Yes. Double patterning will be verified in this line.
Chinese semiconductor industry
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
- Status
That would make more sense if the US government followed their own ideological speeches. Unfortunately, we all know how America rolls.
D
Deleted member 15949
Guest
SWE and Physics are straightforward --> "ideological speeches"?
Because Havok edited and hide his replied.. Lol
Must have been invited to tea session.
Tell that to the Americans. They are just full of ideological rhetoric, but at the end of the day, when they aren't the top dogs, they forget about free markets with their autarkic ways.
D
Deleted member 15949
Guest
What does this have to do about software development?
Funny you say that because I sense a high degree of ideological bias on your part. My question is why the willing ignorance of the strategic environment. You've been advocating free markets for sanctioned items that everybody knows will prevent China sales for anything designed <=14nm. The question is why? If that doesn't scream ideological bias, I don't know what does? Anybody supporting this obvious nonsense and then claiming technical reasons to support sanctioned products sounds highly dubious.
@foofy Sir thanks for the info
, the way I see it now, the urgency had been heard and its been fast track, The breakthrough that I'm hoping for is being accomplished , if the verification is successful for the 16nm then going to 7nm next year is a possibility. Again trying to hold in my optimism but as we all know we're talking China here , she had given out so many surprises before and when it set her mind on an objective it usually bear positive result. And Sir again I reiterate my gratitude to you , @WTAN @Oldschool and others about first hand info coming strait from the sources. It had given us SDF members accurate knowledge of current Chinese core capabilities and its tech standing worldwide.Synopsys's thousands of EDA programmers are irrelevant to China while Synopsys is essentially excluded from China -- by the US itself. Yes, the software may still be legal to sell in the country (I actually don't know if it is), but if the products made by using it are sanctioned, it's as good as banned.
This means that Chinese EDA companies like Empyrean, Primarius, and (soon) X-Epic have an enormous opportunity to dominate what may soon be the world's largest market for semiconductor designs.
True. Until recently (like the last 10-15 years), China was extremely undeveloped; the technological base did not exist. But that has changed.
Precisely!
I think you are arguing past each other. There is a right and wrong way for the Chinese government to support the semiconductor industry. The wrong way would be to simply use tariffs and subsides to distort prices without changing the market status quo. The right way would be to encourage R&D through incentives such that once the Chinese ecosystem takes off the "free market" settles into a new status quo, where Chinese firms offer competitive alternatives even without any further government intervention.
In the meantime, firms will decide what to buy according to their own cost-benefit and risk assessments. Once the risk of being denied foreign equipment outweighs the risk of adopting domestic tech, they will naturally gravitate toward that new option. And it looks like the tech war is only going to grow.
As I said before, teaching a certain EDA tool does not necessarily "lock in" students anymore than teaching Java locks in students to working for Oracle or Google Android. If anything, familiarity with current EDA tools is necessary to begin the traditional reverse-engineering process of rewriting design specifications.
As long as students are taught how the tools are implemented, it does not really matter where the tool comes from. Kind of like reimplementing a simple finite-element analysis algorithm or a rectangle-packing algorithm as a final project, things almost every CAD tool can perform at a press of a button. Once the fundamentals are there, optimizing comes naturally through research and benchmarking over and over again.
In the meantime, firms will decide what to buy according to their own cost-benefit and risk assessments. Once the risk of being denied foreign equipment outweighs the risk of adopting domestic tech, they will naturally gravitate toward that new option. And it looks like the tech war is only going to grow.
As I said before, teaching a certain EDA tool does not necessarily "lock in" students anymore than teaching Java locks in students to working for Oracle or Google Android. If anything, familiarity with current EDA tools is necessary to begin the traditional reverse-engineering process of rewriting design specifications.
As long as students are taught how the tools are implemented, it does not really matter where the tool comes from. Kind of like reimplementing a simple finite-element analysis algorithm or a rectangle-packing algorithm as a final project, things almost every CAD tool can perform at a press of a button. Once the fundamentals are there, optimizing comes naturally through research and benchmarking over and over again.
- Status