
Guangzhou Supercomputer Center Added to US Technology “Denial List” - tete
http://www.vrworld.com/2015/04/07/usa-shocks-intel-ban-on-china-xeon-supercomputers/
======
err4nt
Is the US slowly bowing out of the international tech scene?

China is still going to get their processors from somewhere, the difference is
if they don't get them from US companies then no money gets added to the US
economy when they do buy their chips.

This type of government interference doesn't hurt Chinese businesses at all,
but could damage or destroy US-based businesses that may depend on foreign
customers to stay afloat. This only serves to hurt US business and limit the
amount of money being added to the US economy by Chinese consumers. It feels
like a spiteful, self-destructive move to me.

~~~
Kalium
It is perhaps naive to assume that any given part can be had with identical
properties and costs from American or non-American suppliers.

Also, there are other considerations at hand, such as making life harder for
foreign intelligence agencies.

~~~
emn13
I really can't imagine this has any impact on any chinese intelligence agency
whatsoever. Tianhe-2 is already the #1 supercomputer - what possible
difference could a minor (it's not an order of magnituge faster, and software
doesn't scale perfectly anyhow) upgrade make?

~~~
Kalium
It cuts off one avenue by which a foreign country might gain useful
information from within American companies. China in particular is notorious
for their industrial espionage.

~~~
kuschku
That’s actually a hilarious statement, considering how notorious the US is for
their industrial espionage. Both china and the US are equally bad in that
situation, and both equally try to fully observe every single step any of
their people does.

~~~
outworlder
Not the same, though. The US does quite a lot of original research. Industrial
espionage in this context is more about predicting the adversary's moves, not
stealing their IP.

The 'stealing' part takes on many forms. One of them is:

[http://thediplomat.com/2013/11/how-china-plans-to-use-the-
su...](http://thediplomat.com/2013/11/how-china-plans-to-use-the-su-35/)

> Russia understandably became upset when its star export appeared as an
> indigenously produced J-11 in China – without a licensing agreement.

In short, China has a pretty large technological gap, and does anything
necessary to shorten the gap as quickly as possible.

And that's the government. There's no indication that private Chinese
companies are any better in this regard. In fact, you can even find
'counterfeit' cars.

One wonders why US companies outsource their manufacturing there. Their
technology will be 're purposed', without any need of industrial espionage, by
the standard definition of it.

------
nkurz
This seems insane, but appears to be true. Here's an article with a little
more supporting information:

[http://www.hpcwire.com/2015/04/08/chinese-supercomputing-
org...](http://www.hpcwire.com/2015/04/08/chinese-supercomputing-orgs-placed-
on-us-entity-list/)

While I'm excited that Intel may experience greater competition (resulting in
lower profits and faster development) I wouldn't have expected this to be the
mechanism.

------
detaro
Guess the Chinese were on the right track when they started their programs for
domestic CPUs and other computing parts. With a bit of luck, the rest of the
world gets useable alternatives to Intel and therefore cheaper chips out of
it.

~~~
Guvante
Intel is only dominating the x86 scene and this article says that China is
working on different architectures.

------
saganus
I know this is nitpicking but... I really hate when journalists who I would
presume have some studies in literature, confuse "then" and "than".

I'm not a native English speaker and I know the difference, and for some
reason this particular mistake and "their/they're/there" makes me choke.

Like I said, totally nitpicking on an otherwise interesting article but
still...

"...with true blue CPUs possibly faster per socket _then_ even the next
generation Xeon Phi..."

/rant

~~~
jjoonathan
This kind of thing can creep up when you least expect it. I'm a native
speaker, I've had a solid and reliable intellectual understanding of these
distinctions since grade school, and yet somehow on a paper a few years back I
substituted "weather" for "whether" throughout the whole thing. Not because I
had forgotten the distinction, but because I just wasn't paying attention.

~~~
saganus
I guess you have a fair point. And I'm certain I've made such mistakes as
well, it's just that I can't stand those two particular errors for whatever
reason :) Maybe I'm getting old...

------
humanarity
I find it interesting to consider valuations for the two costs in allowing the
chips to be used.

Intel chip revenue, and future business growth = +X

Security concerns, and future security concerns = -Y

I really wonder what the value of X-Y is, i.e., what's the net benefit? It's
hard to reason about as a member of the public without inside information. Y
is particularly opaque in this case.

Also I really think the narrative of China versus or competing with the US is
overcooked. It's my feeling that both countries have far more pressing
domestic and regional concerns than each other, and could stand to benefit far
more from mutual strength than from any adversity. I guess the narrative makes
for compelling reading tho, on both sides, for public consumption. Maybe
similar to how the West vs Russia narrative of the Cold War promoted
scientific activity.

