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?"

60 of 354 comments (clear)

  1. SPIN SPIN SPIN! by seanadams.com · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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

    1. Re:SPIN SPIN SPIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      My question then, after all the errors in the write-up, is what year is the new chip on par with?

    2. Re:SPIN SPIN SPIN! by Raindance · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A few points-

      1. This processor is 95% MIPS compatible. I understand incompatible, and 100% compatible. What do they mean by this?

      2. You're right that this is mainly a PR release- and though it doesn't flat-out say that this processor infringes on any MIPS patents, it's certainly implied. You seem to be strongly implying that this processor *doesn't* infringe on any MIPS patents. Do you have any facts about this, or is it your intuition?

      3. If the Godson-2 is "pretty much a copy of the MIPS R10000" that seems to make performance claims (rather than just saying it's "MIPS compatible"). I'm not sure your Opteron-8086 analogy architecture analogy holds up.

      Good catch that this is was a PR release.

    3. Re:SPIN SPIN SPIN! by Homology · · Score: 4, Informative
      2. You're right that this is mainly a PR release- and though it doesn't flat-out say that this processor infringes on any MIPS patents, it's certainly implied. You seem to be strongly implying that this processor *doesn't* infringe on any MIPS patents. Do you have any facts about this, or is it your intuition?

      A patent granted in USA is not automatically valid elsewhere, and you cannot infringe on a patent where it's not valid. The Chinese will infringe on MIPS patents if they try to export their chip to countries where the MIPS patens are valid.

    4. Re:SPIN SPIN SPIN! by arivanov · · Score: 4, Informative
      1. This processor is 95% MIPS compatible. I understand incompatible, and 100% compatible. What do they mean by this? .

      It does not implement the bits that are patented. IIRC there are patents MIPS equivalent of SIMD instructions and a few others. The chinese were wise enough to skip these so they in fact can export this and MIPS technologies will have to sit and watch.

      Do you have any facts about this, or is it your intuition?.

      It was one of the design criteria. There was plenty of information about it 1-2 years ago. It was carefully and deliberately designed around MIPS patents. The rest of the architecture and the instruction set is an industry standard and in the public domain.

      If the Godson-2 is "pretty much a copy of the MIPS R10000".

      It is as far as instruction set is concerned. It is not as far as technology and implementation. While R10000 was not a bad CPU, I would expect "Godson" to be considerably better. It should consume less and scale to higher frequencies. China has manufacturing capability on 150nm (and possibly less) which was not available to anyone in 1995

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    5. Re:SPIN SPIN SPIN! by seanadams.com · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1. This processor is 95% MIPS compatible. I understand incompatible, and 100% compatible. What do they mean by this?

      It could mean a couple instructions aren't implemented. This could be because:

      a) they had to avoid a patent
      b) some instructions were part of the original architecture, but were never used
      c) some better replacement was discovered

      It is relatively easy to strip out support for a couple specialty instructions from a compiler, so the usefulness of a "95% compatible" processor is perfectly conceivable.

      2. You're right that this is mainly a PR release- and though it doesn't flat-out say that this processor infringes on any MIPS patents, it's certainly implied. You seem to be strongly implying that this processor *doesn't* infringe on any MIPS patents. Do you have any facts about this, or is it your intuition?

      I'm just saying there's nothing here to suggest that it DOES. That's the whole art of "spin".

      3. If the Godson-2 is "pretty much a copy of the MIPS R10000" that seems to make performance claims (rather than just saying it's "MIPS compatible"). I'm not sure your Opteron-8086 analogy architecture analogy holds up.

      Performance is largely a function of non-platform-specific things, including having access to the latest silicon processes - and China does. Instruction set is not so relevant - we've gotten to today's performance mostly by heaping layers upon layers of pipelining and caching engineering on top of the original x86 instruction set so I think it's a fine analogy.

      Good catch that this is was a PR release.

      Who knows - there are tons of Silicon Valleyites who are just completely pissed about globalization and the threat of Chinese technology, so who knows the motive for this fine article.

    6. Re:SPIN SPIN SPIN! by jcr · · Score: 3, Informative

      See AMD vs Intel ca. 1991

      You do realize, that AMD had a license to second-source Intel parts, right? That litigation was over the terms of that license.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:SPIN SPIN SPIN! by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All these media outlets and propaganduh can say all they want, all I know is there will come a time when I will still be able to compute FREELY using my cheap Kung-Pau-Dragon-Godson-V-Dear-Leader processor when all of you Linux zealots are just sitting there facing a blank EFI boot prompt :D

    8. Re:SPIN SPIN SPIN! by JohnsonWax · · Score: 5, Funny

      It does not implement the bits that are patented.

