Huawei Shows Off 384-Chip AI Computing System That Rivals Nvidia's Top Product (msn.com) 102
Long-time Slashdot reader hackingbear writes: China's Huawei Technologies showed off an AI computing system on Saturday that can rival Nvidia's most advanced offering, even though the company faces U.S. export restrictions. The CloudMatrix 384 system made its first public debut at the World Artificial Intelligence Conference (WAIC), a three-day event in Shanghai where companies showcase their latest AI innovations, drawing a large crowd to the company's booth. The CloudMatrix 384 incorporates 384 of Huawei's latest 910C chips, optically connected through an all-to-all topology, and outperforms Nvidia's GB200 NVL72 on some metrics, which uses 72 B200 chips, according to SemiAnalysis. A full CloudMatrix system can now deliver 300 PFLOPs of dense BF16 compute, almost double that of the GB200 NVL72. With more than 3.6x aggregate memory capacity and 2.1x more memory bandwidth, Huawei and China "now have AI system capabilities that can beat Nvidia's," according to a report by SemiAnalysis.
The trade-off is that it takes 4.1x the power of a GB200 NVL72, with 2.5x worse power per FLOP, 1.9x worse power per TB/s memory bandwidth, and 1.2x worse power per TB HBM memory capacity, but SemiAnalysis noted that China has no power constraints only chip constraints. Nvidia had announced DGX H100 NVL256 "Ranger" Platform [with 256 GPUs], SemiAnalysis writes, but "decided to not bring it to production due to it being prohibitively expensive, power hungry, and unreliable due to all the optical transceivers required and the two tiers of network. The CloudMatrix Pod requires an incredible 6,912 400G LPO transceivers for networking, the vast majority of which are for the scaleup network."
Also at this event, Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba released a new flagship open-source reasoning model Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 which has "already topped key industry benchmarks, outperforming powerful proprietary systems from rivals like Google and OpenAI," according to industry reports. On the AIME25 benchmark, a test designed to evaluate sophisticated, multi-step problem-solving skills, Qwen3-Thinking-2507 achieved a remarkable score of 92.3. This places it ahead of some of the most powerful proprietary models, notably surpassing Google's Gemini-2.5 Pro, while Qwen3-Thinking secured a top score of 74.1 at LiveCodeBench, comfortably ahead of both Gemini-2.5 Pro and OpenAI's o4-mini, demonstrating its practical utility for developers and engineering teams.
The trade-off is that it takes 4.1x the power of a GB200 NVL72, with 2.5x worse power per FLOP, 1.9x worse power per TB/s memory bandwidth, and 1.2x worse power per TB HBM memory capacity, but SemiAnalysis noted that China has no power constraints only chip constraints. Nvidia had announced DGX H100 NVL256 "Ranger" Platform [with 256 GPUs], SemiAnalysis writes, but "decided to not bring it to production due to it being prohibitively expensive, power hungry, and unreliable due to all the optical transceivers required and the two tiers of network. The CloudMatrix Pod requires an incredible 6,912 400G LPO transceivers for networking, the vast majority of which are for the scaleup network."
Also at this event, Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba released a new flagship open-source reasoning model Qwen3-235B-A22B-Thinking-2507 which has "already topped key industry benchmarks, outperforming powerful proprietary systems from rivals like Google and OpenAI," according to industry reports. On the AIME25 benchmark, a test designed to evaluate sophisticated, multi-step problem-solving skills, Qwen3-Thinking-2507 achieved a remarkable score of 92.3. This places it ahead of some of the most powerful proprietary models, notably surpassing Google's Gemini-2.5 Pro, while Qwen3-Thinking secured a top score of 74.1 at LiveCodeBench, comfortably ahead of both Gemini-2.5 Pro and OpenAI's o4-mini, demonstrating its practical utility for developers and engineering teams.
There are always power constraints (Score:2, Troll)
SemiAnalysis noted that China has no power constraints only chip constraints
Of course there are constraints. But they can address them with other constraints, for example they could permit high power use only during times of high solar production. Their central control makes it feasible. Or they could just tell other users to f off when they want to do some training.
Re:There are always power constraints (Score:4, Insightful)
The actual news isn't really the power use here. Moving the attention there is nothing but cope.