I just think the world's substantially moved on from such binary narratives,
because as countries have developed and strengthened economic relationships,
they actually have less to worry about in terms of conflict with each other.
Then again, I guess a lot of what happens is opaque to reasoning about form
the outside.

So perhaps this is not a US vs China thing at all. Maybe there's some other
strategy at play.

~~~
tete
> It's my feeling that both countries have far more pressing domestic and
> regional concerns than each other

However domestic concerns that are hard to solve can benefit from (made-up)
external concerns. It has also been used to enforce power internally.

Other than that domestic concerns have the problem that solving them can
change status quo and give the fact that such decisions of course are made by
people that are currently in power it might play a role in keeping that power,
also by distracting from the fact that it might not be to the benefit of the
people.

That of course doesn't have to be the main case and probably isn't here, but
of course that is a pattern, basically like evolution or evolving systems (not
just biologically). Status quo of being alive and dominant usually means that
this dominance will be used to keep it, which often results in stagnation,
which may lead to the benefit becoming a handicap later - like when you are
too specialized to status quo.

The US (government wise) seems to lately struggle a bit with the world
being/becoming multi polar. Like not talking in a bad way, but of course one
has to consider that we are basically just past a century that was basically
about an unipolar world with the US as the only superpower and even if society
and especially individuals change more quickly such a huge structure tends to
be a bit slower, which is something we can see when we look for example at
old/ancient laws, institutions, etc. that still exist.

From a startup perspective: You might consider the old economy slow, but
governments and especially the structures surrounding them are even slower.

On the other hand it might also be related to something like "I am pissed at
you, so you don't get it. Take that" things that sometimes happen, often
causing big effects despite just being a temporal disagreement on some
completely unrelated topic. After all there is just ordinary people working
behind the scenes.

~~~
humanarity
From a startup perspective I think it's an interesting opportunity the kinds
of companies that will emerge to enhance government. I find it somewhat weird
that there are basically no companies, well known and high growth, doing
really integrated things with governments. Maybe I'm missing something here,
and I just feel like there could be a mini boom possible in startups that
provide some kind of enhancements.

Of course there are traditional ones like Palantir and veteran spin offs for
intelligence and military procurement. And there's the big and small DoD
contractors in Maryland. And I've also at various times heard about startups
that aim to "digitize" government in terms of putting forms and processes in
the cloud.

In some ostentatiously liberal places like in South America it seems these
kind of digitisation startups are more popular, because there they're proud of
how "progressive" they are :)

I just feel there has to be way way more possibilities. Maybe I'm just out of
the loop tho, and there's lots of movement.

Basically I like government, because I feel the fundamental principle is
noble: safeguarding order for the people. And I feel like all the things which
don't work, like corruption, are simply inefficiencies which will be removed
as the model (and maybe the tech) evolves.

Status quo is often raised as a criticism of government, and status quo is
government's core purpose, and doesn't necessarily mean it's sinister or
stagnant, tho those sides can emerge.

I think it really works that while everyone is rushing ahead to push their own
agendas, there's large groups who are mostly trying to safeguard the order we
already have. It seems to be not like an evil, and instead a necessary
balance.

So I don't think status quo needs to equal corruption, or lack of innovation:
you can find better ways to maintain what you have!

Also the issues that are sometimes attributed to the status quo attribute of
government I believe stem from other things. The narrative of a crusty elite
few concocting repressive schemes to hold onto the power they're so afraid the
proles will somehow steal from them, even tho the proles haven't interfered
with said elites success in the first place -- just seems like something too
much out of a hero villain trope from the popular consciousness, and lacking
in fidelity or explanatory power for reality. I'd go so far as to say this is
the "Disney delusion" because the spectre of such fictional villains is alike
to something conjured by the finest Disney cartoons! :)

Another cognitive dissonance is people attribute the outsized evils effected
by governments to so called outsized evil of the people in them. It's actually
because power is a force magnifier, so ordinary evil, or which there is plenty
even in everyday life, is given outsized expression through the lens of
governments. Actually, with how chaotic individuals are I find it an amazing
miracle that governments are as peaceful and stable as they are. Which no
doubt stems from the conspicuous effort of people involved.

So while it's a sometimes a common narrative to sledge governments, for a
number of reasons only some of which I touch on here, I feel a more balanced
view of them is clearer. And without a clear view, how can we operate
effectively?

None of which is to say that there aren't plenty of opportunities to create
improvements in governments, a fact which, given the stakes, seems surprising
more startups aren't magnetically drawn to it. An important point is I feel
one reason contributing to lack of sexiness of government for startups is
incorrect stories about government that we are inclined to tell.