      Correct. Both the least significant bit and the most significant bit are patented. The Chinese omitted these for legal reasons. As a result the Godson-2 is relatively fast but highly insignificant.

    9. Re:SPIN SPIN SPIN! by SilentSheep · · Score: 3, Informative

      It doesn't implement the unaligned memory access instructions. This is one of the only useful patents held by MIPS.

      --
      .
    10. Re:SPIN SPIN SPIN! by SilentSheep · · Score: 2, Informative
      1. This processor is 95% MIPS compatible. I understand incompatible, and 100% compatible. What do they mean by this?

      They could not implement the unaligned memory access instructions of the MIPS architecture. MIPS have a patent for this.

      --
      .
    11. Re:SPIN SPIN SPIN! by hattig · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Godson-2 apparently is a clone of the R10000, customized for Chinese manufacturing plants. They probably shrunk the die and put it in a different box, but it doesn't change the processor.

      No, they recreated it from scratch from the instruction set.

      You can't just take an existing die and somehow create a processor design from it (well, you could strip each layer off, then reverse engineer each layer, then spend ages working out what bit does what - easier to just design it from scratch), and then shrink it. They probably even have a license for the design and layout software they're using.

      Godson 1 was the first implementation from scratch. Godson 2 is clearly the first step towards modernisation and optimisation of that design - 150nm or 180nm instead of what? 350nm? Maybe alternative non-patent infringing implementations of the missing functionality?

      It is a different processor, as different as an Opteron is from a Xeon anyway.

      The Chinese know that this processor will be used in products abroad. They know it'll be looked at in detail. Their capitalist side will ensure that there won't be any problems in this regard.

    12. Re:SPIN SPIN SPIN! by Hal_Porter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That might not matter

      Lexra trapped these, and you could write an emulator in software, but it still got sued. The case was settled out of court as far as I can see.

      http://www.linux-mips.org/wiki/Lexra

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    13. Re:SPIN SPIN SPIN! by minus_273 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      sometimes i wonder if the chinese govenment has people to do their astro turfing for them. This almost reminds me of the post there was no student uprising in China in the late 80s...

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
    14. Re:SPIN SPIN SPIN! by dslbrian · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can't just take an existing die and somehow create a processor design from it (well, you could strip each layer off, then reverse engineer each layer, then spend ages working out what bit does what - easier to just design it from scratch)

      Regarding deprocessing then reverse engineering and copying each layer, I know it sounds absurd, but I have a taiwanese friend of mine who said this happens all the time. In fact this person had done it before when working back in Taiwan. She was particularly proud of having copied an RF design and having only a 3dB sensitivity difference between the copy and the original (which IMO is pretty good for having only a die to work off of).

      Our group laughed about this on one RF IC we did because the top layer was copper. As soon as one tried to deprocess the die the copper would corrode and turn all green. If you looked at it under a scope it was just a big green blob, so we called it our 'IP protection layer'.

  2. Forget The Chip... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Funny

    All they need to do is create a knock off copy of the Mac Mini and sell it for $99 USD. They can call it the Red Mini Star. :P

    1. Re:Forget The Chip... by Soko · · Score: 2, Funny

      They can call it the Red Mini Star. :P

      I'd buy one of those for me mum if they'd call the smeggin' thing Red Dwarf.

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    2. Re:Forget The Chip... by eclectro · · Score: 2, Funny

      They can call it the Red Mini Star.

      Yes, and if you don't like the gui/OS you are sent away for "re-education".

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  3. Vintage culture by The+Amazing+Fish+Boy · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Godson-2 is pretty much a copy of the MIPS R10000 which makes it on par with 1995 technology.

    Which is excellent for vintage music lovers like myself, because all the hardware I've used since 1996 and on has absolutely refused to play my Ace of Base MP3s.

    1. Re:Vintage culture by WasterDave · · Score: 5, Funny

      all the hardware I've used since 1996 and on has absolutely refused to play my Ace of Base MP3s

      Ahhh! Just as I was thinking there had been no significant improvements in computing, there it is - real progress.

      Dave :)

      --
      I write a blog now, you should be afraid.
  4. What are they stealing? by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If it's a copy of 1995 technology, and patents last 10 years, I wonder if they're violating anything important.

    1. Re:What are they stealing? by dougmc · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If it's a copy of 1995 technology, and patents last 10 years, I wonder if they're violating anything important.
      In the US, patents last 17 or 20 years, depending on the type. And US patents aren't valid in China anyways.