The news is the fact that China is successfully speedrunning their chip industry, and making a mockery of our sanctions and trade wars on the side.
Did any of us even yesterday believe that they would take on Nvidia any time soon? Yet here we are. Rest assured they are working on power use, too. But what are we doing at the same? Circle jerk and photo ops.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They've been doing it with electric cars too. The fastest production EV to lap the Nurburgring is now Chinese. https://www.topgear.com/car-ne... [topgear.com]
Re: (Score:2)
BYD has a charging system that can fully charge a vehicle in around 10 minutes, too. Unfortunately in spite of all the lip-flapping about "free trade" we're not allowed to buy them here.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we're vilifying entrepreneurs and making it as difficult as possible for new ideas to emerge unless they are somehow linked to the latest social justice fad. Have an awesome idea to fix some complicated manufacturing process? Steady on there, first we need you to complete 35 environmental studies and once you're done with that, you have to show how this new capability is going to improve the employment chances of some marginalized group. And then, we're g
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't blame social justice and environmental rules for our laggard economy.
Rampant capitalism is erasing these barriers.
The problem is that the capitalist takeover prioritizes monopoly profit at the expense of innovation.
Trade barriers have forced China to advance beyond the US.
(I read recently that 40 years ago the US was a world leader in most of the 64 "advanced technologies" in their study. Now we are world leader in just a few. China has the rest.)
Re: There are always power constraints (Score:2)
"Trade barriers have forced China to advance beyond the US."
They are ahead in battery and train tech. We abdicated both. They are behind even Intel in fab tech.
Re: (Score:2)
There was always some number of shitty parts that could be combined to do the work of superior western parts.
That's simply the nature of embarrassingly parallel workloads.
The fact that the western parts do with 72 discrete units what they need 384 to do means there's no copium needed. We're still riding high.
At the end of the day, China could assemble a few trillion Z80s to do the same work if they wanted. Pretending like that means they're at parity with us is pure fucking idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
No thanks, you can keep the idiot.
First of all, did I say anything about parity? No. Where did you get that from? Built it out of straw, did you? The question is not of China being on parity, the question is of them getting closer to parity at speeds where every milestone is taken years before any of our Western predictions would dream to think they would.
Second, the amount of discrete units is meaningless. Nobody cares how many units were used, only results matter. Throughput per watt is hugely important t
Re: (Score:2)
The one and only important question is whether Chinese companies would choose to buy the Huawei system over the Nvidia system. One could make the excuse that export restrictions preclude that choice, but that's not really true. The restrictions are easily bypassed to some degree. If some Chinese companies go to the illegal extent of buying Nvidia, that's the real answer to whether Huawei has caught up or is even close to catching up.
Non-application specs and benchmarks can be misleading. AMD has been compar
Re: (Score:2)
You implied parity with the following statement:
Did any of us even yesterday believe that they would take on Nvidia any time soon?
384 devices using 4x the power of the equivalent nvidia solution is not "taking on NV".
As I said, they could have assembled a trillion Z80s to do the same job. Would you have then waxed amazement over how they had surpassed NV?
In an embarrassingly parallel workload, all that matters is the aggregate computing power.
The restrictions were never about preventing them from hitting the same amount of aggregate TFLOPs as us- it was about
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying the CloudMatrix 384 is a lot better than the Nvidia GB200 NVL72?
In several measures, yes.
Because such things are only measured in aggregate performance.
The scale-out doesn't stop at a CloudMatrix 384, or an NVL72. These are merely products that are sold to small businesses.
A CloudMatrix is just a product that is a bunch of networked DaVinci 910Cs. An NVL72 is just a product that is a bunch of networked H200s.
NV could make an NVL384 tomorrow that would performance twice as good and require half the power.
It's just a GPU cluster with high speed networking (and frankl
Re: (Score:2)
The news is the fact that China is successfully speedrunning their chip industry
They are still multiple generations behind, as they have been.
and making a mockery of our sanctions and trade wars on the side.
They were already mockeries, invented to fool fools.
Did any of us even yesterday believe that they would take on Nvidia any time soon?
No, and most of us don't believe they're doing it now, either.
Yet here we are.
