Russia Could Hit U.S. Chip Industry, White House Warns (itnews.com.au) 115
Reuters reports:
The White House is warning the chip industry to diversify its supply chain in case Russia retaliates against threatened U.S. export curbs by blocking access to key materials, people familiar with the matter said.
The potential for retaliation has garnered more attention in recent days after Techcet, a market research group, published a report on February 1 highlighting the reliance of many semiconductor manufacturers on Russian and Ukrainian-sourced materials like neon, palladium and others. According to Techcet estimates, over 90 percent of U.S. semiconductor-grade neon supplies come from Ukraine, while 35 percent of U.S. palladium is sourced from Russia. Peter Harrell, who sits of the White House's National Security Council, and his staff have been in touch with members of the chip industry in recent days, learning about their exposure to Russian and Ukrainian chipmaking materials and urging them to find alternative sources, the people said.
A "senior official" told Reuters, "We understand that other sources of key products are available and stand ready to work with our companies to help them identify and diversify their supplies."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the story.
The potential for retaliation has garnered more attention in recent days after Techcet, a market research group, published a report on February 1 highlighting the reliance of many semiconductor manufacturers on Russian and Ukrainian-sourced materials like neon, palladium and others. According to Techcet estimates, over 90 percent of U.S. semiconductor-grade neon supplies come from Ukraine, while 35 percent of U.S. palladium is sourced from Russia. Peter Harrell, who sits of the White House's National Security Council, and his staff have been in touch with members of the chip industry in recent days, learning about their exposure to Russian and Ukrainian chipmaking materials and urging them to find alternative sources, the people said.
A "senior official" told Reuters, "We understand that other sources of key products are available and stand ready to work with our companies to help them identify and diversify their supplies."
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader schwit1 for sharing the story.
Ohhh Nooooo! (Score:2)
Not my heckin' Pringles!
Re: (Score:2)
Meh (Score:4, Interesting)
Russia is the largest Palladium supplier in the world, but the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th are South Africa, Canada, and the US respectively. Ditching Russia for Palladium is a complete non-issue and probably for the best. Prices might go up a little bit but with the extreme price rises caused by general chip production shortages right now it'll be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things and slightly increased Palladium prices will be lost in reductions in overall chip costs as the chip supply crisis cools down.
Given the way Russia has acted over European gas then no one should be relying on them for natural resources anyway; at best they should be somewhere you go to get lower prices if available, but with a more reliable backup alternative available the rest of the time - a take it or leave it type scenario.
So this is probably just a sane correction regardless. I don't know about neon or the other resources they mention, but I'd be surprised if much else can't be sourced elsewhere; ironically the sorts of things Russia is good at supplying like oil and gas are the sorts of things we should be weaning ourselves off anyway, and the sorts of things we should be replacing them with like Uranium for nuclear power are heavily oriented to Western friendly territories; the biggest supplies being available in countries like Australia, Canada, and the US.
tldr; this is only a problem if companies are too lazy to have already made sure they have alternative source available if need be, that's something companies should do regardless of what the resource is or where it comes from, and there doesn't seem to be anything here that's exceptionally hard to source from elsewhere. I doubt even for a minute that countries like South Africa would be anymore expensive a source than Russia so I'm not even sure there would be a cost impact even.
Re: (Score:2)
Russia is the largest Palladium supplier in the world
Odd. I figured that this would be tweakers with Sawzalls.
Re: (Score:3)
I could have sworn it was polonium-210 they were exporting.
Re: Meh (Score:2)
" According to Techcet estimates, over 90 percent of U.S. semiconductor-grade neon supplies come from Ukraine"
If only we had an independent source for air ...
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
"Given the way Russia has acted over European gas" What did they do exactly ?
As far as I know all the contracts were and continue do be fulfilled.
Moreover some increase demands are also fulfilled even though it's not a contractual obligation.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not entirely sure why I'm replying to you, because that sort of question seems so obviously ignorant I can only assume you're trolling for Russia given you appear to know a bit about it whilst failing to, presumably accept the full picture.
But I'll try anyway, on the off-chance you genuinely have managed to somehow only been shown the Russian version of events. So as for what they did, they significantly reduced gas supplies to Europe to artificially inflate prices by over 200%. Saying contracts are ful
Re: Meh (Score:1)
Prices went up because Europe took Russia to court to break long terme contracts in order to get prices at the market price. This was done when prices were low but now that prices go up they complain about paying at stock market. Why do they go up ? Because Germany went all in with green energy and now compensate by burning more gas. Europe played dirty about gas now they cry.
