Slashdot Mirror
China Releases 2nd generation MIPS Chip
eldawg writes writes with news of the launch of a second-generation Chinese 64-bit MIPS CPU. "The Godson-2 or 'Dragon' went into production last week. News reports indicate that, 'The CPU is 95% MIPS compatible using an unauthorized and unlicensed variation of the MIPS architecture, which is owned by the American company MIPS Technologies...The Godson-2 is pretty much a copy of the MIPS R10000 which makes it on par with 1995 technology.' The Chinese plan on using these chips in consumer electronics for the local market, but one can assume that they will eventually end up in exported electronic goods. I wonder if MIPS Technology will sit idly by when this happens?"
News reports indicate that, 'The CPU is 95% MIPS compatible using an unauthorized and unlicensed variation of
Unauthorized and unlicensed - duh, of course it is. That does NOT per se make it illegal and it certainly does not mean it is "stolen". Anyone can implement an instruction set (there are decades of precendent for this) - while our system may be really fucked up when it comes to thing like business method patents, on processor architecutre (and electronics in general) it is clear: it's the implementation that counts, NOT the idea.
the MIPS architecture, which is owned by the American company MIPS Technologies...
Do you mean "implementations of which have been successfully licensed by MIPS, but frankly it's a well documented and relatively simple RISC instruction set
that a single person with a few years VHDL experience can implement"? See OpenCores for an example.
The Godson-2 is pretty much a copy of the MIPS R10000 which makes it on par with 1995 technology.'
So WTF are the latest Opteron processors? On par with 1978 technology?
The Chinese plan on using these chips in consumer electronics for the local market, but
one can assume that they will eventually end up in exported electronic goods.
One can be assured that cheaper processors will find their way into everything. Nice try insinuating that the EVIL CHINESE are deliberately out to screw us by EMBRACING CAPITALISM!
I wonder if MIPS Technology will sit idly by when this happens?"
I wonder if MIPS has a choice. See AMD vs Intel ca. 1991
If it's a copy of 1995 technology, and patents last 10 years, I wonder if they're violating anything important.
If MIPS cannot make its own chips live longer, then it's definitely a good thing that chinese copy it "illegally" and find a usage as embedded consumer processors. MIPS had its 15 minutes, now it's over, they should be grateful that at least their architecture is still used for some obscure stuff.
Funny, that was once said about Japanese products as well.
Learned a long time ago to ignore any political opinions given by computer scientists because agree with them and they'll just say the opposite. So after the whining about companies banning replication of their video codecs and software, it's now bad for China to replicate MIPS compatability.
Nevertheless, compatability with the MIPS standard seems like the most trivial thing they could have copied. There are much harder problems to overcome in building a CPU than what spec to follow. The MIPS spec doesn't define how to mass produce very precise arrangements of semiconductor features for the least amount of money. It doesn't define how to dissipate heat and reduce power consumption.
Also, one day people are going to figure out that whatever China's government says, it's 10 years behind their current status. China's government says its economy is only growing at 5%. In reality it's growing at 10%. They say they won't finish the olympic stadium until 2008. It's finished now. They say 3 gorges won't become operational until 2010. It's operational now.
So what do you think the current state of Chinese technology is now that their government says they're at 1995 levels?
This article here gives some insight into the sots of problems the Chinese may have if they try to enter the USA market.
I hope that by the time they choose to enter the market, they have enough money/power to sustain the legal battle.
The MIPS company people sound like asses.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
you must not be old enough to remember when Japan was going to buy everything.
That didn't pan out either.
-xski
Linux is not Windows
American patents don't apply in China, so by definition no patent has been violated - even if a case could be made in the states. American law doesn't stretch a single foot outside of American borders, at least when it comes to countries the U.S. can't conquer or cow into submission.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
It's just exploiting cheap labour and nothing short of a revolution will make things change for them.
As a sinologist and former resident of China, I disagree whole-heartedly.
You have to remember -- when considering education for the Chinese people, the Communist Party has been a godsend. Under the communist government literacy has increased over a thousand percent.
Chinese culture, as the father of all East Asian cultures, holds education dear and promotes getting as much of it as possible. Their college system is still sub-par when compared to the rest of the world, and when compared to S. Korea or Japan, but it is rapidly improving. Their top schools compete with the world's top schools. Their local schools have been providing valuable training in business management, among other skills, that have allowed the Chinese economy to boom as it has been booming.
And that won't stop. In 50 years they will no longer be the cheap-labor capital of the world, because they will have raised the education bar to a level much higher than it is.
Only then will "revolution" make any sense. Anything before then will just put in a government that is MUCH worse than the current government.
If you want to understand a country's progression towards democracy, you should read books on international development -- especially "second track" or "citizens" diplomacy. The leaders in that field have studied successful migrations to democracy and have learned that democracy fails when "democratic norms" are not in place. Those include education and an entrepreneurial-type business culture (and a stable economy that isn't dependent on the government), among other things.
Until those democratic norms have been established, any democracy would collapse.
Look at Taiwan -- they were a military dictatorship until 1988, and the people who fled to Taiwan had, on average, very high education levels. Even then it took 40 years to bring democracy.
Look at Russia -- Putin is getting more and more powerful, and the people support him. Why? Because they would rather have a burgeoning economy and stability than have democracy.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
The Chinese have nothing of the sort - they just want to get ahead, and they will cheerfully screw you over, even when you're sure to discover it.
That's quite a generalization to make.
I spent 7 years in China -- I was never "screwed." I've been screwed by American businesses, though -- but I don't assume all Americans are corrupt and manipulative.