We're here in the same world we've been in, where they are multiple generations behind.
Rest assured they are working on power use, too.
Yes, they are working on process technology, where they are again at least two generations behind. And this is a place they can't catch up to just by copying, because they don't have the equipment to copy, unlike CPU and GPU cores.
But what are we doing at the same? Circle jerk and photo ops.
You're having your
Re:There are always power constraints (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Or is that Trump's best friend Epsteine? Now that Putin is getting tired of him.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because you don't know anything about the electrical industry, their electrical grid is the envy of power engineers the world over. It helps that they essentially started from a 'green fields' situation, rather than having a century of installed cruft to rip and replace. More important is that they allow engineering projects to be run by engineers rather than thundering herds of useless MBAs who wouldn't know which end of the screwdriver to hold onto.
Re: (Score:2)
They just started the construction of the biggest most gigantic unbelievable big water power plant along the Yarlung Tsangpo river.
Something in the size of 50 nuclear power plants. Of course the project is gigantic and will take a decade or more.
Re: (Score:2)
They're sitting just over 50% right now. We should aspire to be just like them. Cough.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't speak to the veracity
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they're rapidly growing- they're trying to reach western power-per-capita levels. They're currently at about 50%.
Re: (Score:2)
https://ourworldindata.org/gra... [ourworldindata.org]
In any case, if China wants a new reactor to power their AI supercomputer, they will have one, and if Google wants a reactor to do the same, meh, probably not. Cause they have a nice slope, and you have an effectively flat line. If you both keep doing what you are doing the world will look very different a generation
Re: (Score:2)
Compare Germany with any of the Scandinavian countries, the US, or Australia, for example.
China is not aiming for very low production per capita. They're aiming for very high production per capita.
Economically speaking, China isn't trying to become the next Central Europe, they're trying to become the next US.
Re: hah (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
China can both design and manufacture almost anything
Except high end GPUs, apparently.
They can, however, slap a lot of them together and pretend like it's the same thing, and dipshits here will even believe it.
Power is hardly an issue for China (Score:2)
The Chinese have a lot of very cheap solar power in desert areas and hydroelectric power in the Southwest. I don't think they think much about power.
Re: (Score:2)
Power is always a problem. No matter how much they produce, hardware can still consume it.
They could run 2.5x as many NV machines.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't matter. At X GW/h, they can run more NV hardware, period. There's always going to be a fixed value of X at a given slice of time. W isn't infinite.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretending like "They have more" means they can power more bullshit is absurd.
People need electricity too.
Re: (Score:3)
Power is a problem here, but not in China at all. This fellow lives and works in China, he writes mostly about business but his interests are more wide ranging, recently he's been researching the power industry. Worth browsing his Substack for this and other gems. Helps that he provides voluminous documentation is is a pretty good writer to boot.
https://kdwalmsley.substack.co... [substack.com]
Supply chain problems and shortages of everything we need to maintain the electric grid at present levels, let alone build new c
Re: (Score:3)
They can run 2.5x the NV hardware at the same power level. It makes no sense to opt for a platform that has lower perf/W in an embarrassingly-parallel workload unless you're blinded by raw nationalism or under trade embargoes.
Re: (Score:2)
But... they are under trade embargoes. So, the point is the embargoes aren't going to slow down their AI scale-up plans. They burn more energy, but since energy generation doesn't seem to be a problem in China that doesn't matter. Sitting there shouting "but your solution isn't ideeeeeal!" completely misses the point.
Re: (Score:2)
So not much is getting built, new demand is rising fast, and electric utilities are raising prices. Nationwide they have requested over $18 billion in rate increases, most of which will hit markets this year.
Maybe over the last 50 years instead of handing out massive dividends to investors and bonuses to board members they should have been ploughing money into maintaining and expanding their crumbling infrastructure.
Oh well, never mind, at least you all get to pay more for less energy and the investors continue to laugh away atop their piles of cash generated by a privately-owned public utility that essentially nobody can opt-out of paying.
Re: (Score:2)
We're victims of what I call the 'MBA Disease'.
Re: (Score:2)
Power is not a problem in China as long as a significant amount of them can't afford to use any of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they think much about power.