Re: (Score:2)
They "artificially increased prices"?
You mean the way futures traders spent a lot of the last 20 years keeping oil tankers at sea, to jack up gasoline prices?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Canada (Score:2)
It may become necessary to formally annex the Northern Corporate Appendage for the palladium must flow.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't over-optimize (Score:5, Insightful)
World peace is very fragile (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
inefficiency isn't necessarily a bad thing
Yes it is - inefficiency is always a bad thing. What I think you are trying to say is that there is value in a robust / diverse supply chain - and I think everyone would agree with you. The only question is how much is this value in terms of dollars?
With a stable world economy and no international tensions, the value of a robust / diverse supply chain is minimized. It is sort of like insurance - with low risk the value of the insurance (ie, cost) is also low. But this is dependent on the world being
Re: (Score:2)
I think we're reaping the reward of not insuring diverse, competitive industries.
We have laws to handle this problem, but we let corporate interests come before national policy.
Re: (Score:1)
Globalisation is good for peace (Score:2)
as it makes nations afraid to attack others in case they can no longer buy $commodities. In a similar way other nations can cut Russia off from goods & services if it attacks.
However: this is also exposing eggs-in-one-basket vulnerabilities, a single source of something could also be stopped for other reasons. Something like this happened a few years ago, IIRC it was an earthquake in Kobe, Japan which was the sole source of a material needed for chip production, the effects lasted some time - I cannot f
Dependency can work against peace too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Globalisation is good for peace as it makes nations afraid to attack others in case they can no longer buy $commodities.
It works both ways. Many EU countries are afraid to retaliate against a Russian invasion of Ukraine because they are dependent upon Russian energy. Dependency can work against peace too, inhibit meaningful economic sanctions that could prevent a war.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody is a troll.
NO GPU for you unless you give us Ukraine (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could sit down like adults and engage in diplomacy.
That requires adults acting reasonably and in good faith. You don't get that with Putin.
Re: (Score:2)
Just give up hope and accept that your next 5 years of gaming will be on a GTX 1050.
Where did you find 1050's in stock? I'm feeling the need for some Angry Birds.
Jimmy Carter (Score:2)
If Quebec wants to secede from Canada, let them vote for it! ... ... and now Ukraine.
If Catalonia wants to get away from Spain, why not?
If Donbass wants to go away from Ukraine and be annexed by Russia, let them!
Why do Americans have to get involved everywhere in the world? Vietnamn, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan,
Carter was the only president who didn't start a war.
Re: (Score:2)
If Donbass wants to go away from Ukraine and be annexed by Russia, let them! ...
Yeah but it should be done by vote, not by violence.
Re: (Score:1)
This is what they did, then Kiev resorted to violence.
Re: (Score:1)
You think they would let them vote?
You already forgot what happened in Krim? More than 95% of people voted to be annexed by Russia, but intenational forces didn't recognise the vote. The Krim invited OSZE-observers to be present while the vote was held, but western countries didn't allow them to go... nobody should report, that the vote was legit!
The problem is not Russia, the problem is the USA.
Re:Jimmy Carter (Score:5, Insightful)
You already forgot what happened in Krim? More than 95% of people voted to be annexed by Russia, but intenational forces didn't recognise the vote.
In Crimea, the morons invaded and then had an election. That's not exactly a fair election. You need to turn your brain on.
Re: (Score:2)
You're wrong, here's what Wikipedia said about it [wikipedia.org]:
"On 27 February 2014, following the takeover of its building by Russian special forces, the Supreme Council of Crimea voted to hold a referendum on 25 May, with the initial question as to whether Crimea should upgrade its autonomy within Ukraine"
As for this:
Difference is Crimea had Russian troops stationed there for the last 300 years,
You dumb fuck, it doesn't matter what happened 300 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess by your logic it doesn't matter what happened 63 years ago.
68 years ago is not 300 years ago. What is your problem?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah yeah, blah blah, Wikipedia is inaccurate; find a better source or GTFO.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude you're a fucking moron.
