Chinese semiconductor industry

Status
Not open for further replies.

hullopilllw

Junior Member
Registered Member
Anyone follow this ?

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Chipmaker GigaDevice Semiconductor (Beijing) Inc. has received the green light to raise funds for construction of a new factory making DRAM chips, joining a fledgling campaign by local Chinese players aiming to enter a lucrative sector dominated by foreigners.


GigaDevice’s drive into memory also comes as China tries to build up its own chip sector to lower its reliance on dominant players, mostly based in the U.S., Europe, Japan and South Korea. That reliance came into focus last year when the U.S. banned Huawei Technologies from buying many American-made parts, including telecom chips, dealing a major blow to the local tech giant.


GigaDevice said it plans to raise up to 4.32 billion yuan ($611 million) through a private placement of new shares to fund the move into DRAM, one of two major types of memory chips that power smartphones, PCs and other computing devices. It said the securities regulator approved the new share issue last Friday, according to
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
(link in Chinese) to the Shanghai Stock Exchange.

Most of the funds raised would be used to develop new DRAM chips and eventually produce them, GigaDevice said. It added the private placement would go to up to 35 investors, including fund managers, brokerages and other financial institutions. It said the number of new shares would be equal to up to 20% of the company’s total count.


GigaDevice first announced its intent in March, saying its plan would cost about 4 billion yuan, with 3.3 billion yuan of that to be used on DRAM development and mass production.


Most of the world’s DRAM and NAND, the other major kind of memory, are currently produced by South Korea’s Samsung and SK Hynix, as well as U.S. producer Micron Technology, which collectively control 90% of the global market. All three global leaders are now producing chips in the 12 to 19 nanometer (nm) range, while GigaDevice aims to develop its first chips in the 17 to 19 nm space. The smaller the chip’s specification, the more circuits and memory capacity that can be packed onto its surface. GigaDevice intends to wrap up its design and production planning this year, and complete customer validation and start mass production next year.


In addition to its own DRAM plans, GigaDevice is also an investor in ChangXin Memory Technologies Inc., one of China’s other major companies exploring DRAM production. ChangXin is already producing DRAM chips and has invested 15 billion yuan in the campaign, with plans to build out its production in three stages.


A third player, Tsinghua Unigroup, has also been putting resources into DRAM development. The company announced the establishment of a DRAM working group last June, and later said it would set up its production base for the product in the southwestern city of Chongqing. It said it planned to start construction on its facility at the end of last year and start producing chips in 2021.


But simply wanting to produce such high-tech chips may not be enough for China to quickly become a player, since such production requires sophisticated proprietary technology that China now largely lacks, observers have noted. Even before the current Covid-19 outbreak shut down much of China for more than a month, aspiring chipmakers
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
their pockets were simply not deep enough to build a competitive chipmaking industry from scratch, despite stretching their budgets to the breaking point.


Contact reporter Yang Ge ([email protected]; twitter:
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
)
 

Canuck place

New Member
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I think this is a sobering read regarding China's current AI status. It's a bit sombering. Anythoughts on this article. Seems like China is still light years behind the west in these areas.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I think this is a sobering read regarding China's current AI status. It's a bit sombering. Anythoughts on this article. Seems like China is still light years behind the west in these areas.
It's yet another nobody analyst's opinion, the old "yellows can't innovate." It's worthless.

Edit: Just to show you an example of how ignorant they are
For the time being, going public on Chinese stock markets requires three years of profitability, a rule that discourages investment in R&D.
a five-second search would show you that the STAR market where an AI chip company would list allows loss-making companies to list.
 
Last edited:

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I think this is a sobering read regarding China's current AI status. It's a bit sombering. Anythoughts on this article. Seems like China is still light years behind the west in these areas.

Typical German(western) superiority prejudice I know the type there are many of those I personally encountered it. They just site circumferential evidence without hard fact . There are many companies that are active in A! beside Huawei both on software and hardware He probably know only Huawei. There are hundred of universities and thousand of researcher that are active in A1 and this guy does not know
Personal opinion of one German researcher doesn't amount to much
 

Canuck place

New Member
Registered Member
Typical German(western) superiority prejudice I know the type there are many of those I personally encountered it. They just site circumferential evidence without hard fact . There are many companies that are active in A! beside Huawei both on software and hardware He probably know only Huawei. There are hundred of universities and thousand of researcher that are active in A1 and this guy does not know
Personal opinion of one German researcher doesn't amount to much

I think it's important to Lok at both sides. I'm always very surprised at china's progress especially in the last few years, but it's important to look at it objectively and realize there are still deficiencies that's exist I guess. We can't write off all these articles as purely bias but look at ways it can be tackled in China for improvement.
 

ZeEa5KPul

Colonel
Registered Member
I think it's important to Lok at both sides. I'm always very surprised at china's progress especially in the last few years, but it's important to look at it objectively and realize there are still deficiencies that's exist I guess. We can't write off all these articles as purely bias but look at ways it can be tackled in China for improvement.
It's important to consider criticism when it has merit. Meritless criticism is just noise and is best ignored.
 

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
I think it's important to Lok at both sides. I'm always very surprised at china's progress especially in the last few years, but it's important to look at it objectively and realize there are still deficiencies that's exist I guess. We can't write off all these articles as purely bias but look at ways it can be tackled in China for improvement.