      Really, there's little stopping them from using any US company's patented stuff at all -- I'm sure the companies would protest, but what's the US going to do about it? Go to war? Cut off diplomatic ties? Boycott them?

      But they (China) may have problems selling stuff that uses this stuff to other countries, especially countries that are more inline with the US ideas of IP. Of course, China itself is a pretty large market, so this may not be a big problem.

    2. Re:What are they stealing? by demachina · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Its only 95% compatible because they didn't implement some instructions that are patented by MIPS presumably so they can sell products using them in the U.S. without getting sued and without paying MIPS any royalties.

      The Chinese are masters at avoiding the payment of royalties for IP.

      The worst problem they have is their fab technology is a couple generations out of date. They are actively seeking suckers... err ... fab equipment makers who want to partner with them while they steal .... err .... license their technology.

      I get the impression that chip equipment makers are one of the few industries that have seen the peril in partnering with China, turning over all their IP to them, and then being put of business by them. I wonder why other industries weren't so bright.

      --
      @de_machina
    3. Re:What are they stealing? by InvalidError · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I thought the USA culture was offshoring everything and cutting seats to cut costs and increase profits to make stock holders happier.

      As for chip makers, Taiwan appears to be where everyone is headed... or would be if there was enough space to accomodate them. It's been a while since I last saw "Japan" printed on an IC. The majority come from either Taiwan, Malaysia or Korea... just like nearly everything else (once you add China) and only more so in the future.

  5. MIPS is dead, anyway by Ray+Alloc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  6. Sweet, but... by vga_init · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Where can I buy one?

    I support localized technology. Where is everyone's capitalist spirit of competition, anyway? I'm eager to see what more China has to offer to the future.

  7. This means.... by linguae · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...alternate architectures aren't dead yet. It's nice to know that some alternatives to the x86 juggernaut are still live and kicking. I wonder if China will make MIPS-based personal computers or workstations? If these new processors are powerful enough, I might import a MIPS-based PC for some nice assembly hacking.

    It would nice to see a day where the x86 juggernaut is effectively challenged.

    1. Re:This means.... by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting
      It's nice to know that some alternatives to the x86 juggernaut are still live and kicking.

      This is NOT an alternative to x86. Think, alternative to embedded PPC/ARM/etc.

      I wonder if China will make MIPS-based personal computers or workstations?

      We'll see MIPS-based PCs about as soon as we'll see StrongArm-based PCs.

      It would nice to see a day where the x86 juggernaut is effectively challenged.

      We saw lots of those days... back in 1995 or so.

      It's really amazing, though, how Intel's BS about the Itanium being faster and cheaper than everything else convinced so many companies to drop their propritary lines, only to leave the door wide-open for AMD.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:This means.... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, discounting the fact that you can buy StrongARM based PCs (most running RiscOS) and have been able to for about a decade, why aren't we seeing more of them? Even at 600MHz, they draw practically no power, so they would make an ideal chip for a silent desktop - especially combined with a few GB of flash instead of a hard disk and a decent amount of RAM to act as cache. Since the chips are currently fabbed for the embedded market, there is no question that they would not be able to keep up with demand.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  8. So if it's the godson... by postgrep · · Score: 2, Funny

    Marlon Brando is the godfather?

  9. The register by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 5, Informative

    "The Register" has a better write up on this story (sorry guys). Apparently they've managed to get Windows CE, Linux, and VxWorks up and running on the CPU.

    As for the patented instruction sets, apparently they aren't used in the chip. (Supposedly that's why it's 95% compatible).

    Currently the chip clocks in at 400-500Mhz, but the next generation is going to be around the 1Ghz mark - by which point China is going to be spitting out all manner of sub $200 computers I imagine.

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
    1. Re:The register by tpgp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Read the article here.

      The byline for the article: Godson-2 now visible in Intel's rear view mirror

      It looks like its doing 400-500MHz on a 180nm process, with 800MHz-1GHz expected on 130nm fairly soon.

      At this point a very low-priced PC becomes feasible, comfortably under $150.

      Sounds good huh?