Re: (Score:2)
Where the fuck did you fucking misinformation peddlers come from? I love the strategy- tell a lie rapidly enough and in enough places, and no one will ever be able to counter every one. Even if you only convince 1 person for every 100,000 posts, you're still moving forward.
It's admirable. But I do hope your dear leader decides t
Re: (Score:2)
The demographics of the area do support the hypothesis that a free plebiscite would have resulted in separation, so I'll give you that.
But the demographics also say something else.
That a 97% vote to affirm is fucking laughable.
That's so fucking #Russia, I had to clean coffee off my keyboard twice just typing it.
But ya, an occupied piece of land... near unanimous vote to leave, despite a demographic of 24% ethnic Ukrainians, and 12% Tartars (who would rather fucking die than ever be
Re: (Score:1)
What do they think is going to happen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What do they think is going to happen? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think that's a false analogy, bordering on propaganda.
There is a big difference between installing nukes - which are exclusively an offensive weapon - and installing anti-missile defense systems, which are - pretty much by definition - designed for defense. The one who objects to the other side defending itself is the one who intents aggression. Both in Cuba and in Ukraine, the aggressor was Russia and the defender was NATO/the USA.
Note that NATO did propose to Russians that both sides can inspect the advanced bases in both countries for offensive weapons, like Tomahawk missiles. Russia refused. This proves they're not afraid of being attacked themselves. They're afraid they can't attack and conquer other countries with impunity.
Re: (Score:3)
Someone doesn't understand how the concept that prevented WW3 from happening for 70 years works. When both sides have weapons that can destroy the other in minutes, the side with a way to counter such destruction is able to launch attacks with impunity. For peace to be exist, neither side can acquire such capability.
Re:What do they think is going to happen? (Score:5, Insightful)
I do know about MAD; I don't believe it applies here. I think references to MAD are just Russian propaganda points, mainly targeting internal consumption.
Let me explain. The whole idea of mutually assured destruction is that any attacker will be destroyed too by the inevitable counter-strike. From the Russian point of view, the aggressor they're concerned about is the USA (they said this repeatedly, and the idea that Ukraine or EU countries like Poland would attack Russia by themselves is just idiotic), so MAD means the destruction of the USA. However the anti-missile defense systems in Poland and Romania may defend Western Europe, but they surely won't stop missiles targeting continental USA. They're on the wrong side of the Asian continent for that.
If Russians were concerned about MAD, they would request that anti-missile bases in the continental USA should be dismantled. Those are the ones that defend their putative aggressor. But Russia doesn't do that. It means it's not MAD Putin cares about.
What I think is that Putin is worried about the continuing falling behind of Russia, and the growing dissatisfaction of the people. Saber-rattling is a time honored tool dictators use to distract their population, and one more comfortable to Putin than addressing the real Russian problems - corruption, theft, deficits in democracy.
Re: (Score:3)
You realize France and the UK has nukes too right? And not just a few either. Plus there's American nukes in Germany. MAD applies to all of them.
You're also assuming the missiles are for mid-phase or terminal defense. However, the most effective anti-missile systems actually targets the ascent phase. A fixed base in Ukraine can render all launches within a few hundred miles vulnerable, including those near Moscow.
And that's assuming we're actually being honest about what missiles are placed there. Russia ca
Re: (Score:2)
AEGIS ashore uses the Mk. 41 VLS launch system. Those VLS cells can carry the SM-6 missile but they can also carry Tomahawk and any other weapon which can be used on the Mk. 41 VLS.
Re: (Score:1)
It is a valid analogy if you look at the broader picture. The Cuban Missile Crisis was instigated as a response to the installation of Jupiter ballistic missiles in Turkey, both the US and the Soviet Union at the time view countries this close to their land as their vital strategic interests. The US's Monroe doctrine in particular does not tolerate any country in the Americas allying with other foreign unfriendly powers. They even went as far as installing pro-American authoritarian governments in some of t
Funny how you conflate defense with offense (Score:5, Informative)
"The Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was a non-aggression pact between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union that enabled those two powers to partition Poland between them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]–Ribbentrop_Pact
Putin's desire to roll NATO back to pre-Soviet collapse lines has a very familiar look doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Its funny how you conflate defense missiles with offense missiles. In you own words you characterize the USA equipment as "anti-Russian missile defence systems". How dare the USA help friends to obstruct the Russian's "right" to launch offensive missiles at its neighbors. How dare the USA deny the Russian sphere's of influence that Stalin negotiated with Hitler before they took their agreed upon halves of Poland in 1939.
