Wednesday, June 12th 2024
US Government Considers Tighter Restriction on China's Access to GAA Transistors and HBM Memory
According to sources familiar with the matter and reported by Bloomberg, the Biden administration is considering imposing further export controls to limit China's ability to acquire advanced semiconductor technologies crucial for developing AI systems. Gate-all-around (GAA) transistor technology and high-bandwidth memory (HBM) chips are at the center of the proposed restrictions. These cutting-edge components play a pivotal role in creating powerful AI accelerators. GAA transistors, a key feature in next-generation chips, promise substantial improvements in power efficiency and processing speeds. Meanwhile, HBM chips enable high-speed data transfer between a processor and memory. While existing sanctions prevent American firms from supplying Chinese companies with equipment for manufacturing leading-edge chips, concerns persist that China could still attain advanced capabilities through other means.
For instance, China's leading chipmaker, SMIC, could potentially integrate GAA transistors into its existing 7 nm process node, markedly enhancing performance. Access to HBM would further augment China's ability to develop AI accelerators on par with cutting-edge offerings from US firms. The reflections within the Biden administration show a strategic effort to preserve America's technological edge by denying China access to key semiconductor innovations. However, implementing such stringent export controls is a delicate balancing act, as it risks heightening tensions and prompting Chinese retaliation. No final decision has been made, and officials continue weighing the proposed restrictions' pros and cons. Nonetheless, the discussions highlight the pivotal role that semiconductor technology plays in the great power rivalry between the US and China, especially in the AI era.
Source:
Bloomberg
For instance, China's leading chipmaker, SMIC, could potentially integrate GAA transistors into its existing 7 nm process node, markedly enhancing performance. Access to HBM would further augment China's ability to develop AI accelerators on par with cutting-edge offerings from US firms. The reflections within the Biden administration show a strategic effort to preserve America's technological edge by denying China access to key semiconductor innovations. However, implementing such stringent export controls is a delicate balancing act, as it risks heightening tensions and prompting Chinese retaliation. No final decision has been made, and officials continue weighing the proposed restrictions' pros and cons. Nonetheless, the discussions highlight the pivotal role that semiconductor technology plays in the great power rivalry between the US and China, especially in the AI era.
7 Comments on US Government Considers Tighter Restriction on China's Access to GAA Transistors and HBM Memory
The simple bottom line is that China has the 1-Financial means and 2- Incentive and 3- Scale to outcompete US chip advancements in the long term.
Funding to fab equipment development today won't see practical benefit for at least a 6-8 years if not longer. You don't just grow the knowledge and expertise overnight. YTMC got to 232 layer NAND by stealing the design from Micron, that's the only way you go from completely brand new company to leading edge in 4 years.The US and it's partners are trying to stop China from acquiring advanced western goods and technologies that China is likely to turn around and use against them. Whether that be in their attack on taiwan, their stealing of IP, or their sale of equipment to Russia.
It's inherently the right of the US and it's partners to choose who they trade with just as China does.
Similar to when the US cut off oil supplies to Japan in WW2, it's vastly more likely that China will be the aggressor in any military conflict. To emphasis this point, China only has until 2028 when it's population starts rapidly increasing in age due to the lasting impact the 1 child policy had on demographics.
Consumer-facing HBM products (again), when? :laugh:
It's still nothing more than late protectionism, just like EU car tax.
YMTC was born in 2006, it was called "XMC". It was almost sold to Micron, but CCP blocked it. At that time it had developed 2D NAND and 32L MLC, and use it on USB flash disk. In 2016, YMTC was separated from XMC, And began the development of 64L TLC. It was successful in 2019. Then they developed the 128L TLC in 2021. It is now 18 years old.
By the way, YMTC 232L TLC appear on the market earlier than Micron. It was first discovered by Techlnsights in 海康CC700 4TB SSD in late 2022. And you know, YMTC has sued Micron for patent infringement last year and this year.
But YMTC is still a thief, because CCP can time travel. It traveled to the future and stolen Micron's 232L technology.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Memory_Technologies
This is according to their own linkdin as well:
www.linkedin.com/company/%E9%95%BF%E6%B1%9F%E5%AD%98%E5%82%A8%E7%A7%91%E6%8A%80
YMTC and XMC are both are owned by Tsinghua Unigroup (both acquisitions of which occurred in 2016), which is a state controlled entity. YMTC's recent funding has come from China's Semiconductor fund and two privincial investment funds.
www.theregister.com/2023/03/03/chinas_ymtc_us_funding/
XMC was originally a subsidiary of YMTC: www.trendforce.com/news/2024/05/15/news-xmc-initiates-ipo-plan-potentially-becoming-chinas-first-hbm-foundry/
www.trendforce.com/news/2024/05/15/news-xmc-initiates-ipo-plan-potentially-becoming-chinas-first-hbm-foundry/
It's obviously impossible for YMTC to have "originally" owned XMC when XMC was founded more than a decade earlier (in 2006). YMTC themselves and every soure claims YMTC was founded in 2016.
There are multiple sources claiming that XMC is owned by YMTC aside from those above: www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/manufacturing/chinese-foundry-xmc-aims-to-produce-hbm-memory
On what you said, If YMTC was originally XMC and simply changed it's name then why is XMC currently a subsidiary of YMTC and why isn't this relfected on the company's website or any website recording company info? In addition, did the company go through mitosis when it changed it's name and spawn another company with the exact same name as it's subsidiary?
What you seem to be implying (as does the tom's article) is that these names are used almost interchangeably. Ultimately the CCP is the one pulling the strings and it's state companies adhere to none of the basic reporting requirements or regulations that other companies in other countries have to. You may or may not be right in regards as to whether XMC became YTMC simply because it's as clear as mud but the implications of that given the publicly available facts contradict it are far more damning that any point you could have hopped to make.Factually incorrect, YMTC had 232 in novemeber 2022 while Micron had 232 in July 2022:
www.micron.com/about/blog/memory/nand/first-to-market-second-to-none-the-worlds-first-232-layer-nand
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_Memory_Technologies
YTMC was the first to have a consumer SSD with 232 layer flash but that's irrelevant to the date these NAND chips actually started going out. Higher layer NAND Micron chips almost always get integrated into enterprise products before coming to the consumer market.
Not that being first is the end all be all in inventing a product, particularly when you are talking about NAND flash designs that take years to bring to market.This comment demonstrates a lack of the very basics of semiconducter design. As stated above, designs take years to come to fruition. Even if YMTC was 1-3 months early to market (which they weren't), that does not even cover the 9 month tape-out period let alone the design and validation phases.
Different NAND designs have a unique number of layers, hence why no other NAND manufacturer share designs with the same number of layers.
Micron and YMTC are the only one's sharing a NAND design with the exact same layer count, which in and of itself is highly suspicious. Micron accuses them of stealing IP and they have been added to the US government entity list.
Given that you seem to agree that they are essentially an arm of the CCP (as does the facts), that lends further suspicion.Yes, YMTC can sue Micron in the US because the legal system in the US actually allows for the possibility of holding companies, including the government, to account. The same can not be said of China. You are only further pointing out the hypocrisy of the CCP, refusing to hold their own to account while using the freedoms they deny their own people as bludgeons in other countries.