China’s domestic semiconductor industry landscape has changed considerably. The Biden administration has continued to impose export control restrictions on Chinese firms, and the October 7, 2022, package of controls targeted not only advanced semiconductors (such as GPUs used for running artificial intelligence and machine learning workloads) but also expanded significantly on controls over semiconductor manufacturing equipment (SME). One goal of the U.S. controls is to prevent Chinese firms from moving into nonplanar technology processes, such as FinFET and eventually Gate All Around (GAA). The new restrictions included novel end-use controls and controls on U.S. persons, posing major new challenges...
Nope. China won’t figured it out and will only be able to do semiconductors that trail behind a lot for a very long time.
The smallest node that actually works for them is 16 nm, SMIC’s 7 nm in the new Kirin 9000S Chip is not even close, especially compared to the Krin 9000 wich is made with TSMCs 5nm node. Performance and Efficiency are up to 45% behind TSMCs stuff (Which is not something that can be explained away with just because of the smaller node).
But that’s not all: The way SMIC manufactures these chips is extremely expensive, due to the fact that they have to use multi-patterning. This also effects yields significant. They have no chance to compete on the open market against Samsung, Intel and TSMC, even with the high subsidies from the Chinese government. Also, while the way they are being produced allows for 6 nm, the gate length and contact width are going to reduce yield even more.
I feel like this is very short sighted. Yes, they can’t do it now. Yes, they are far behind…
But as a manager and a father, the textbook way you get someone to truly learn something and grow is to give them pointers, give them a reason to want to do it, and then let them figure it out on their own. This is how kids learn to walk, how people get good at games, how employees are pushed to learn and grow in their roles, and how countries develop their own tech.
China clearly has enough examples and pointers (legally or not), and now we have a given them a reason to do it (barring them from importing it, but still needing the tech). It will take a while, and their end goals and processes might be different than what ours were. I.e., Sometimes my kid thinks of doing something a different way and it still works. Time will tell. But in the end, they will have their own logistics, their own factories, and their own products. They might be worse, but they could definitely be better, that’s all up to them.
If you wanted China to stay dependent on us, then this was not the right move.
Eventually maybe. But it will be super tough to get to the leading edge, because by the the time they reach where the rest of the world currently is, the rest of the world will go a couple more steps ahead.
What companies like ASML have achieved are half a century of R&D that even if china just copy, paying no attention to IP, there are so many things to perfect. Things like the specialized mirrors and optics that are needed.
China can probably one day get to where the rest are currently in a few years, but to both manufacture and keep per unit costs down at the same time is not an easy hurdle to cross.
SMEE already has an advanced DUV lithography machine. SMIC already knows how to scale foundry operations. China can already domestically produce basically everything needed in a lithography machine
Literally, literally, China’s only issues are the gap from DUV to EUV. These include the light source, photo resist, and a few other factors, but it’s by no means building from the ground up.
Edit: oh, and Chinese lithography machines are notoriously cheap compared to the competition
I work with a few people from China. What do you think they will say if I ask them if they have a way to say yes to other people in the language they speak when they call their parents?
I would wager that if you asked that question to Chinese people, they’ll answer something like “we use 对, which means correct”, as I explained earlier.
Ask them if they like ice cream, but to answer in Chinese.
They are not going to say “对", they’ll say ”喜欢“（I like it), “不喜欢”,(I don’t like it) or some variation.
They won’t say 对 because “correct” doesn’t answer the question “do you like ice cream?”
You can get an approximate or what you can assimilate as a functional answer to your questions, but you’ll never get a “yes”.
That’s just how “yes” works in all Chinese languages and dialects.
And this is the tip of the iceberg.
Lacking a word for"yes" is one difference among thousands this culture has that determines their reactions to what you think are subtle influences, while you are assuming that culture will react in a way that you understand, even though you can’t understand it by virtue of your simple, practical differences and context.
Bearing in mind that this is a fraction of a percent of the cultural differences, "是“ means “it is” and "不是“ means “it isn’t”. Neither of them mean yes or no, and would be an incorrect answer to “do you like ice cream?”
" Do you like ice cream?"
" It is."
You can understand what they’re going for, but you are not prompting the response you would expect to because that answer doesn’t exist in those languages or in those cultures.
The framing and context of a single word seems small, but when you’re asking a child “do you like ice cream” but you’re not allowed to ask it in anway that they can say yes or no to you and employ the complexities and implications of those words, the situation is different.
" You like ice cream, correct or incorrect?"
They’ll answer you, but you’ve taken away their independent facility to formulate an answer.
" Ice cream is good, is it or is it not?"
Again, they’ll answer you, within the strict confines of your question. There’s no gray area in your question, which is how you have to ask it in order to elicit any sort of response.
You give them two possible answers, they choose one.
That in turn shapes how you and they see questions in general. How questions and behavioral prompts like the types you’re suggesting are perceived, are asked and responded to.