You need to be critical when you read something on the net .You cannot believe and accept line, sink and hook because some white guy wrote it on the net First of all what is his qualification. Did he work in A1 in China? Did he read and write in Chinese? Did he work for A1 companies like Tencent, Baidu, Huawei?
Did he do research work in A1 in China say spend 5 years in Tsinghua or Beida?
Did he count and know all the A1 research paper in China? None of those so how he know about the stand of A1 research in China

He does not provide any of those So it is just personal opinion gleaning from reading western website or regurgitating the ad hominem ignorance
 

superdog

Junior Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I think this is a sobering read regarding China's current AI status. It's a bit sombering. Anythoughts on this article. Seems like China is still light years behind the west in these areas.
This really was a poorly written article. It has little evidence or analysis, but full of empty conclusions and predictions. Like
ZeEa5KPul pointed out, stock market rule was one fact-based argument it brought up, and even that was not factual at all.

Besides, not saying a gap isn't there, but of all logic processors, AI chip probably has the smallest China-US gap. The newer a product type is, the less China is behind on it, that's usually how things go.

The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
being quoted at the beginning of the technode article did contain more facts and analysis, but its conclusions were nowhere as extreme as those presented by the article. It felt like the article author cherry picked the most negative parts from the report and twisted them even more so he could push his agenda that "the gap may be larger than it seems".

For example, the research report analyzed China's three large AI chip players (Huawei, Alibaba and Baidu) which are being taken seriously by experts, but the article twisted it into:
China only really has one player capable of competing......Huawei's hisilicon


The research report also discussed the repercussions of US sanctions to both Chinese and US tech companies, pointing out that it may hurt US companies more in the long run because it drives China to become more self-reliant and gives European/Japanese suppliers a competitive edge.

In academia, the report described how IEEE conference attendees in the US welcomed their peer from Huawei despite the latter got his visa rejected and could only join by teleconference. It's easy to ban a visa, but much harder to ban the exchange of knowledge on open publications.

But of course these were ignored by the author as he turned it into a stereotypical US vs THEM narrative:
I’d be interested to see research that asks whether the global community is splitting into Chinese and western halves—perhaps measured by how often researchers on each side of the divide co-author with the other? This disconnect is likely to harm upstart Chinese researchers more than established western ones.


p.s. there were also some parts in the research report which I don't agree with.

For instance, on p.49 of the report, it argued that the "American First" doctrine (I assume it meant the tech sanctions and discrimination against Chinese researchers) and China's Great Firewall (GFW) + Cybersecurity laws were both acts of "techno-nationalism" and bad for AI research.

I don't think these two were comparable. China's GFW and cybersecurity law do not, and were not meant to prevent Chinese researchers from working with their international peers. The GFW was an inconvenience that had plenty of solutions (including "official" solutions), and the cybersecurity law had little relevance to academic research. China's policy has always been to encourage international cooperation, it's clear which side is actively cutting ties.

Still, the research report could be worth a read, the technote article on the other hand......just no.
 
Last edited:

Canuck place

New Member
Registered Member
This really was a poorly written article. It has little evidence or analysis, but full of empty conclusions and predictions. Like
ZeEa5KPul pointed out, stock market rule was one fact-based argument it brought up, and even that was not factual at all.

Besides, not saying a gap isn't there, but of all logic processors, AI chip probably has the smallest China-US gap. The newer a product type is, the less China is behind on it, that's usually how things go.

The
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
being quoted at the beginning of the technode article did contain more facts and analysis, but its conclusions were nowhere as extreme as those presented by the article. It felt like the article author cherry picked the most negative parts from the report and twisted them even more so he could push his agenda that "the gap may be larger than it seems".

For example, the research report analyzed China's three large AI chip players (Huawei, Alibaba and Baidu) which are being taken seriously by experts, but the article twisted it into:



The research report also discussed the repercussions of US sanctions to both Chinese and US tech companies, pointing out that it may hurt US companies more in the long run because it drives China to become more self-reliant and gives European/Japanese suppliers a competitive edge.

In academia, the report described how IEEE conference attendees in the US welcomed their peer from Huawei despite the latter got his visa rejected and could only join by teleconference. It's easy to ban a visa, but much harder to ban the exchange of knowledge on open publications.

But of course these were ignored by the author as he turned it into a stereotypical US vs THEM narrative:



p.s. there were also some parts in the research report which I don't agree with.

For instance, on p.49 of the report, it argued that the "American First" doctrine (I assume it meant the tech sanctions and discrimination against Chinese researchers) and China's Great Firewall (GFW) + Cybersecurity laws were both acts of "techno-nationalism" and bad for AI research.

I don't think these two were comparable. China's GFW and cybersecurity law do not, and were not meant to prevent Chinese researchers from working with their international peers. The GFW was an inconvenience that had plenty of solutions (including "official" solutions), and the cybersecurity law had little relevance to academic research. China's policy has always been to encourage international cooperation, it's clear which side is actively cutting ties.

Still, the research report could be worth a read, the technote article on the other hand......just no.
Impressive review. I commend you on your time spent analyzing the article.
 
Last edited:

Canuck place

New Member
Registered Member
Impressive review. I commend you on your time spent analyzing the article.
In the end though the author of the quoted report did say they China is not going to challenge the US preeminence anytime soon, which I don't think is surprising. Although I was hoping that in AI, china could at least give the US a run for its money so that was slightly disappointing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top