The Chinese are building out lots and lots of new power generation capability since they don't actually have enough total capacity, cheap or otherwise, to provide a first-world level of energy supply for their population. They think more about power than most Western countries do.
Re: (Score:2)
They have about 50% of the power capacity per capita as the US.
People get caught up in the large absolute numbers, forgetting that China has 1.4 billion people living within its borders.
China does not have first-world levels of power availability.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these ! (Score:4, Funny)
EOM.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you make that into a car analogy?
Re: (Score:2)
You must be new here.
Re: (Score:2)
Predictable (Score:5, Insightful)
China was perfectly willing to "drink the poisoned wine" of being dependent on American technology. But we decided they couldn't have it any more. Predictably, they are now creating their own replacements.
Our problem is we have an incompetent ruling elite that has run "the most powerful country on the planet" into the ground. And that didn't start in 2025 or 2017. They have been patting themselves on the back through failure after failure. They cover their tracks by managing perceptions rather than learn from failure. They deny the consequences and blame everyone but themselves for the failure.
Re: (Score:3)
China was perfectly willing to "drink the poisoned wine" of being dependent on American technology. But we decided they couldn't have it any more. Predictably, they are now creating their own replacements.
Our problem is we have an incompetent ruling elite that has run "the most powerful country on the planet" into the ground. And that didn't start in 2025 or 2017. They have been patting themselves on the back through failure after failure. They cover their tracks by managing perceptions rather than learn from failure. They deny the consequences and blame everyone but themselves for the failure.
This is with wisdom of hindsight.
When Huawei was banned, the expected result was that it would slowly fade into irrelevance. When the whole suite of bans came to Chinese phones and technologies and they disappeared from US, the expectorated result was the same as what happened with USSR and that the commercial sector for advanced technologies would dry up and would turn to the west to supply them and it would be a win for Apple and Samsung.
Re: (Score:1)
This is with wisdom of hindsight.
Perhaps, but I doubt our rulers will learn from it. Because the folks at Harvard and Yale don't learn wisdom from hindsight. They are smart people who can figure out why they were right to begin with. They'll blame Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
They use 384 parts to do what 72 NV parts do.
That's not catching up.
These devices are for crunching numbers in embarrassingly parallel workloads.
Anyone can match any arbitrary number- what determines who is doing it better is how much power and parts it takes to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why that's true. An awful lot of technology replaces simpler tools with tools that have more parts and use more energy. By this measure, a hammer is a more advanced tool than a nail gun. It has fewer parts and uses less energy.
Are you serious?
This is electronics, not power tools.
The Chinese solution to the set amount of TFLOPs requires more silicon and more power. They're ridiculously less efficient in terms of materials and power.
Would you have been even more impressed if they had simply amassed several million 386s to do the job?
Re: (Score:1)
This is with wisdom of hindsight.
Many people, including myself, know perfectly well what would happen when Washington, with then president Clinton, sold out the US industrial base to China in the 1990s. So fuck you and your "hindsight."
Re:Predictable (Score:5, Insightful)
You do wonder why no one talks about the mass demonstrations in Seattle opposing globalization in the 1990's. The riff-raff demonstrators apparently had a clearer picture of reality than the "experts".
But it wasn't Washington that sold out the US Industrial base. It was "American" corporations who took the capital created by American workers and invested it in making Chinese workers more productive. Then they took what those workers produced and sold it in competition with the products still being produced by American workers on the outdated equipment left behind. It was a straight out looting of the country by "American" multi-national corporations with no allegiance to America or the American people. You can't blame the politicians for that. They were elected because those companies invested in getting them elected.
Re: (Score:1)
> But it wasn't Washington that sold out the US Industrial base. It was "American" corporations who took the capital created by American workers and invested it in making Chinese workers more productive.
It was BOTH. Globalization and “free trade” initiatives like NAFTA may have been pushed by corporations starting in the 1980s, but Washington gladly took the money and cemented these initiatives into law.
> You can't blame the politicians for that
Yes, you can. The problems of technology stea
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you can.
I think you missed the point. The politicians were chosen by the companies. Its like blaming the clerk at the checkout counter for high prices. You can argue with them the prices are too high and they might agree with you. But if they start charging you less they will lose their job.