I don't think you need to go back to the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact for this. Great Powers have always had spheres of influence. It is a simple matter of the ability and will of those powers to project power in combination with their perceived interest in a given area. The communication of those spheres of influence to other great or major powers is helpful in avoiding war.
The US has unprecedented ability to project power and the entire western hemisphere (Monroe Doctrine), most of Europe (through NATO), Ocean
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand China is rapidly expanding its sphere of influence at the expense of the USA and other major powers. This may also lead to conflict. But that is a different topic.
Not really. The USA is not threatening conflict over the "Monroe Doctrine". It is not demanding a sphere of influence by force of arms. What sphere's of influence exist are voluntary.
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand China is rapidly expanding its sphere of influence at the expense of the USA and other major powers. This may also lead to conflict. But that is a different topic.
Not really. The USA is not threatening conflict over the "Monroe Doctrine". It is not demanding a sphere of influence by force of arms. What sphere's of influence exist are voluntary.
You have a short memory. USA has intervened numerous times in Latin America to prevent foreign influence or to topple regimes that were aligned with their global competitors (Soviet Union). In recent times the US has managed to contain global adversaries far from the Western Hemisphere so these interventions have not been relevant. But if China builds a naval/missile/antimissile or whatever base in Cuba, Venezuela or Panama I don’t believe that the US will accept this.
But I do of course agree that the
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand China is rapidly expanding its sphere of influence at the expense of the USA and other major powers. This may also lead to conflict. But that is a different topic.
Not really. The USA is not threatening conflict over the "Monroe Doctrine". It is not demanding a sphere of influence by force of arms. What sphere's of influence exist are voluntary.
You have a short memory. USA has intervened numerous times in Latin America to prevent foreign influence ...
True, that happened in the past. Yet the fact remains we have been making no such claims/threats in recent history as China developed spheres of influence in the Americas.
But if China builds a naval/missile/antimissile or whatever base in Cuba, Venezuela or Panama I don’t believe that the US will accept this.
I am sure we will send a sternly worded letter, and then only in regard to the offensive missiles. Even during the Cuban missile crisis Kennedy was careful to refer to offensive nuclear missiles. There was never any threat of blockade or other military action over defensive missile systems the Russians installed in Cuba. Again, a conflatio
Re: (Score:2)
Neither the US nor NATO wants Russia (Score:2)
As opposed to NATO's eastward expansion after the fall of the Soviet Union, in opposition to an agreement the U.S. had with Gorbachev.
Neither the US nor NATO wants Russian territory. They bailed out Russia economically after the collapse of the Soviet Union when they were incredibly vulnerable. The expansion of NATO is not due to a push by the USA, Germany or any "western" power. The expansion is due to "eastern" nations formerly under the Soviet Union's sphere of influence and/or forced into the Soviet Union that want to ensure they never again come under the domination of Russia. They are acting in defense. If Russia was not historicall
Re: (Score:2)
To give you a better idea of what propaganda really means, consider that the US placed missiles in Turkey, and Russia countered by placing missiles in Cuba. The crisis was resolved by quietly removing the missiles from Turkey and loudly from Cuba.
What happened now was Russia did rattle sabres to get the US to the negotiating table but there are a lot of players who really like the idea of a bit of escalation, mostly in the US and UK , and hey wouldn't it be nice to start attacking the Donbass now while accu
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck USA propaganda (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Arguably there is propaganda on both sides, but this looks more like a contingency plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like Russia's neighbors are afraid of being knocked over. I wonder where they got that idea.
Re: (Score:1)
The whole world joins against a nation because if they don't US fucks up their country with economic sanctions.
Outright falsehood. Nice try, though.
US is basically the equivalent of the mob.
Gaslighting. Hilarious.
When they make a deal, it's always, nice nation you have over there, it would be unfortunate if a bomb landed, and people started starving because they no longer have access to trade.
What a fucking moron.
The US far from a benevolent actor in the world, but jesus fucking christ, you can't even criticize it without flatly making shit up? Fuck off, Ivan. The world thinks you're fucking crazy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Biden didn't shut down any oil production.
