TSMC Halts Advanced Chip Shipments To Chinese AI Companies
(Friday November 08, 2024 @10:30PM (BeauHD)
from the get-em-while-you-can dept.)
- Reference: 0175436437
- News link: https://hardware.slashdot.org/story/24/11/08/2248227/tsmc-halts-advanced-chip-shipments-to-chinese-ai-companies
- Source link:
Starting November 11, TSMC [1]plans to stop supplying 7 nm and smaller chips to Chinese companies working on AI processors and GPUs. "The move is reportedly to ensure it remains compliant with US export restrictions," reports The Register. From the report:
> This will not affect Chinese customers wanting 7 nm chips from TSMC for other applications such as mobile and communications, according to Nikkei, which said the overall impact on the chipmaker's revenue is likely to be minimal. TrendForce further cites another China-based source who claims the move was at the behest of the US Department of Commerce, which informed TSMC that any such shipments should not proceed unless approved and licensed by its BIS (Bureau of Industry and Security). We asked the agency for confirmation.
>
> Any moves by the silicon supremo is likely to be out of caution to pre-empt accusations from Washington that it isn't doing enough to prevent advanced technology from getting into the hands of Chinese entities that have been sanctioned. As TrendForce notes, it "highlights the foundry giant's delicate position in the global semiconductor supply chain amid the heating chip war between the world's two superpowers."
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/08/tsmc_chinese_ai_shipments/
> This will not affect Chinese customers wanting 7 nm chips from TSMC for other applications such as mobile and communications, according to Nikkei, which said the overall impact on the chipmaker's revenue is likely to be minimal. TrendForce further cites another China-based source who claims the move was at the behest of the US Department of Commerce, which informed TSMC that any such shipments should not proceed unless approved and licensed by its BIS (Bureau of Industry and Security). We asked the agency for confirmation.
>
> Any moves by the silicon supremo is likely to be out of caution to pre-empt accusations from Washington that it isn't doing enough to prevent advanced technology from getting into the hands of Chinese entities that have been sanctioned. As TrendForce notes, it "highlights the foundry giant's delicate position in the global semiconductor supply chain amid the heating chip war between the world's two superpowers."
[1] https://www.theregister.com/2024/11/08/tsmc_chinese_ai_shipments/
They'll make it themselves (Score:2)
by Njovich ( 553857 )
China was pretty happy to buy their multi billion dollar fabbing, etching and lithography from the west and Taiwan, but being forced to make it themselves, they surely will now. Huawei is now making advanced AI chips using US etching tech that Applied Materials and LAM happily provided to China, and older DUV processes from ASML. (https://archive.is/zIZqW)
While behind on ASML's EUV tech, apparently they are able to make competitive chips anyway. Given that the Chinese government has now made it a priority u
Re: They'll make it themselves (Score:2)
by memory_register ( 6248354 )
I will believe the Chinese can make a decent chip when it is independently tested. Their state media claiming it means nothing.
Re:Delicate position indeed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Putting embargoes on software implementations of algorithms was a pretty stupid idea. But back then, PCs only existed for 20 years, and wasn't even widespread for half that time period. Legislators didn't understand what software was.
The US is not trying to embargo an idea. They're trying to embargo the manufacturing equipment needed to make those ideas achievable in our lifetime. And frankly, I support that, especially since the CCP is gearing up to modernize their military equipment and capabilities. And FU to the traitor vulture capitalist bankers taking it in the shorts now.
Re: (Score:3)
The US still has [1]export restrictions [doc.gov] for cryptography -- and that's for non-military end use. Military end uses are regulated much more strictly.
[1] https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/policy-guidance/encryption