Like its older versions, the new Godson will see no success outside of supercomputers and maybe workstations. It will remain a niche product. Besides hardware, you need software applications ported to the processor and that is where the platform is lacking.
Let's avoid the jingoistic tripe about countries. We should be welcoming Godson to the world stage, since anybody that's involved knows that it takes a world of talent to design and build a commercially viable world class processor. Let's look at some of the leaders
Intel - Designed in Israel, fabbed in US
Qualcomm - US-based company building a UK-based processor (ARM) SoC using a design team in India, fabbing in Taiwan
AMD - Designed in US or Canada (GPU), fabbed in Dresden Germany or Taiwan
Godson - Designed in China, based on a US-based instruction set architecture (MIPS), fabbed in France ?
That was not the case hundreds of years ago when China led the way in innovation. It is only normal that after 200 years or so of stagnation, innovation and free enterprise stalled. However, you have to learn to read well before you can start to write. I believe China to be on the road to be a leader in innovation. Whether this processor proves to be a market hit or not remains to be seen, but it is an effort in the right direction.
Wrt your comment on grant application processes in China vs. US, the system that you describe (I would call it feudal) is also normal at this stage. With time, the cream will always rise to the top. As long as the Government goals are focused and well resourced, the system will improve its efficiency with time. On the way, setbacks will surely happen and money will be squandered, but that's part of the process....
I took a look at Godson II chip spec in the web. The package design is totally of out whack on the EM issue, resulting less than 300MHZ ddr interface.
The chip physical design method is P&R and resulting large die and low performance, high production cost. Nobody designs high end cpu using P&R. The only reason to do this is to get result fast and get more money from the government.
The godson team may be able to design cpu which funcationally work. But they can not produce anything profitable within 5 years. The team is not technically prepared for it.
The Russian move, is merely a request from a highly self-interested player, and it is doomed to fail. You cannot ban multiple process flows, using a single number, and the biggest irony is, Russia is getting the know-how from ST!!
Let's be subjective and avoid political talks.
I dislike capitalism in the USA and communism in China. Either way is corrupted anyway...
Unless Intel makes many wrong moves and loses focus to position itself at the heart of its niche sector to fend off any competitor, China will certainly pose a threat, if and only if Chinese competitor(s) can safeguard its patents, core design expertise, production cost, consumer confidence in its branding.
More and more Chinese companies made its presence felt globally. Huawei, Legend, SMIC etc are making their way to the Tier 1 league. Their capitals are growing. Just China domestic market and economic regeneration is sufficient to spin the cycles, without export to USA.
More and more designers/engineers in American MNCs are Chinese. Less and lesser are American and Canadian, largely due to engineering is a lack luster as a career, compared to banking and other professionals. Look at the top US colleges, more and more are Chinese professors.
Every year, China can produce 400k engineering graduates. On the contrary, Germany, Japan and USA are falling in numbers.
With USA imposing strong protectionism and arrogant on global stage, it is in certain times USA will lose its shine. American need to re-think beyond technology and reflect upon morals and respect for other countries.
Being a superpower is more than just winning technological edge. With Hillary continues to anger more countries with her "airhead" remarks, that will further backfire American attempts to increase economic yields and definitely semiconductor sales.
Will, I partly agree with you but I do not think it can all be blamed on the communist nature of the government, the Soviets had a much more repressive regime and they were relatively successful at science, at least they generated a few Nobel Prize winners. I think it has more to do with the culture. Taiwan and Korea have similar culture to China's, but they are much smaller in size, and the students returned from the West can make much larger impact to the society.
Rick, at least when I was still in China, that was more than 10 years ago, the person who has enough clout to bring in huge amount of fundings calls all the shots. That person usually was well connected politically, but not necessarily technically savvy. I have involved in grant applications in both China and in the US, the review process in China was a joke, at least back then. The other team members had no role in deciding what to do and how to do it, and innovation spirit was largely suppressed because the big boss wanted all the credits.
China has improved dramatically in almost all aspects since. but the fundamental issue remain, on a grand scale it is not a meritorious society. Connection is everything. The Asian system, including China, Japan, and Korea, is good for catching up but not for leading, because once the goals are set, usually set by the US, all you need to do is organize a huge group of engineers to work toward it, which they know are solvable and the solutions can be looked up and copied from publications and, nowadays, on the internet. When I was in school, we were trained to focus on prove theorems that have been proven by ancient Greeks or 17th century Europeans, but not on how to work an open-ended problem. This is true to the entire Asia, not necessarily limited to China.
I agree this cpu will not pose any threat to intel etc.
best case is someone ll invest a company to utilize all the knowhows and end up with sth like huawei etc. which is challenging/beating lucent recently.
Drones are, in essence, flying autonomous vehicles. Pros and cons surrounding drones today might well foreshadow the debate over the development of self-driving cars. In the context of a strongly regulated aviation industry, "self-flying" drones pose a fresh challenge. How safe is it to fly drones in different environments? Should drones be required for visual line of sight – as are piloted airplanes? Join EE Times' Junko Yoshida as she moderates a panel of drone experts.