The reality is that to get elected in the United States requires a boatload of money. People who can't raise that money are weeded out. With the concentration of wealth, the only people who have boatloads of money to spend on ch
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was pretty obvious that wasn't going to happen when the bans came in. They had already moved ahead in some areas of technology, while the government had also made it a policy to make the country less dependent on the US market for some years by that point.
Re:Predictable (Score:4, Interesting)
And that didn't start in 2025 or 2017.
But of course. The US being "the most powerful country in the world" was a historical accident, just like China dropping from its usual place of the economic powerhouse of the world for a few hundred years.
What you're seeing as a yuge crisis is just things going back to normal. Xi trying for a dictatorship may still slow things down for a while, but in the long run it is inevitable.
The USA will have to swallow the fact that there is no "American exceptionalism" and find its new place in the world. So far it appears the US has chosen its own version of putinism as the vision for the future, which isn't promising, but then there are no success guarantees in life, even that of a country.
Re: (Score:2)
I genuinely think if the majority of Americans were forced to question their position as the #1 country in the world, American society would immediately implode.
I suspect that even the American people who claim they don't think America is #1 still privately, secretly, maybe even shamefully, wave the #1 flag inside their own heads.
Sooner or later the combination of shock and cognitive dissonance will drive them insane...or, more likely, to World War 3.
Re: (Score:2)
We're already seeing a lot of things that hint at the traditional, "law-and-order" decorum society experiencing serious shakes, which many interpret as disintegration. On the other hand, stability is always an illusion and things are always in flux. I guess will see how things develop during their next parliamentary elections. If the putinization trend continues as the current administration appears to be planning, I'd be tempted to call the disintegration unstoppable. That, of course, will mean we're 3/4 o
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say you will have to swallow the fact that economically, we're still pretty fucking exceptional compared to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why so much butthurt then?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you wanting someone to be butthurt to make you feel better about making a stupid assertion?
You are right that one day, the US will probably have to deal with a China that matches it in terms of gross output.
It's going to be decades from now, though. It'll be interesting to see if they don't collapse before then.
However, one thing they will not reach in either of our lifetimes, is per-capita parity with the US.
Having your economic power be on the
Re: (Score:2)
Who's butthurt?
The ignoramus with the dirty mouth here: https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You give one of the dumbest fucking history takes there are, and you call other people stupid.
When the fuck did schools stop educating you dipshits?
Re: (Score:2)
But yes, our problem is we have an incompetent ruling elite.
The problem is that fucking morons are listening to fucking idiots like you.
Re: (Score:2)
The article literally spells out a situation where they need 384 parts using 4x the power to do what we do with 72.
So what? There are more parts in a nail gun than a hammer and it uses more energy. That doesn't make the hammer better. But more to the point, it doesn't mean you can't replace one with the other and accomplish the same thing. The only real question is whether it is an adequate replacement even if "our" version is somehow "better" by some vaguely associated criteria.
What is idiotic is throwing out obscure facts and conclusions with no logical explanation of the connection.
Re: (Score:2)
So what? There are more parts in a nail gun than a hammer and it uses more energy
This is the second time I've heard this stupid fucking analogy. Fascinating.
This is electronics, not power tools.
Technology in electronics is in miniaturization.
Do you think that 100,000 386s is better than 1 Core i7?
You're too stupid to have this conversation.
Re: (Score:2)
You're too stupid to have this conversation.
Given the source, I will consider that a compliment. Your inability to articulate a logical argument is forgiven.
Re: (Score:2)
The benchmark being used here is aggregate performance.
It's like a supercomputer for embarrassingly parallel workloads.
They have not measured technology here- China has always had the ability to add lots of shitty stuff together to make big numbers.
All they've measured is how much stuff they've stacked together for this product.
The equivalent western product is smaller and uses less power, for the same amount of work.
I
Re: (Score:2)
They have not measured technology here-
As I read it, the article says it has a "solution" that works as well or better. It identifies some of the drawbacks of that solution. You have repeated those. What you haven't said is why they matter very much?
The equivalent western product is smaller and uses less power, for the same amount of work.
But is not available in China. So its not an option. This "solution" will apparently allow China to do something that our sanctions were supposed to prevent it from doing.They aren't trying to win a theoretical technology contest.