"President Joe Biden shut down oil and gas lease sales from the nation’s vast public lands and waters in his first days in office, citing worries about climate change."
https://abcnews.go.com/Technol... [go.com]
Re: The US could total f' over Russian economy (Score:2)
After what they call a âoefire saleâ of public energy reserves under Trump, Biden's team argues that companies still have plenty of undeveloped leases â" almost 14 million acres (6 million hectares) in western states and more than 9 million acres (3.6 million hectares) offshore. Companies also have about 7,700 unused drilling permits â" enough for years.
So, no, he didn't shut down any *production*.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just a misinformation spewing pile of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
He stopped leasing new land to them, land that they had been literally sitting on and not producing from anyway. That's not "shutting down production" I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not just a misinformation spewing pile of shit.
Try another option, someone not looking at this through a political lens as you are. He increased fees, he revoked permits, he shutdown pipeline projects producers were relying upon, ... He has created a hostile and unpredictable environment for producers, and they are responding sensibly by shutting down production. And his response to the need for increased production, he asks the Saudis to produce more. How hypocritical.
Re: (Score:2)
He increased fees, he revoked permits, he shutdown pipeline projects producers were relying upon,
You accuse me of a political lens, and then offer up outright lies?
Absolutely nobody was "relying" on the non-functional-for-over-a-decade pipeline that had its permit revoked (again)
He has created a hostile and unpredictable environment for producers, and they are responding sensibly by shutting down production.
And yet, fossil fuel production grew 2% in 2021.
Weird.
It's almost like that alone makes the comment:
The US could total f' over the Russian economy by re-opening all the gas and oil production that Biden shut down.
An outright fucking lie.
It's almost like you're the dumbfuck here with political glasses on.
You never cease to make me light, dipshit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely nobody was "relying" on the non-functional-for-over-a-decade pipeline that had its permit revoked (again)
Again, you demonstrate a quite political and ill-informed source of information. The pipelines projects revoked included new projects.
And yet, fossil fuel production grew 2% in 2021.
After dropping 6% in 2020. After 3%, 7% and 7% increases in 2017, 18 and 19.
Re: (Score:2)
The pipelines projects revoked included new projects.
That were also not in use., therefor precluding the possibility of them impacting production.
After dropping 6% in 2020. After 3%, 7% and 7% increases in 2017, 18 and 19.
I wonder what happened in 2020, you ignorant fucking bag of flaming dogshit. Regardless, though- that's not relevant. Your claim was the production was reduced under him. It's clearly growing.
Ultimately, the reality of the matter is, not a single thing he has done has impacted production. COVID has.
He canceled a bunch of shit that had zero to do with any current circulating fossil fuels, period. It was some bulls
Re: (Score:2)
The pipelines projects revoked included new projects.
That were also not in use., therefor precluding the possibility of them impacting production.
LOL. So shutting down current efforts to bring more production online does not impact production in your opinion.
After dropping 6% in 2020. After 3%, 7% and 7% increases in 2017, 18 and 19.
I wonder what happened in 2020 ...
Fear of Biden promising to shutdown oil and gas production if elected put a chill on things. And then Biden followed through on his 2020 promises.
Your claim was the production was reduced under him. It's clearly growing.
Shutting down many ventures reduces production. That some survived does not change the former. We have gone from an energy surplus, an exporter, to begging the Saudis to produce more for us to buy.
I am reminded about previous arguments with you where you tried to parrot Apple marketing material to a professional Computer Scientist of 15 years like you knew some shit.
Yes, I recall someone's strained logic and BS, word game
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. So shutting down current efforts to bring more production online does not impact production in your opinion.
Correct. That's literally mathematically provable.
Production: 1.
After failed attempt at adding +1?
Production: 1.
It is a falsehood to say that failing to add +1 causes a reduction in production.
However, that's tangential to the real problem, here. You couldn't even prove that the revoked licenses would even impact future production in any meaningful way.
And someone with 4 brain cells they could rub together would point out that obviously they didn't, since production is currently growing.
Fear of Biden promising to shutdown oil and gas production if elected put a chill on things. And then Biden followed through on his 2020 promises.
You can't bac
Re: (Score:2)
LOL. So shutting down current efforts to bring more production online does not impact production in your opinion.
Correct. That's literally mathematically provable.
