Slashdot Mirror


China Switching To Home-Grown Chips For Supercomputers

rubycodez writes "The Tianhe-1A system will be the last Chinese supercomputer to use imported Intel and AMD processors. By years end, China's own 64 bit MIPS-compatible 65nm 8-core 1GHz version of the Godsen (Longsoon family) processors will be used, including 10,000 of them for the 'Dawning 6000' supercomputer. Yes, the chips can and usually do run GNU/Linux, but also can run FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD."

14 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Domination by Issarlk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That sounds like a good thing. These guys actualy make stuff instead of trolling the world with ever more batshit insane *CTA treaties.

  2. Re:Domination by jacksonyee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As a Chinese American, I'm glad to see China using their own technology, but it's hardly any sign of world domination, especially when the Chinese chips aren't anywhere close to Nehalem, Fusion, or Sandy Bridge. China has already forced Microsoft to hand over the source code to Windows previously, and being aware of exactly what you're getting from a foreign company or agency is a wise move for any developing nation. Remember the big debate over the NSA_KEY variable a while back?

    Besides, when it comes to spying, I would take Mossad over Intel or AMD anyday.

  3. it is Loongson family by slonik · · Score: 4, Informative

    The processor family is called Loongson and not "LongSoon" as summary says. But the typo is funny in its own way.

  4. Re:Silly. by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Speaking of which, it does make me wonder about all this fuss over 64 bit ARM chips for datacentres. There are already high performance, low power 64 bit MIPS chips and have been for years

    Not really. Low power MIPS64 chips use 10-20W. Low power ARM chips use under 1W. They're both low power within their various domains, but the ARM chips get a lot more performance per Watt. Most of the time, the MIPS chips are more interesting for supercomputing, because they have better floating point, better interconnect (there's a lot of experience floating around building large MIPS systems, a lot from ex-SGI people), better toolchains (MIPS has been in HPC so long that it's a standard target for compiler in that market), and better overall performance.

    The ARM chips are interesting because a lot of server tasks are not CPU-bound. You can stick 64 ARM SoCs, each with enough flash and RAM to run a small business server, in a 1U case and not worry about heat. You can connect it to a big SAN for storage of data (just put the OS and apps on the flash). Idle power usage can be a few mW per server, power usage under load is basically the power usage of the SAN - the rest of the hardware is adding 1W or so.

    It's a mistake to confuse the server and HPC markets. They have very different requirements.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  5. Re:Chinese People's Daily by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    and anyone want to fill me in why 10,000 8-core MIPS chips at 1ghz can be expected to outperform 12,000 12-core x86 chips at 2.1ghz?

    I missed that claim in TFA. There are very good reasons for wanting to use their own chips though. They have a lower power envelope (around 20W for the quad-core version), but more importantly they are helping to ramp up the economies of scale for the production. 10,000 is about the smallest run you can do for a CPU and it be cost effective. A single order of that size makes the per-unit cost low enough that it becomes attractive for other companies (or projects within China), which helps fund future development, rather than sending the R&D money overseas to the USA / Israel.

    It's worth noting that these chips are now produced with all of the relevant patents licensed from MIPS Technologies, so they can legally be sold in the USA.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  6. Wrong. Dead Wrong. by lkcl · · Score: 4, Informative

    you are completely wrong. this processor has over 200 x86 emulation instructions, allowing it to run x86 code with only a 30% performance penalty, under qemu. it also has two 256-bit vector pipelines that provide SIMD floating-point operations so powerful that a single 1ghz core can do 1080p at over 100 frames a second. to claim that "it will never work" in the face of evidence that you simply haven't looked at is ridiculous. look up the specifications on the GS464V, please. also, you are not aware that the Chinese Government has purchased 25% of MIPS, and is working with the MIPS teams in the U.S. to create this processor. this processor *IS* MIPS's high-performance, low-power 64-bit MIPS chip.

  7. 28nm 16 cores is next by lkcl · · Score: 3, Informative

    the article has missed out some important information, which is that they are planning two versions of the CPU. the first is a Quad-Core 65nm, and the second is a 16-core 28nm, which will use the same amount of power (about 12-15 watts). hopefully they will also do a Single-Core 28nm which would be under 1 watt, because at 1ghz the SIMD units are so powerful they can do 1080p at 100 frames per second. really, this CPU design is a game-changer. i've been advocating their use for some time - http://lkcl.net/laptop.html

  8. Re:Domination by smallfries · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Taking a snapshot of where the Longsoon is now and comparing against where AMD and Intel are now is flawed. The processor business chases moving targets, rather than comparing single samples you need to look at a longer history to try to estimate the rate of change.

    Intel started 30 years ago. The Longsoon project started 9 years ago. In that time they have closed the gap on Intel to about 3 years. This 65nm design is comparable with something from about 2007 (the clock speed is lower but having 8 cores helps a lot). The real question is where they will go next.

