite remarkable scales. So while they may not invent the process for 5nm chips, once they see one done and get a few pictures of the process, they're pretty good at putting the pieces together to get up and running.

      However, it is my opinion that the bigger point here isn't that China is great at stealing technology, it is that China, and more so the world, honestly doesn't need American technology [theregister.co.uk] especially if the Americans are so hell bent in making insecure devices and resorting to petty trade restrictions to maintain some sort of faux-superiority position because the American legislative body finds in unstylish to fund actual research to maintain a real superiority position or they feel that real superiority is found in funding some guy digging a tunnel to extract black rocks, pumping dead liquid dinosaur remains from the ground, or ensuring that humans build crap at ineffective rates.

      If anything Americans should take this as a sign that their priorities are insanely messed up. Doubtful that they would actually do anything about it, but at least they can know that all their Jerry Springer level bickering will ultimately mean that they need to resort to more and more useless childish games on ensuring that they stay relevant on the global stage. The downside to that is that the rest of the world has to suffer these stupid antics because Americans can't grow up and admit that they're loosing the top spot.

  • I was curious what OS it runs. TOP500 says "Sunway RaiseOS 2.0.5". Googling "Sunway" is just giving me some Malaysian resort town, and "RaiseOS" yields nothing at all. Does anyone know anything about this OS? Is it Linux?
    • by wkwilley2 ( 4278669 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @09:18AM (#52351733)

      Can't confirm, but more then 98% of all the super computers on the Top500 run Linux of some variety, so more than likely it is.

    • by homes32 ( 1265404 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @09:22AM (#52351763)

      I was curious what OS it runs. TOP500 says "Sunway RaiseOS 2.0.5". Googling "Sunway" is just giving me some Malaysian resort town, and "RaiseOS" yields nothing at all. Does anyone know anything about this OS? Is it Linux?

      from TFA: "TaihuLight, which is installed at China's National Supercomputing Center in Wuxi, uses ShenWei CPUs developed by Jiangnan Computing Research Lab in Wuxi. The operating system is a Linux-based Chinese system called Sunway Raise. "

    • From the article:

      The operating system is a Linux-based Chinese system called Sunway Raise.

  • Questions for those who know: Tianhe-2 is notoriously hard to program for. Will this be any better? And will USA ever catch up?

    • by Junta ( 36770 )

      I would anticipate it's even worse. Though it's not about programmability, the amount of memory relative to the compute shows that this system is pretty much designed to do one thing and one thing well: xhpl. Everything else is questionable.

    • by MiniMike ( 234881 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @11:49AM (#52352865)

      ...Tianhe-2 is notoriously hard to program for. ... And will USA ever catch up?

      The Chinese currently have beat everyone else in this, but I believe there are several U.S. government funded teams working on developing supercomputers that are increasingly difficult to program.

  • The article mentions that the cluster uses "ShenWei CPUs" but doesn't give details, and the wiki [wikipedia.org] only talks about chips that were released in 2010 and earlier. Is it using the Alpha instruction set (as Wikipedia seems to imply), or does it have additional instructions, or is it using something else entirely? Can you buy these things (and compatible motherboards) of AliExpress? Do they have an equivalent to IME [slashdot.org]?

    • by Taco Cowboy ( 5327 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @09:23AM (#52351771) Journal

      ... The processor is divided into four core groups, each with 64 computing processing elements (CPE) and a management processing element (MPE). Each core group also includes a memory controller delivering an aggregate memory bandwidth of 136.5 GB/second on each socket. It runs at a relatively modest 1.45 GHz and supports just a single execution thread per core ...

      The above was from my (rejected) submission on the same computer

      As it is too big I won't quote the entire submitted article here, suffice to give you the link to it - https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]

      • the new ShenWei (roughly translates to The Wrath of God in Mandarin)

        Umm... what? Got an official source for that translation? Because that sounds like propagandistic nonsense to me.

        1) China is an officially atheist state, and on that basis alone I doubt they would choose such a name.

        (China did have an ancient tradition of monotheism, but it ceased to be the dominant religion a long, long time ago. Moreover, in ancient times it was closely associated with the position of the emperor, considered an enemy of the people under Communism. In modern times, it is associated with C

    • Do they have an equivalent to IME [slashdot.org]?

      Why would that matter? They've built a line of chips for their system. These are probably suitable for their needs and do exactly what they wanted them to do. Any management element is something they worked out for themselves and does what they decided it would do.

    • by kriston ( 7886 )

      Check this LinkedIn profile:

      https://www.linkedin.com/in/ch... [linkedin.com]

      "Help other members to migrate Ubuntu desktop to SW64 and Loongson architecture (SW64 is Shen Wei 64-bit, based on Alpha; and Loongson is a kind of machine of MIPs)."

      And:
      "At present, Migrating several Applications to Ubuntu desktop under SW64 and Loongson architecture (it is mainly about qemu development with qemu upstream members)."