No, it is not. All that is "provable" is your creative accounting. Lets look to history to show how illogical your argument is. During WW2 the German's managed to produce more aircraft per month despite the massive bombing campaign the USAF waged against German aircraft production. Your logic says the USAF had no impact because month 2 had more aircraft than month 1. Your logic ignores what Germany would have produced had their been no USAF bombing campaign. Similarly, the authentic comparison with respect
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not. All that is "provable" is your creative accounting. Lets look to history to show how illogical your argument is. During WW2 the German's managed to produce more aircraft per month despite the massive bombing campaign the USAF waged against German aircraft production. Your logic says the USAF had no impact because month 2 had more aircraft than month 1. Your logic ignores what Germany would have produced had their been no USAF bombing campaign. Similarly, the authentic comparison with respect to energy is how much would have been produced had those various projects not been ended by Biden.
No. You made a claim. That production decreased. This is false. A lack of increase is not a decrease, period. You can't argue your way out of that.
If you had said, "Biden prevented growth of fossil fuel production in 2020 by denying certain leases", then we'd have something to discuss. You'd still be wrong, but we'd at least have something to discuss. Instead, you made an outright false claim.
One example. When producers need a pipeline to deliver product and Biden cancels that pipeline, that impacts their future production quite meaningfully.
It does indeed. Future production.
However, as we noted, the canceled leases were not critical, and the majority of
Re: (Score:2)
No. You made a claim. That production decreased.
No, that is your misrepresentation. I wrote that some production was shut down.
However, as we noted, the canceled leases were not critical, and the majority of extant leases are currently just being sat on.
Wrong again, if that production was not necessary why is Biden asking the Saudis to increase their production?
"Biden asks Saudi Arabia and OPEC to produce MORE oil as inflation sends gas prices soaring - after HE shut down America's Keystone pipeline"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne... [dailymail.co.uk]
Unified Memory has been a thing on Intel parts since 2015. And you still think it means something because apple decided to market it.
I'm sorry but you are the one stuck on marketing buzzwords here. Intel's use of the phrase "Unified Memory" is not referring to the exact same des
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is your misrepresentation. I wrote that some production was shut down.
In order for some production to be shut down, production must decrease. This is mathematically provable.
Christ... how do you tie your shoes?
Wrong again, if that production was not necessary why is Biden asking the Saudis to increase their production? "Biden asks Saudi Arabia and OPEC to produce MORE oil as inflation sends gas prices soaring - after HE shut down America's Keystone pipeline" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne [dailymail.co.uk]... [dailymail.co.uk]
Who knows, who cares?
Political maneuvering and other such poppycock.
Production declined 7% worldwide, following the lowest demand in modern history.
Attributing it to Biden is pretty fucking funny. He must be one powerful fucker, indeed.
I'm sorry but you are the one stuck on marketing buzzwords here. Intel's use of the phrase "Unified Memory" is not referring to the exact same design as Apple's use of the phrase "Unified Memory Architecture". Apple Silicon has a different design than PCs.
I literally just proved that wrong.
On an M1, the root complex is called the "Fabric". The GPU is connected to the fabric via a spec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is your misrepresentation. I wrote that some production was shut down.
In order for some production to be shut down, production must decrease. This is mathematically provable.
Wrong. Again, the USAF in WW2 destroyed some German aircraft production, lots of it actually, yet there were months where Germany produced more aircraft in one month than the month before. The true comparison is what would have been produced had there been no USAF bombing campaign and no production shut down.
Wrong again, if that production was not necessary why is Biden asking the Saudis to increase their production? "Biden asks Saudi Arabia and OPEC to produce MORE oil as inflation sends gas prices soaring - after HE shut down America's Keystone pipeline" https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne [dailymail.co.uk]... [dailymail.co.uk]
Who knows, who cares?
It proves you wrong regarding the shut down production being "not critical". Dependency upon middle eastern oil is critical. The Gulf War, 9/11, ...
Production declined 7% worldwide, following the lowest demand in modern history.
And yet Biden is begging for the Saudis to increase pr
Re: (Score:2)
Linux support for Apple Silicon is incomplete. Linux has merely reached the usable stage. It lags particularly in graphics.
How the fuck is that relevant?
"With these drivers, M1 Macs are actually usable as desktop Linux machines! While there is no GPU acceleration yet, the M1’s CPUs are so powerful that a software-rendered desktop is actually faster on them than on e.g. Rockchip ARM64 machines with hardware acceleration. While there are certainly many rough edges and missing drivers, getting to this point allows development to be self-hosted and developers to eat their own dogfood."