You can imagine how linguistic formation can determine thought processes pretty quickly, layer upon each other and result in a consciousness you don’t quite recognize.
And that’s from one word among a couple dozen thousand, and those are all only words and ignoring all other parts of the culture.
As I’ve mentioned multiple times from the beginning, it’s a salient example of how your paternal metaphor about the US prompting China to behave a certain way is entirely wrongheaded.
And it isn’t a “position”, it’s a linguistic fact.
English not having gendered nouns is a fact, not a “position”.
是 and 不 can be functionally understood to mean yes and no, but they’re certainly not direct translations and not correct answers to asking someone if they like something.
If you ask in Chinese if somebody likes something, You’re going to get the answers"喜欢“ or "不喜欢“, not "是/不是“.
You can get "是“ by asking about the concrete nature of whether something is or is not.
"这是公园吗“?
"是“ or "不是“
A Chinese language speaker can use these two words to convey what an English speaker understands as “yes” or “no” that what you’re referring to is or is not a park. But they are not saying"yes" or “no”.
They’re saying “it is” or "it isn’t“, which are different words with different semantics.
It’s a response to an example from a commenter saying that if the US treated China like the comments are treats their own child, they’ll be able to manipulate and receive a desired response, and that the US is going about semiconductor sanctions wrong.
This is a terrible analogy, as the US and China do not have a paternal relationship, or share similar cultural or behavioral contexts or environments, and there’s no reason that the US should expect China to respond to its prompts how the US expects china too
7nm isn’t close to 5nm? There’s a difference of 45%? What! No way!
Fact is, the Huawei Mate 60 has moved over 30 million units. While that’s in no way comparable to Apple’s 200+ million units annually, it’s a significant scale representing a robust supply chain that’s capable of churning out functioning chips. If, by your claims, yields are low because of an immature process, then you’d only expect yields to go up as the process matures.
Yield is not a static factor, but one built on by process development and co-design. You can look at how Intel’s yields have increased over the years: they refrained from using EUV on their 10nm (Intel 7) process and, while they ran into a bunch of engineering challenges and delays, still ended up shipping Intel 7 at scale.
These aren’t unsolvable issues, but ones of engineering and manpower and skill. EUV still requires multi-patterning for 3nm, so it’s not like the problem has been eliminated.
Nope. China won’t figured it out and will only be able to do semiconductors that trail behind a lot for a very long time. The smallest node that actually works for them is 16 nm, SMIC’s 7 nm in the new Kirin 9000S Chip is not even close, especially compared to the Krin 9000 wich is made with TSMCs 5nm node. Performance and Efficiency are up to 45% behind TSMCs stuff (Which is not something that can be explained away with just because of the smaller node).
But that’s not all: The way SMIC manufactures these chips is extremely expensive, due to the fact that they have to use multi-patterning. This also effects yields significant. They have no chance to compete on the open market against Samsung, Intel and TSMC, even with the high subsidies from the Chinese government. Also, while the way they are being produced allows for 6 nm, the gate length and contact width are going to reduce yield even more.
So they simply can’t flood the market.
I feel like this is very short sighted. Yes, they can’t do it now. Yes, they are far behind…
But as a manager and a father, the textbook way you get someone to truly learn something and grow is to give them pointers, give them a reason to want to do it, and then let them figure it out on their own. This is how kids learn to walk, how people get good at games, how employees are pushed to learn and grow in their roles, and how countries develop their own tech.
China clearly has enough examples and pointers (legally or not), and now we have a given them a reason to do it (barring them from importing it, but still needing the tech). It will take a while, and their end goals and processes might be different than what ours were. I.e., Sometimes my kid thinks of doing something a different way and it still works. Time will tell. But in the end, they will have their own logistics, their own factories, and their own products. They might be worse, but they could definitely be better, that’s all up to them.
If you wanted China to stay dependent on us, then this was not the right move.
Eventually maybe. But it will be super tough to get to the leading edge, because by the the time they reach where the rest of the world currently is, the rest of the world will go a couple more steps ahead.
What companies like ASML have achieved are half a century of R&D that even if china just copy, paying no attention to IP, there are so many things to perfect. Things like the specialized mirrors and optics that are needed.
China can probably one day get to where the rest are currently in a few years, but to both manufacture and keep per unit costs down at the same time is not an easy hurdle to cross.
SMEE already has an advanced DUV lithography machine. SMIC already knows how to scale foundry operations. China can already domestically produce basically everything needed in a lithography machine
Literally, literally, China’s only issues are the gap from DUV to EUV. These include the light source, photo resist, and a few other factors, but it’s by no means building from the ground up.
Edit: oh, and Chinese lithography machines are notoriously cheap compared to the competition
Removed by mod
I work with a few people from China. What do you think they will say if I ask them if they have a way to say yes to other people in the language they speak when they call their parents?