      --
      My pics.
  10. The Lexra story by morcheeba · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've been working a project that uses the MIPS-I compatible Lexra 4180, and in my research I found they were basically sued out of business by MIPS for creating a clone. This link -- the Lexra story -- is a good summary. From that article: MIPS Technologies claimed that because an exception handler could be created to emulate the function of unaligned loads and stores in software with many other instructions Lexra's processors infringed the patent. It was claimed to basically be a patent infringement case because the instruction set used the patented unaligned load feature. (I just coded this into my mips disassembler -- it takes two instructions to process, but the benefit is that it looks like it would be much easier to implement in hardware)

  11. Re:legal challenge for exporting... by Homology · · Score: 4, Insightful
    But when we find out (if we ever do) that it would be cheaper to spend an extra buck or two and get something that lasts a little longer China is a bind; they probably don't have the infrastructure to compete on quality.

    Funny, that was once said about Japanese products as well.

  12. So now intellectual property is good by heroine · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:So now intellectual property is good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
      Could you provide some sources for your information?
      China's government says its economy is only growing at 5%. In reality it's growing at 10%.
      http://www.china.org.cn/english/2004/Jan/85390.htm
      An agency of the Chinese government announced that economic growth reached 9.1% for 2003.
      They say they won't finish the olympic stadium until 2008. It's finished now.
      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews /TPStory/LAC/20050704/BEIJING02/TPInternational/To pStories
      The truth is very different and much more compelling. The International Olympic Committee told the Chinese to slow down construction due to fears that the Olympic venues would become white elephants (read the link).
      They say 3 gorges won't become operational until 2010. It's operational now.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam
      Probably not very up-to-date but wikipedia says that one generator was online in 2003 and all 26 are expected to come online by 2009. So the dam being operational now doesn't mean much if it's producing less than 10% of its full capacity.
    2. Re:So now intellectual property is good by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They should build an Alpha clone! The chinese could bring back the Alpha, and possibly legitimately too, i doubt HP would put up much resistance to licensing out the Alpha specs to a chinese company, it's not like they're using it themselves..

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
  13. This article here by putko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
  14. Re:with what? by wheany · · Score: 3, Funny

    btw, does anyone know what kind of air force china has?

    They have MIGs that shoot napalm, and if two or more MIGs shoot their missiles on the same target, it will cause a firestorm. They are especially powerful if China has upgraded to black napalm. Also, if you are facing the nuke general, beware of nuke MIGs.

    China also has the Helix helicopter. It is pretty slow, but can be upgraded with a gatling gun, bunker or a propaganda tower, AND napalm bombs. Those napalm bombs are very lethal to ground troops.

  15. Re:Maybe China... by xski · · Score: 3, Insightful

    you must not be old enough to remember when Japan was going to buy everything.

    That didn't pan out either.

    -xski

  16. Re:legal challenge for exporting... by Taladar · · Score: 3, Insightful
    the anwser for china is to invest in R&D. it is what all advanced nations do.
    The answer to the US problems maybe. The answer for China's problem (to progress faster than technologically more advanced nations) is definitely not reinventing the wheel. It is definitely faster to get the technologies by reverse engineering than it would be to research in all possible directions and hope to find the right one. You might not like it but China is definitely doing the right thing from their perspective.
  17. MIPS R10K is actually pretty zippy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you've ever used an R10k Silicon Graphics workstation, you'll know that these MIPS chips are pretty beefy. The floating point performance in particular on modern MIPS chips is spectacular. (R14k chips are used in Tezro currently)

    There's a REASON Silicon Graphics used MIPS chips in their systems until recently. (and they only switched to x86 stuff due to economic pressure, not performance...)

    I have a dual processor R12k SGI Octane on my desk and it still beats my brand new P4 out on a LOT of tasks. And that's a seven year old machine....

    Plus, these are 64-bit chips.

    Sure, the R10k processor is "from 1995". But SGI's policy at the time THEY were using MIPS R10k chips in their $50k workstations was to factor of ten beat everything else on the market. Meaning, their systems were engineered to be at least ten times as powerful as the competition (and ten times the price to boot).

    So... Knockoff R10k MIPS chips, built with modern advancements, smaller dies, and scaled to higher clock rates, will perform VERY WELL comparatively. In fact, for some tasks, (floating point) the chip should compete quite well with a P4 1.5 Ghz... and probably be a whole hell of a lot cheaper. And 64 bit I might add.

    And since there are already designs for systems with massive numbers of MIPS R10K nodes (Origin 2000 for example) which are considered to be "junk" it's not hard to imagine knockoff supercomputers....

  18. this isn't news by maxpublic · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?
  19. Re:legal challenge for exporting... by dalutong · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?
  20. Re:legal challenge for exporting... by dalutong · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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?
  21. Something to be far more worried about for USA by CdBee · · Score: 4, Interesting
    --
    I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
  22. Why say 'China' with no mention of the company? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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'?