That's correct. There is no GPU acceleration. The instruction set of the GPU is not known (well, fully- we can draw triangles). Obviously initialization of a framebuffer is you fucking dingus.
What you have just done, is attempted to attack the source rather than the argument.
Hardware wise, the M1 and AMD APUs, and Intels with IGP, are identical with regard to the Unified nature of their onboard GPUs.
That is a fact. Apple's [arstechnica.com] own claims and graphics indicate this is true. Look
Re: (Score:2)
Linux support for Apple Silicon is incomplete. Linux has merely reached the usable stage. It lags particularly in graphics.
How the fuck is that relevant?
It demonstrates the fraudulent nature of your claims. I argue that as "CPU" has different implementations, as "GPU" has different implementations, so does "UM" have different implementations. What Intel does in a CPU, GPU or UM is not necessarily representative of what Apple does in a CPU, GPU or UM. Yet you keep pointing at Intel UM, then you bring up Linux on Apple Silicon to suggest Apple's UM is well understood like Intel's. I point out the Linux devs working on Apple Silicon contradicting you in this r
Re: (Score:2)
It demonstrates the fraudulent nature of your claims. I argue that as "CPU" has different implementations, as "GPU" has different implementations, so does "UM" have different implementations. What Intel does in a CPU, GPU or UM is not necessarily representative of what Apple does in a CPU, GPU or UM. Yet you keep pointing at Intel UM, then you bring up Linux on Apple Silicon to suggest Apple's UM is well understood like Intel's. I point out the Linux devs working on Apple Silicon contradicting you in this regard.
No, you stupid fucker.
I gave the implementation details of both.
Showed that they are the same.
You continue to ignore it and say: "You're not showing that they're the same, you're conflating same name with same thing!"
But that's a lie. That's you lying. I have never one suggested that the same name means the same thing. In fact, I've done the opposite in showing how the analogous portions of the block diagrams are the same things with different names.
The "UM" on the M1 (and the A12, QC888, and Core i
Re: (Score:2)
It demonstrates the fraudulent nature of your claims. I argue that as "CPU" has different implementations, as "GPU" has different implementations, so does "UM" have different implementations. What Intel does in a CPU, GPU or UM is not necessarily representative of what Apple does in a CPU, GPU or UM. Yet you keep pointing at Intel UM, then you bring up Linux on Apple Silicon to suggest Apple's UM is well understood like Intel's. I point out the Linux devs working on Apple Silicon contradicting you in this regard.
I gave the implementation details of both.
Please inform the Linux kernel devs apparently lacking your detailed knowledge. You offered nothing but minor details about PCs. Apple Silicon may share some minor implementation details, but that means little. On the CPU side an ex8-64 and an Apple Silicon AArch64 may both fetch code from RAM but that hardly means that overall their respective architectures are similar, that one is comparable to the other. Similar for UM. And we know the overall system architectures are not comparable given how Apple Silic
Re: (Score:2)
Please inform the Linux kernel devs apparently lacking your detailed knowledge.
I am a Linux kernel "dev". I thought you had figured that out by now.
You offered nothing but minor details about PCs.
I offered as much as was needed.
Apple Silicon may share some minor implementation details, but that means little.
You don't know either way. You completely lack knowledge one way or a fucking other. You're just making shit up.
On the CPU side an ex8-64 and an Apple Silicon AArch64 may both fetch code from RAM but that hardly means that overall their respective architectures are similar, that one is comparable to the other.
Intel, AMD, and Apple parts are all SoCs with a final SoC-level cache, and have been for years.
On Intel, AMD, and Apple parts, the CPU is just another bus master along with PCIe and graphics devices.
You are incorrect, and you don't know the correct answer either way. You're just making shit up.
At most you cherry picked a minor subcomponent that might be the same. I am referring to the complete system architecture.
Yo
Re: (Score:2)
Please inform the Linux kernel devs apparently lacking your detailed knowledge.
I am a Linux kernel "dev". I thought you had figured that out by now.
Great, then you have confirmed your knowledge of Apple Silicon is quite limited.
>You have not and can not describe how they're different. You can't accuse me of cherry picking when you can't even identify a single difference. You're just making shit up.