Re: (Score:2)
As I read it, the article says it has a "solution" that works as well or better. It identifies some of the drawbacks of that solution. You have repeated those. What you haven't said is why they matter very much?
I've just explained to you what the solution is.
Huawei makes a GPU chip- the Davinci 910C. It's about a third of an H200 in performance, and uses about the same power.
They have stacked enough of them together to match the output of one specific NV cluster that is solder to smaller businesses.
This was always something that could be done. Could have been done with the 910C, and it could have been done with the 910B.
It can be done with enough TI-83 calculators if you've got the power and real estate.
Th
I guess (Score:3, Informative)
It's kind of worthy of achievement. But like, it's 5x the number of chips, for only ~2x performance, 3.6x memory capacity, and 2.1x memory bandwidth, while consuming 4.1x the amount of power and taking up at least 4x as much physical space.
Also, though I can't be sure, this type of setup almost begs to suffer from diminishing returns, so I doubt it can be scaled up further
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, getting in the ball park is already pretty good. These are numbers that were not easily possible 5 years ago, I would think. So even if you call it "a couple years behind", it's still pretty good.
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, getting in the ball park is already pretty good.
It's not in the ballpark.
They merely assembled enough parts to appear to be in the ballpark.
1/2 of the performance per part, or 1/4th the performance per watt is not in the ballpark.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, our oh-so-wise masters decided that if we banned our high tech chips that China would bend over and agree to be reamed because there was no other possible source in the universe. Instead they proceeded to design and build their own chips, with the result that within a couple of years Huawei's phones were using domestically created chips that in many respects exceeded Apple's M1. So instead our owners decreed that if no one sold them lithography systems they would have to give up their goals
Re: (Score:2)
So the US banned chips - didn't work
So the US banned litho equipment - didn't work.
The last thing the US can ban is export of the tools that make litho equipment.
What tool would that be?
Money!!! Start making your own stuff folks. Don't be lazy. Do the hard thing.
There is no distinction between goods and services. It's all services. Services to cut your hair and file your tax. Services to make you coffee. Services to make you devices.
Re: (Score:2)
The article is literally about how it's working.
They have to string together an assload of shitty parts to do the equivalent of what a much smaller amount of "banned" parts would be able to do.
That's the literal goal.
6 digit UID, too. I expect that from the 8 digit dipshits, but you should be ashamed.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going to guess, not much further than where they are now. This type of brute force can only go so far. I don't think they have the skills to effectively refine this down.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that DeepSeek has proved you pretty definitively wrong already.
The thing that Westerners don't understand is that pretty much all of China's tech industry is open source, much less the effect that has on innovation. Rather than working in isolated silos of information like here, in China everyone has access to almost everything. This article delves into that a bit. I highly recommend his articles, check out the one about China's factories are like being in another world.
https://kdwalmsley.substac [substack.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not trying to say it's not an advantageous model for the industry. I just don't think this particular system is scalable, or in fact even that good. It's just an accomplishment for what they had to work with. It's not better than 2 NVL72's strapped together. And in order to match both performance, space, and efficiency, I think they need to start from scratch and design something else. Maybe this advancement will help them create better chips so they can, but I am doubting it.
But.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly is the threat? (Score:2)
The US has maintained that stopping China from buying or making advanced chips and building advanced AI systems is necessary for national security.
What exactly is it that China could do in this area that represents a national security threat to the US?
Re: (Score:2)
Be better/faster at selling AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Win the tech race. Do you really think it is about national security?
Attempting to prevent China... (Score:2)
...from getting advanced tech is futile and counterproductive
Chinese scientists and engineers are very smart and good at finding workarounds
Cooperation would be better
Re: (Score:2)
Instead of 72 high performing NV parts, they need to string together 384 low performing Huawei parts that consume 4x teh power.
The workload is embarrassingly parallel- the only metric on which solution is "better" than the other is how cheap it is to do it, since you could literally do it with a fuckton of laptops if you were desperate enough.
In this regard, these things are a decade behind us.
Whether or not cooperation is better, this is an exampl
Free Spyware Included While Supplies Last! (Score:1)
Act Now!