I basically think that ordinary people don't reason usefully about power,
because they feel it's something somewhat incomprehensible to them, so they
fallback to tools like the fake hero villain story above, comfortable
"creation" myths which seem to explain the world, and actually may not.

This lack of widespread useful conceptual tools for thinking about government
and power may be one reason contributing to the dearth of government startups,
if there is such a lack!

Thanks for your comment, I hope you also got something out of this, I
appreciate the opportunity to touch on such ideas.

------
higherpurpose
Those Xeon chips are mainstream server chips, are they not? And this
restriction seems to affect only a few Chinese entities. So what's to stop
China from getting the same chips from Intel through another company? Is the
U.S. just going to play whack-a-mole with them?

Also, the reason given for this is so hilarious. China is using the
supercomputers to "research nuclear explosions". China is doing WHAT?! Stop
the presses! China is going to have a nuke!

That said, I think this is a _good_ outcome for China. It will just force them
to build out their own chips (okay, on top of ARM, MIPS, OpenPOWER or even
RISC-V - but why not?!). More competition for Intel is a good thing.

~~~
trhway
>So what's to stop China from getting the same chips from Intel through
another company?

sometimes CBP/FBI/etc. happen to do their job :)

[http://www.fbi.gov/sanfrancisco/press-releases/2015/san-
fran...](http://www.fbi.gov/sanfrancisco/press-releases/2015/san-francisco-
man-and-company-indicted-for-smuggling-sophisticated-electrical-components-to-
russian-federation)

~~~
blackguardx
Wow, he was busted for exporting FPGAs that were rated for the wrong
temperature range. I'm not saying it wasn't nefarious, but it is crazy that
Automotive grade is completely legal at -40C - 125C and but go a little colder
to milspec (-55C - 125C) and you are going to jail.

------
junto
The NSA are screaming 'nooooooooo' as they realise the backdoored Intel chips
aren't going to be used by the Chinese!

~~~
voidlogic
Or maybe they are arranging for a "special batch" of CPUs to make their way to
China like they did with IBM 360s in the cold war. That only lead to oil
pipeline failures...

~~~
adrianpike
Got any more info on this? A quick Google didn't reveal anything.

~~~
GabrielF00
I think he's referring to the 1982 Siberian pipeline explosion. (Not sure it
had anything to do with IBM)
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_pipeline_sabotage)]
[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_Dossier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farewell_Dossier)]

~~~
voidlogic
Yes, I was referring to this, made possible by "special" IBM System/360s that
the Russians thought were black market, but that they were intended to get...

------
Faint
Denying tech sales to China, at this stage is just causing minor nuisance. In
not-so-far future China is going to be much stronger economy than US ever was.
If they want the bigger computers, they will have the bigger computers. Just
calculate any "damage" done with those export rules on Chinese military - is
it $2B more that needs to be spent in order to get the same capability? Or
$20B? You can just watch that money float right past you to their domestic HPC
and CPU industries. In effect, US is trying it's damnest to make China
competitive in the one major high tech export industry that it still has
undisputed world leadership in.

Only circumstance this would make any sense would be if you were sliding fast
and inevitably to open conflict, and causing them setbacks worth of a few
months to a couple of years would be vital. Since that is not the case, this
has nothing but "strategic blunder" written all over it.

------
CHY872
I can't help but feel that not supplying processors to the "National
University of Defense Technology" is basically a textbook use of export regs?

I don't really understand why people are complaining about this one?

~~~
icegreentea
Denying the chinese access to Intel chips for their flagship supercomputing
facility only promotes indigenous Chinese chip manufacturing. Given that
there's no reason why Chinese chip design and manufacturing could not match
and/or exceed western designs, this choice potentially accelerates the rate at
which Western dominance over high tech goods is eroded.

Furthermore, by denying Intel chips in such a high profile manner, this will
likely cause all sorts of antagonization, and reduce the ability to
pressure/guide Chinese growth and development in directions that are more
beneficial for American/Western interests.

~~~
CHY872
This wouldn't have been a surprise for the Chinese. Intel would have been told
a long time ago, and so likely would the university in question.

It also won't be a scenario that China hasn't planned for. The reason that
China's been building up its chipmakers over the last few years is for
precisely this scenario; reducing the reliance on American tech. They've been
doing this quite successfully; Cisco now aren't able to do business with the
Chinese government, iirc.

Lastly, Tianhe-2 was a $400 million computer. The decision to block American
collaboration on a project valued at a considerable fraction of $1 billion
isn't made by some office clerk; it will have been considered at the highest
levels of at least the military, but most likely the government in general.

It's a diplomatic maneuvre specifically designed to hurt China. Intel's just
been caught in the crossfire. They could easily be pacified (for example, by
giving them a supercomputer contract in the US).