I would wager that if you asked that question to Chinese people, they’ll answer something like “we use 对, which means correct”, as I explained earlier.
Ask them if they like ice cream, but to answer in Chinese.
They are not going to say “对", they’ll say ”喜欢“（I like it), “不喜欢”,(I don’t like it) or some variation.
They won’t say 对 because “correct” doesn’t answer the question “do you like ice cream?”
You can get an approximate or what you can assimilate as a functional answer to your questions, but you’ll never get a “yes”.
That’s just how “yes” works in all Chinese languages and dialects.
And this is the tip of the iceberg.
Lacking a word for"yes" is one difference among thousands this culture has that determines their reactions to what you think are subtle influences, while you are assuming that culture will react in a way that you understand, even though you can’t understand it by virtue of your simple, practical differences and context.
I have one counterpoint: 嗯
I don’t see the relevance.
How about “shi”…?
Bearing in mind that this is a fraction of a percent of the cultural differences, "是“ means “it is” and "不是“ means “it isn’t”. Neither of them mean yes or no, and would be an incorrect answer to “do you like ice cream?”
" Do you like ice cream?"
" It is."
You can understand what they’re going for, but you are not prompting the response you would expect to because that answer doesn’t exist in those languages or in those cultures.
The framing and context of a single word seems small, but when you’re asking a child “do you like ice cream” but you’re not allowed to ask it in anway that they can say yes or no to you and employ the complexities and implications of those words, the situation is different.
" You like ice cream, correct or incorrect?"
They’ll answer you, but you’ve taken away their independent facility to formulate an answer.
" Ice cream is good, is it or is it not?"
Again, they’ll answer you, within the strict confines of your question. There’s no gray area in your question, which is how you have to ask it in order to elicit any sort of response.
You give them two possible answers, they choose one.
That in turn shapes how you and they see questions in general. How questions and behavioral prompts like the types you’re suggesting are perceived, are asked and responded to.
You can imagine how linguistic formation can determine thought processes pretty quickly, layer upon each other and result in a consciousness you don’t quite recognize.
And that’s from one word among a couple dozen thousand, and those are all only words and ignoring all other parts of the culture.
All this to defend your position that billions of people don’t have a way to say “yes”.
As I’ve mentioned multiple times from the beginning, it’s a salient example of how your paternal metaphor about the US prompting China to behave a certain way is entirely wrongheaded.
And it isn’t a “position”, it’s a linguistic fact.
English not having gendered nouns is a fact, not a “position”.
What the fuck are you talking about. 是 Is a direct translation for yes. And we absolutely would answer
你喜欢冰淇淋吗 With 是的。
Similarly we would absolutely answer in the negative to that question with 不。 Because 不 is absolutely a direct translation of no.
To repeat 是 and 不 are direct translations of yes and no where you can drop them in replacement in English.
是 and 不 can be functionally understood to mean yes and no, but they’re certainly not direct translations and not correct answers to asking someone if they like something.
If you ask in Chinese if somebody likes something, You’re going to get the answers"喜欢“ or "不喜欢“, not "是/不是“.
You can get "是“ by asking about the concrete nature of whether something is or is not.
"这是公园吗“?
"是“ or "不是“
A Chinese language speaker can use these two words to convey what an English speaker understands as “yes” or “no” that what you’re referring to is or is not a park. But they are not saying"yes" or “no”.
They’re saying “it is” or "it isn’t“, which are different words with different semantics.
what does this have to do with semiconductors?
It’s a response to an example from a commenter saying that if the US treated China like the comments are treats their own child, they’ll be able to manipulate and receive a desired response, and that the US is going about semiconductor sanctions wrong.
This is a terrible analogy, as the US and China do not have a paternal relationship, or share similar cultural or behavioral contexts or environments, and there’s no reason that the US should expect China to respond to its prompts how the US expects china too
theres nothing paternal about relationships between countries
in fact we are siblings.
Nothing paternal, that was the problem here. It’s a pretty insulting analogy
Maybe cousins, with the distance, equal standing and cultural differences.
i’m sorry but you aint making sense to me.
7nm isn’t close to 5nm? There’s a difference of 45%? What! No way!
Fact is, the Huawei Mate 60 has moved over 30 million units. While that’s in no way comparable to Apple’s 200+ million units annually, it’s a significant scale representing a robust supply chain that’s capable of churning out functioning chips. If, by your claims, yields are low because of an immature process, then you’d only expect yields to go up as the process matures.
Yield is not a static factor, but one built on by process development and co-design. You can look at how Intel’s yields have increased over the years: they refrained from using EUV on their 10nm (Intel 7) process and, while they ran into a bunch of engineering challenges and delays, still ended up shipping Intel 7 at scale.
These aren’t unsolvable issues, but ones of engineering and manpower and skill. EUV still requires multi-patterning for 3nm, so it’s not like the problem has been eliminated.