“And yet it moves.” Or more specifically, and yet it significant outperforms. All I need to do is demonstrate the architectures and/or implementation are different, and performance testing does that. As do the statement from the honest kernel developers. While you attempt to the mislead, for example by stating we understand how older Apple CPUs work, say an A series in a mobile device, and that tells us how newer M s
Re: (Score:2)
Great, then you have confirmed your knowledge of Apple Silicon is quite limited.
Yet you have failed to indicate how, with anything except marketing snips. Therefor this claim is specious.
“And yet it moves.” Or more specifically, and yet it significant outperforms. All I need to do is demonstrate the architectures and/or implementation are different, and performance testing does that. As do the statement from the honest kernel developers. While you attempt to the mislead, for example by stating we understand how older Apple CPUs work, say an A series in a mobile device, and that tells us how newer M series CPUs designed for laptops and desktops work, the more honest Linux devs admit that just tells us that an interface is similar and we don't really know about the implementation behind the interface.
This is incorrect.
Your assertion is that the performance is better because of its memory architecture.
The fact that it performs well does not prove your point. That's the fallacy of circular logic.
You are, as usual, making shit up.
The "Linux Devs" admit no such thing. You are lying.
The memory layout tells you nothing about the architectural implementation. Getting RAM working in firmware is a quite minor thing. Been there, done that.
No, you haven't. You are a liar, again.
On a modern machine, the root complex must be initialized by the CPU (since i
Re: (Score:2)
Great, then you have confirmed your knowledge of Apple Silicon is quite limited.
Yet you have failed to indicate how, with anything except marketing snips. Therefor this claim is specious.
Wrong. For example I offered quotes and links to Linux kernel devs stating that they have barely got Linux running on M1, that they were aided by Apple having consistent interfaces which offset their lack of knowledge of what is behind these interfaces.
Your assertion is that the performance is better because of its memory architecture. The fact that it performs well does not prove your point. That's the fallacy of circular logic.
No. Its observations of performance on tasks that are highly dependent upon memory. Also, to be clear, Apple's use of the phrase "Unified Memory Architecture" is wider in scope than you will admit. Your denial seems to rest in part on your different definitio
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. For example I offered quotes and links to Linux kernel devs stating that they have barely got Linux running on M1, that they were aided by Apple having consistent interfaces which offset their lack of knowledge of what is behind these interfaces.
No, you didn't.
I'm running it on my Air as we speak. Though the boot process is tethered, and it's an absolute nightmare.
What they said, is that the GPU *acceleration* is in a state of fuckiness.
Basic GPU initialization, memory mapping, and framebuffer works fine. Mesa/GLES is not working at all except in small proof-of-concepts.
You turned them talking about that into them not understanding how the GPU works. That makes you a liar. Or stupid. Your call.
No. Its observations of performance on tasks that are highly dependent upon memory. Also, to be clear, Apple's use of the phrase "Unified Memory Architecture" is wider in scope than you will admit. Your denial seems to rest in part on your different definition of what constitutes "Unified Memory".
I've told you the obvious reason why memory-bound t
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. For example I offered quotes and links to Linux kernel devs stating that they have barely got Linux running on M1, that they were aided by Apple having consistent interfaces which offset their lack of knowledge of what is behind these interfaces.
No, you didn't.
Scroll up, its all there.
What they said, ...
Is not what you are attempting to pass off. Its more than the GPU. Again, follow their link.
No. Its observations of performance on tasks that are highly dependent upon memory. Also, to be clear, Apple's use of the phrase "Unified Memory Architecture" is wider in scope than you will admit. Your denial seems to rest in part on your different definition of what constitutes "Unified Memory".
I've told you the obvious reason why memory-bound tasks work so well on the M1*. It has twice the channelized memory bandwidth of an equivalent x86 CPU. That's their real trick. If you want to call the bus width part of "UMA", then sure. But you're just inventing shit at that point.
Nope. You were simply wrong in your claim of what "UMA" represents, in reality Intel and Apple use "UMA" to refer to different things. As I had said all along, Apple is referring to everything in the M1 memory design and implementation, including the three areas where you have conceded a better Apple design. Apple is not saddled by old architectures and old descriptions as Intel. The M1 memor
Re: (Score:2)
I gotta ask- did you get one of those cool "I'd rather be Russian than Democrat" shirts?
Does having a dude around who will order the deaths of people who threaten your comfort make you sleep better at night?
Re: NATO bordering country (Score:2)