  23. Re:legal challenge for exporting... by Triskele · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oddly enough much of what you say about China was said about the USA a hundred years ago. You might want to look into the way USAian companies ripped off European copyrights & patents to produce cheap knock-offs. For a while Europe ignored this (Charles Dickens went to the USA to protest against his books being stolen) until the USA tried to export its knock-offs over in Europe. 100 years later we still haven't harmonised our IP laws...

    --

    --
    USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

  24. Cheap Processor by NFJ25 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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...

  25. Idiot by luweiewul · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Idiot by EzInKy · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Its a known fact that China commits industrial espionage as a regular activity on a daily basis. When you steal all your technology from someone else, that is not "progress", that is ripping off someone else's work.

      So what royalties did "The West" pay for gunpowder and spaghetti?

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  26. Re:"Complex microprocessors"? Hah! by jiushao · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If it is like the R10000 in technology, not bloody likely that just about anyone can put one together. It was a very neat superscalar OoO-chip that is still looking good today.

    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.

  27. More facts about the chip... by Joseph+Lam · · Score: 5, Informative

    A brief description with picture of the chip:
    http://www.pconline.com.cn/pchardware/foreline/cpu /0312/258718.html/

    A 13-page write-up documenting the tough work and challenges faced by one of the chip scientists (e.g. pipelines/branch-prediction/cache design, packaging, etc...):
    http://www.pconline.com.cn/pchardware/foreline/cpu /0312/258719.html/

    Interesting bits from those Chinese sites:
    - (back in 2003) they're already running Linux on it, with applications such as MP3 audio/mpeg movie playing, Mozilla, OpenOffice, games...
    - (back in 2003) Max clock 300MHz, 1-2W power consumption, 1% CPU load for playing MP3, 23% for mpeg movie, SPEC_CPU2000 score of 300
    - will reach 1GHz by early 2006
    - it will be used in low-cost PC with price RMB1,000
    - the 3rd gen of the chip will incorporate multi-core design

  28. China "communist"? Nope... "capitalist". by Dogtanian · · Score: 2, Interesting

    China should have been kept in isolation until their commie system collapsed

    The 'commie system' did collapse. China is no longer communist by any reasonable measure (if they ever were).

    They're certainly totalitarian (so is communism in practice, but although communism-->totalitarian, the converse isn't necessarily true), and an indication that you can have capitalism without democracy.

    In fact, the Americans assumed that by supporting China's move towards capitalism, power would become diffused and there would be more vested interest in not seeking conflict with the US. They did not believe that China would get this far without much greater decentralisation of power than has actually happened.

    To some extent, I think they believed their own propoganda (capitalism --> democracy). I also think they wanted a slice of that *very* large market and figured they had a long enough spoon to sup with the Chinese government.

    and they were ready to embrace a more open system of government

    As I mentioned above, the Americans assumed that capitalism would lead to more open government. Now China is (for example) beginning to compete with the US for oil, many are having misgivings about this.

    Incidentally, keep an eye on Zimbabwe; Mugabe is importing vast quantities of goods from China, and there is evidence that he is seeking to ally with them (I'm assuming that China are equally interested in Zimbabwe's resources). It's a very good explanation as to why he's tearing down street markets and basically destroying his country; leaves it open for Chinese goods to flood the market.

    --
    "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  29. Re:legal challenge for exporting... by Detritus · · Score: 2, Informative
    we have a technology that a US company claims to own. china takes that technology to use for domestic goods. most would expect that if china attempted to sell these goods inside the usa, china would be sued.

    The US International Trade Commission can issue an exclusion order which allows US Customs to seize products that violate US patents, trademarks, and copyrights.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  30. Re:legal challenge for exporting... by LS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  31. Re:legal challenge for exporting... by sean23007 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They are the US's third-biggest trade partner, which means we wield a pretty big stick.

    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 ... during which the US consumer goods sector would look pretty grim.

    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.
  32. Re:"Complex microprocessors"? Hah! by TurkishGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  33. Re:legal challenge for exporting... by dalutong · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If chinese culture "holds education dear and promotes getting as much of it as possible", then why is the Communist Party a "godsend" for the education of the Chinese people?

    because education wasn't free or available to the public until the chinese eliminated the classes that exist in china previously.

    a people can admire something without being able to ever have a chance at it.

    --

    What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
  34. Re:legal challenge for exporting... by colinrichardday · · Score: 2, Informative

    He didn't say that the rate of literacy went up by 1000%, but that literacy went up by 1000%.