China is like ebay -- it is a developing economy where little is established, including oversight.
that happens in any economy. china might be slightly worse because there was (and is, though less now) a lot of corruption in the government and in the government-sponsored industries.
But were things any different when America had an undeveloped economy 100 years ago? Even today there are plenty of illegitimate companies. I have worked for the U.S. commercial service and plenty of U.S. companies have exported products to the country I was based that were defective or took the payment then ran. It's an embarassment -- and I'm stuck trying to convince the foreign importer that he should still try to buy U.S. exports...
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
I find it fascinating how the submitter chose to highlight these chips were developed in China, rather than BLX IC, the /company/ that has designed these chips. I'm sure there's numerous other companies in China producing various general purpose processors as well. When Intel or ATI comes out with a new processor, there aren't many who talk about America or Canada designing a new chip.
Is it commonplace for people in the US to consider China as some monolithic, communist production machine where the entire state works for one 'company'?
China only wants a very very cheap processor for their appliances. So they would not want to pay for the design or invest in a new one. Maybe one day everything (TVs, refrigerators, whatever...)will have one of these...
I have to say, most of the comments here can be conluded into one option that non-Western people can never make any progress or advantage in technology, or it's stolen from western world. i wonder how eastern people looked at west in 300 years ago, e.g. Tang Dynasty. With the same logic, almost all the western people after that are thieves. With the same logic, western people's foolishness and selfishness are shown so clearly here. BTW, there is a very basic and universal principle in law, who claims, who gives the evidence. It should be MIPS to find evidence, not Chinese to prove they are legal.
I don't get the reference to Hennesy and Patterson at all here, while they do indeed discuss the implementation of pipelined chips with the Mips as the running example they do it on a high level. Doing an efficient implementation of even only the parts discussed in the book requires doing the actual clever implementation work of large portions of logic not really touched upon. Even things that are discussed are in so general terms that the books worth as a practical guide to actually building a modern chip is fairly low (it is an introductionary book after all). In addition they don't even discuss the issues involved in a chip of this level, notable missing parts are OoO logic and the FPU and so on (again understandable since it is an introduction).
Don't compare the R10000 to the stuff that a CS class hobbles together (which also tends to be a very small portion of a complete chip), it is an insult to all of computer architecture if anything.
So, the R10000 was very much state of the art in 1995, and is still doing fairly well today (the R160000 is pretty much the same core, just shrunk and tuned). If China has made an equivalent it is proof enough that they can make a competitive chip.
Between the software patents in europe, the DMCA in the US and the state of the current patent system, It is getting harder to produce software in the patent minefield that is the western world.
9/11 should have shown us what happens when determined people who aren't bound by laws and corporate greed want to get things done. The tech industry no longer has a "just do it" kind of attitude, as it crawls along, waiting for a lawsuit to blindside them.
With even reverse engineering outlawed by the DMCA, consumers are locked into the first product to appear on the market, and making an alternative, even a better one is a futile exercise.
Face it, with fewer laws, tech advancement using reverse engineering, and those one man hackers like DVD jon, Russia and china are operating with a freedom that allows them to bring the best they have to the fore, without limitations. Without serious patent reform, the US will NOT be at the forefront of technology for much longer.
In fact, almost everything you own that is of "quality", whether it is American or Japanese of design and label, was probably manufactured in China. China DEFINITELY has capacity for quality.
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
They are the US's third-biggest trade partner, which means we wield a pretty big stick.
... during which the US consumer goods sector would look pretty grim.
Actually, that means they wield a pretty big stick with us. The fact that we're probably their largest trade partner means we wield a big stick, but there's no getting around the fact that if we stopped trading with China today (for whatever reason), the economy would take a nosedive. Sure, we might be able to replace our source for everything they give us (don't be so sure, they make a lot of stuff, and there isn't a huge surplus of any of it in other nations), but even then it would take months
The US and China trade with each other so much that it's kind of a symbiotic relationship. Neither of our economies would be nearly as powerful without the other. That's why you never read about any threats between these two nations. (Idiotic comments by brutish Chinese generals notwithstanding.) Both sides know they can't do it without the other.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Not even the brightest CS junior, or even the brightest (lone) CS grad student in any institution all over the world can design something with the complexity of the R10000, which was a fairly sophisticated design. The Chinese have access to very recent process technologies and can easily design and build a simpler processor that would beat your puny FPGA-implemented broken design in a heartbeat. Their goal is to build a base on which they can build a competitive CPU design infrastructure for their local industry.
I found your post mildly disturbing, with an air of superiority that seems to assume that CPU design is an American specialty of some sort. Many of us who work in CPU design and implementation got our graduate degrees from American universities, where an overwhelming majority of the graduate students in our group were foreign. Your CPU's are already being designed by non-Americans, so this might be a good time to get over it. Also, there is much more to talking about microprocessor design than taking a junior level Verilog class, perusing the Hennessy & Patterson book and maybe reading a few ISCA papers. I suggest you take a look at the R10000 paper published in IEEE Computer some years back.
Zigbee Central: A Zigbee weblog
The CPU is 95% MIPS compatible using an unauthorized and unlicensed variation of the MIPS architecture,
The AMD chips are 100% Pentium compatible, using an unauthorized and unlicensed variation of the Pentium architecture, and we all benefit from that. As long as they don't violate specific patents or copy parts of the circuitry, it's also legal.
If MIPS Technologies actually claim intellectual property in the MIPS instruction set or general aspects of the MIPS architecture, then we have a real problem, but that problem is with MIPS Technologies. Instruction sets and straightforward high-level architectural choices should not be patentable.