    If they meet their stated plan they are going to skip the 45nm node and make the Longsoon 3B on a 28nm process. They are aiming at a higher clockspeed, more cores and a large integrated vector co-processor that would rival Fusion or Larabee. If they can do what they claim then they are in the process of overtaking Intel and AMD now and we will see the effects on the world processor market over the next five years.

    Whether or not they can do this is a big question, and according to the stories in the press it caused quite a debate at HotChips when they announced these plans. It's not clear who will be licensing them a 28nm fab, or quite how they've packed that much into a design. It's not clear how AMD and Intel will respond to a new competitor with state backed funding and a huge protected market.

    The next five years will be interesting times...

    --
    Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  9. Re:Domination by LordNimon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Taking a snapshot of where the Longsoon is now and comparing against where AMD and Intel are now is flawed. The processor business chases moving targets, rather than comparing single samples you need to look at a longer history to try to estimate the rate of change.

    I'm sorry, but it's ridiculous to think that because Longsoon starts today at 1GHz, that they will be able to accelerate faster than Intel and eventually overtake them. The rate of change has got nothing to do with the starting point. A 1GHz MIPS core is easy to make by today's standards, so it just doesn't mean anything.

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
  10. Re:Domination by swalve · · Score: 3, Informative

    You make a good point. One of the tragedies of the US is our frontier and pioneering spirit. (Not that other people and countries don't have the exact same thing. But the US just happens to be the biggest right now.) We do the hard work of inventing a lot of things, the hard work of refining the processes. And then other countries and peoples learn from our mistakes and do "better" than we did at it.

    Of course, it would probably have been a lot harder for the Chinese if some Intel or AMD partner hadn't sold their fab plant to the Chinese.

    I'm not complaining- I'd still rather be in the US. But it is galling to hear people make comparisons that just don't work. It is easy to improve upon something that someone has already been busting their asses on. This doesn't make the Chinese "better" (nor does inventing it first make the US better). It's just a different thing.

    At work the other day, someone was pounding their head against the wall trying to figure out why their computer wouldn't read a DVD. Hours. They ask me what I think might be wrong. "Maybe the disk is corrupted?" Sure enough, the disk was (functionally) blank. They effused and groveled at my "genius". Fuck no. They did all the other things, I just identified (guessed) at the thing they didn't try.

    Also, the pioneers get the arrows and the settlers get the land. Beware!

  11. Re:Domination by pipatron · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We do the hard work of inventing a lot of things, the hard work of refining the processes. And then other countries and peoples learn from our mistakes and do "better" than we did at it.

    And all of mankind benefits. Too bad so many people are stuck in the "us and them" mindset.

    --
    c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  12. Re:Domination by pipatron · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, because the chinese are stupid and they don't have any engineers.

    What the hell are you people on? Can't you see the clear patterns? China began exactly like every other nation: first they copy, then the invent, then they lead. Compare with Japan. In the 60ies, you spoke of "cheap japanese copies". Then they took over, now you have Toyota and Sony.

    Do you really really believe that a 5000 year old civilization with nearly 1.5 billion people, the highest average IQ in the world and lead by engineers, won't figure out how to design a CPU? What will it take for you to wake up?

    --
    c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */
  13. Re:Domination by Cookie3 · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Japanese elite *may* have outlived the European/American elite but I'm gonna [citation needed] you on that one... The Japanese common man, however, certainly did NOT live longer or better than his Western counterpart.

    I refer you to "Standard of Living in Japan Before Industrialization: From what Level did Japan Begin? A Comment" by Yasukichi Yasuba in The Journal of Economic History Vol. 46, No. 1 (Mar., 1986), pp. 217-224.

    Yasuba takes to task the notion that life for the commoner in Japan was better than that in the West. While economic development HAD been ongoing throughout the Tokugawa shogunate, and circumstances had improved for the Japanese laborer, the reality of the situation is that farmers here and farmers there both were treated very poorly. He also points out, specifically, the flaw in Hanley's research (which estimated life expectancy to be around 40 years in Japan) specifically used a source which excluded year 0 deaths, and then substituted Western infant mortality rates in its place. At the time, Japan would be much closer to India than the West. By using data which matches temple records more closely, Yasuba suggests that the actual life expectancy of the time was around 35, which (again) puts it below the West.

    --
    present day... present time... hahahaha...
  14. Re:Domination by hey! · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Your reasoning is impeccable, but I can't begin to count the number of times market forces, amortizing massive investments over huge economies of scale, have trumped common sense.

    What's interesting here is how differently China plays this game. They're focused on long-term national prestige and influence, so they can tolerate being a few years behind by specifying the use of domestic products. That ensures the cash flow their enterprises need to catch up. That would. be unthinkable in the US, with the. exception of a few companies like Boeing, and. even then it's ideologically incorrect to be up front. about helping the chosen enterprise. The standard position is that the competitor kettle is blackened by government favoritism.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.