  • by wkwilley2 ( 4278669 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @09:23AM (#52351779)

    A quadrillion? That's alot of flops.

  • Where is the news? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @09:24AM (#52351785)

    A computer built with hardware that was NOT made in China, that would be news.

    • Well, to be honest, I think the actual chips for Intel and AMD are made in Malaysia or Taiwan. I have some old AMD chips that were made in Germany. But yes, that is still a very true statement and funny... Someone was complaining last week to whipslash about not getting mod points in a long time and since I read that post, I haven't gotten any mod points to give out :( , else I would mod this up.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      What's really interesting is that they aren't using a western ISA either, this is a Chinese developed one that is not compatible with x86 or ARM etc. It seems to have been developed from scratch and it's not entirely clear what software supports it, but it's exciting because apparently the performance is excellent and anything that is not x86/ARM is interesting.

      Away from the desktop Chinese CPUs look really attractive. Low cost, high performance, unlikely to feature NSA/GCHQ backdoors and often they are qui

      • > unlikely to feature NSA/GCHQ backdoors

        Chips from China. No backdoors. Riiiiiight.

        • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Perhaps, but I'm less worried about the Chinese ones because the Chinese government has a lot less power to screw up my life.

          • by zlives ( 2009072 )

            I understand what you are saying and as such agree to the sentiment. The issue we the people have against US govt back-doors is that it goes against the very foundation of our Constitution and thus is morally and politically repulsive. Thus your statement about the Chinese govt.

            However the problem is not the Chinese govt (unless you have an interesting job, which I don't) but the hackers which may have been sponsored by china at some point and thus familiar with the chip capability and the ability to screw

    • The news is about the chips being Chinese "designed" (quotes because I don't think anyone seriously thinks they designed them from scratch), but as a side note China actually only has a dozen or so semiconductor fabs [wikipedia.org]. Most fabs are in the US, with Taiwan a (distant) second (assuming that list isn't woefully incomplete).

      Manufacturing only goes to China because labor there is cheap. For stuff like semiconductor fabrication, offshoring to China makes very little sense, since much of the work is automated anyw

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by zrobotics ( 760688 )
        Taiwan actually has more capacity than the US. http://m.chinapost.com.tw/taiwan/2016/03/02/459646/Taiwan-overtakes.htm/ [chinapost.com.tw] shows Taiwan with 21.7% of the world total capacity; North America as a whole with 14.2% and China at 9.7%. Intel isn't locating the true cutting edge processes in Asia, but claiming taiwan is a distant second list a laughable claim. They aren't cranking out xeons, but the ARM market is a huge part of the cpu game.
    • A computer built with hardware that was NOT made in China, that would be news.

      If we're talking about high-end processors, then chips made in China would be news. How many Intel fabs are there in China? How about TSMC? How about Samsung? Foxconn assembly is not the same as fabbing a chip.

  • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @09:35AM (#52351843) Journal

    So the moral of the story here ought to be that while the USA may be a tech leader, it isn't as if there are not tech centers in the rest of the world more than capable of building technology on the leading edge.

    So when people the like the FBI director make asinine statements like how people will switch to non US crypto technologies and message platforms only 'theoretically' they should respond with laughter.

    CONgress and the Administration need to pull their heads out of their assess (which will be hard given how far up there they are) and realize that if they insist on stupid export controls and technology that legally has to be broken by design; they will accomplish none of their security goals and only harm our economy in the process.

    • by javilon ( 99157 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @10:29AM (#52352213) Homepage

      Absolutely.
      What this news tell us is Intel could have sold 10 million cores but was forbidden from doing so. The money that could have gone Intel's way have been used to improve Chinese chip manufacturing and the USA has failed to achieve the goal of stopping China from building a supercomputer more advanced than the best one in USA.

      Hilarious

  • the U.S. banned Intel from supplying Xeon chips to four of China's top supercomputing research centers

    That's OK...they'll just use pulls from all the e-waste we ship over there.

  • ... let them have Intel chips. Then, we could have kept an eye on what they were doing with them [slashdot.org].

    Oh, sorry. The ME is only for keeping an eye on our own citizens.

  • The frame rate would be so high that the demons would be real!
  • by WOOFYGOOFY ( 1334993 ) on Monday June 20, 2016 @03:51PM (#52355281)

    >>the U.S. was acting to slow that nation's supercomputing development efforts.

    How'd that work out for ya?

    Well, at least according to Corney, they can't do crypto for shit.

    Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind buying a computer with one of these Chinese chips in it. Better than one backdoored up the Yin Yang by a government that can actually ruin my chances in life for having the wrong opinions....Seriously, what do I care if the Chinese government spies on me? Why, that's correct, Mr Chen, my opinions on free speech are dangerously subsersive .... to China.

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Working...