As a regular consumer I've pretty much decided I'll buy China's tech if they start competing in the western market. There's a lot of talk about China dumping into western markets and warnings that we'll be left with nothing at some point, but I'm sitting here right now with... nothing.
I'll buy RAM from the devil if it's the difference between running local AI vs becoming dependent on a cloud provider.
Western manufacturers really shot themselves in the crotch with this one. Foot isn't strong enough here.
Had CXMT hit a normal functioning market, they would be a much harder sell-- existing vendors could spread FUD about performance and quality to hold them back for a few years. But now you have an audience that is desperate to the verge of soldering up banks of 74LS74 flip-flops to make their own RAM.
It's not even like they're offering a reasonable "there's a domestic product but it's marginally more expensive" alternative. And it's all their fault. I sort of wonder if someone was actually saying "we'd better keep some supply around just to avoid burning our bridges with Dell/HP/Apple/etc." when the deals went down.
The US might try to go protectionist/China-baiting to keep CXMT products off their market, but I expect they'll sell just fine everywhere else.
> Had CXMT hit a normal functioning market, they would be a much harder sell-- existing vendors could spread FUD about performance and quality to hold them back for a few years.
I agree with this. Off-brand NVMe and SSDs are really in your face right now and as people buy them out of desperation they’re learning they work just fine. Western manufacturers have done massive damage to their long term brands for some short term profits.
If not for China majority of green energy supply wouldnt exist. Neither would near-SotA LLMs with open weights.
I might not like CCP, Xi or whatever they do inside their country, but China is net positive for the world.
Refreshing considering how more and more of western countries are controlled by populists and / or delussional billionare overlords who reject global warming, vaccines, nuclear energy, etc.
I think we all know how poor China was in the naughties. They needed foreign investments to enter their country. So now let's think about it: with strict regulations, would have those investors chosen China?
Or do you believe that the Chinese (the people not the government) deserve to live a poor life forever?
China was the 3rd largest economy in the world. Their middle class was fine. If they wanted to add some environmental regulation it wouldnt have halted growth.
Weighted means we should consider them differently. 1 tonne of CO2 produced when you have no idea what global warming is hits very different to 1 tonne of CO2 produced when you've known about global warming for 60 years and the entire world has come together and said lets start trying to reduce emissions.
If at that point you start slapping down 60 coal plants and moon shotting your co2 pollution then you should be blamed for global warming.
So whoever industrialises before there's scientific consensus on climate change gets to keep the benefits of their pollution and those who don't have to somehow skip that part of the tech tree and jump straight to renewables/nuclear?
I can see why the countries that were not first to industrialise are not on board with that idea.
The other biggest emitter is still barely decreasing its emissions, far less halting. A slight decrease in the rate per year does not save us from the point of no return.
You can look at the emissions growth of all the major emitters around 15 years ago and they're all slowing their growth and tapering off.. except china which is doing a hockey stick curve rushing to get as many coal plants down as they can.
Slowing the growth from a high level just means accelerating towards the point of no return, but moderating the acceleration.
It doesn't mean stopping before the point of no return. It means continuing towards the point of no return, and going faster, but not increasing the speed as much as before.
Most DDR5 is sold at 6000Mbps, LPDDR6 more than doubles this to 12800Mbps and the high end RAM could theoretically operate at 16000Mbps. This means every single PC or Laptop could have a good fraction of Strix Halo level memory bandwidth out of the box beating a Geforce 1060 for budget PCs and the next generation of Strix Halo would have 90% of the memory bandwidth of a Geforce 5060.
Hopefully PRC will involute the shit out of compute and commoditize it like agriculture, margins should be so thin that ASML/TSMC/NVIDIA should only be sustained by subsidies.
Across the global volume of 185 million to 220 million laptops per year, where manufacturers were putting in 16GB RAM for the past decade (or longer), we really need 128GB to run local inference for the AI-centric world of the future, so that is an additional 112 GB per laptop - this creates an annual shortfall of 20.72 to 24.64 billion gigabytes (20.72 to 24.64 Exabytes) of DRAM.
Just for laptops alone, ignoring the desktop or server or cloud or other markets.
Manufacturing supply is going to take 5 years to catch up.
Buy memory stocks (MU/SKHynix) - they will be multiple of their current prices in 5 years.
As a regular consumer I've pretty much decided I'll buy China's tech if they start competing in the western market. There's a lot of talk about China dumping into western markets and warnings that we'll be left with nothing at some point, but I'm sitting here right now with... nothing.
I'll buy RAM from the devil if it's the difference between running local AI vs becoming dependent on a cloud provider.
Western manufacturers really shot themselves in the crotch with this one. Foot isn't strong enough here.
Had CXMT hit a normal functioning market, they would be a much harder sell-- existing vendors could spread FUD about performance and quality to hold them back for a few years. But now you have an audience that is desperate to the verge of soldering up banks of 74LS74 flip-flops to make their own RAM.