In terms of the Chinese reaction, antagonization is probably the point.

~~~
CHY872
et voila! [http://investors.cray.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=98390&p=irol-
newsA...](http://investors.cray.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=98390&p=irol-
newsArticle&ID=2033626)

------
rthomas6
I bet there's some secret info that we don't get to know that would make this
bizarre move make more sense. Maybe China is using this computer to crack
military servers or something.

~~~
jeffbush
I'm not willing to give the government the benefit of the doubt anymore. I
can't recall any instance historically where they have turned out to have been
right based on some secret information, even though they often intimate that
they have some.

~~~
Kalium
It happens quite a lot. The catch is that the whole thing end-to-end is
secret, with the result being that you don't hear about it at all.

All we really hear about on the outside is the screwups. The successes are
silent.

~~~
tomjen3
Usually though most things are declassified eventually. Even Really Big
Secrets like Enigma, CIA memos on the bay of pigs or similar eventually gets
released - so you would think that we would know their old successes.

~~~
Kalium
Many intelligence successes throughout history are known. Most of them are
small, undramatic events like a particular military move being successfully
anticipated and countered. Few of them are large, dramatic events.

------
orik
It appears the US Government is making it up intel by having them use the
chips in a new supercomputer for the department of energy.

[http://techreport.com/news/28092/xeon-phi-chips-will-
fuel-18...](http://techreport.com/news/28092/xeon-phi-chips-will-
fuel-180-petaflop-doe-supercomputer)

------
duaneb
Excellent, finally a chance for some real competition with us chip makers.

------
Igglyboo
> 'opened the kimono'

Kimonos are Japanese, not Chinese.

EDIT: I understand that 'opened the kimono' is already a phrase but it seems
like it was used because the article is about china.

~~~
johngalt
It's a figure of speech, not a cultural reference. It's a term used for
pragmatic openness between companies. Avoiding secrets. I prefer using the
term 'lay your cards on the table'. Less charged.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
> It's a figure of speech, not a cultural reference.

Yes, but it looks like the author thought they were being clever by using that
specific phrase, given the article was about China.

~~~
KaoruAoiShiho
Not really it's an extremely common term that people use all the time. Has
nothing to do with china or japan.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
...did you even read my comment?

------
kevinchen
Meta: there's something funny about the very aggressive, sarcastic way the
article is written. Not journalistic at all and pretty annoying to read even
though there is good information in it.

> _You may think they are not up to the mark, but remember how fast British
> ARM architecture became the dominant processing architecture in the world.
> And this group doesn’t need to worry about the antiquated x86 ISA, worry
> about satisfying the dumbed down shareholder masses, or overpaying their
> marketing and sales staff, as well as the fat check, golden parachute-
> protected CxOs._

------
raverbashing
China needs not to worry about this.

And by the way few people do math "heavy lifting" with x86 CPUs today, they
would rather do it in a GPU

China has the fabs and the expertise (or at least it is getting there). It's a
non issue.

"They have taken the best that the USA has developed (some of key Alpha, GPGPU
and MIPS architects left US over the course of past four years, a lot of them
due to non-renewed visas) and discarded due to corporate shenanigans, and the
continued developing it much farther than anyone expected both on hardware and
software side. "

~~~
pbsd
> And by the way few people do math "heavy lifting" with x86 CPUs today, they
> would rather do it in a GPU

This depends on the workload, really; some workloads are quite GPU-unfriendly.
In any case, the supercomputer in question---Tianhe-2 [2]---derives most of
its computing power from the Xeon Phi [1], a x86-ish many-core vector
processor which looks much like a GPU.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon_Phi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeon_Phi)

[2] [http://top500.org/system/177999](http://top500.org/system/177999)

------
rodgerd
I wonder how long it is before someone decides to buy AMD with a view to
evading these sorts of problems with an x86 license...

~~~
ris
Why in god's name would anyone want an x86 license? Even AMD are moving away
from it where they can.

------
im3w1l
Anyone have more details on these upcoming 64 core ShenWei Alphas?

------
acd
Then there will be a Chinese company like Intel. There is already the Loongson
processor. Arm based?

------
0xdeadbeefbabe
Now china will have less intel.

------
ryan-c
Can we get a title change? It's misleading.

> ... Uncle Sam has put this supercomputer centre, together with National
> University of Defense Technology in Changsha, the system’s creators, and
> Tianjin centre, among others, on so a so-called “Denial List”, which
> prevents any high technology from the USA to be sold to these sites.

If I understand correctly Intel can't sell them _any tech_ nor can anyone else
in the US.

~~~
sctb
Thanks, we updated the title to something that's hopefully more accurate.
We're open to suggestions for a better one.

~~~
ethanbond
"US regulates high-tech exports on Chinese defense research."

A lot less flashy and baity though.