It's not even like they're offering a reasonable "there's a domestic product but it's marginally more expensive" alternative. And it's all their fault. I sort of wonder if someone was actually saying "we'd better keep some supply around just to avoid burning our bridges with Dell/HP/Apple/etc." when the deals went down.
The US might try to go protectionist/China-baiting to keep CXMT products off their market, but I expect they'll sell just fine everywhere else.
> Had CXMT hit a normal functioning market, they would be a much harder sell-- existing vendors could spread FUD about performance and quality to hold them back for a few years.
I agree with this. Off-brand NVMe and SSDs are really in your face right now and as people buy them out of desperation they’re learning they work just fine. Western manufacturers have done massive damage to their long term brands for some short term profits.
If not for China majority of green energy supply wouldnt exist. Neither would near-SotA LLMs with open weights.
I might not like CCP, Xi or whatever they do inside their country, but China is net positive for the world.
Refreshing considering how more and more of western countries are controlled by populists and / or delussional billionare overlords who reject global warming, vaccines, nuclear energy, etc.
if not for China emissions wouldnt have gone past the point of no return.
The majority of those emissions comes from manufacturing products for the Western world.
So what? The goods get made in China because china allows them to be made with no emission/environmental/health and safety regulation.
I think we all know how poor China was in the naughties. They needed foreign investments to enter their country. So now let's think about it: with strict regulations, would have those investors chosen China?
Or do you believe that the Chinese (the people not the government) deserve to live a poor life forever?
China was the 3rd largest economy in the world. Their middle class was fine. If they wanted to add some environmental regulation it wouldnt have halted growth.
It is pointless to say "3rd largest" without mentioning the per capita data.
Comulative CO2 emissions tell a different story.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/cumulative-co-emissions
emissions pre 1950 and post 2000 are weighted completely different. Emissions post 2014 climate agreement are weighed even heavier.
What does "weighted" mean in "emissions pre 1950 and post 2000 are weighted completely different"?
The chart you're responding to has no weighting, 1 tonne of CO2 produced is 1 tonne of CO2 produced regardless of when.
Weighted means we should consider them differently. 1 tonne of CO2 produced when you have no idea what global warming is hits very different to 1 tonne of CO2 produced when you've known about global warming for 60 years and the entire world has come together and said lets start trying to reduce emissions.
If at that point you start slapping down 60 coal plants and moon shotting your co2 pollution then you should be blamed for global warming.
So whoever industrialises before there's scientific consensus on climate change gets to keep the benefits of their pollution and those who don't have to somehow skip that part of the tech tree and jump straight to renewables/nuclear?
I can see why the countries that were not first to industrialise are not on board with that idea.
Would not have done so yet you mean.
The other biggest emitter is still barely decreasing its emissions, far less halting. A slight decrease in the rate per year does not save us from the point of no return.
You can look at the emissions growth of all the major emitters around 15 years ago and they're all slowing their growth and tapering off.. except china which is doing a hockey stick curve rushing to get as many coal plants down as they can.
Slowing the growth from a high level just means accelerating towards the point of no return, but moderating the acceleration.
It doesn't mean stopping before the point of no return. It means continuing towards the point of no return, and going faster, but not increasing the speed as much as before.
Blaming China here is disingenious.
yeah the solution was to ask the poorest countries in the world to give up and remain poor
At the time when china should have begun reducing emissions 2014 they were one of the biggest economies in the world.
Most DDR5 is sold at 6000Mbps, LPDDR6 more than doubles this to 12800Mbps and the high end RAM could theoretically operate at 16000Mbps. This means every single PC or Laptop could have a good fraction of Strix Halo level memory bandwidth out of the box beating a Geforce 1060 for budget PCs and the next generation of Strix Halo would have 90% of the memory bandwidth of a Geforce 5060.
> the high end RAM could theoretically operate at 16000Mbps
Just to nit, HBM (High Bandwidth Memory) is RAM operating in the terabits per second range.
Hopefully PRC will involute the shit out of compute and commoditize it like agriculture, margins should be so thin that ASML/TSMC/NVIDIA should only be sustained by subsidies.
I really hope we get to crest this hardware supply shortages and drop into oversupply.
Across the global volume of 185 million to 220 million laptops per year, where manufacturers were putting in 16GB RAM for the past decade (or longer), we really need 128GB to run local inference for the AI-centric world of the future, so that is an additional 112 GB per laptop - this creates an annual shortfall of 20.72 to 24.64 billion gigabytes (20.72 to 24.64 Exabytes) of DRAM. Just for laptops alone, ignoring the desktop or server or cloud or other markets.
Manufacturing supply is going to take 5 years to catch up. Buy memory stocks (MU/SKHynix) - they will be multiple of their current prices in 5 years.