[HN Gopher] New Chinese GPU Maker Moore Threads Unveils the MTT ...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       New Chinese GPU Maker Moore Threads Unveils the MTT S60 GPU
        
       Author : lelf
       Score  : 97 points
       Date   : 2022-04-10 15:29 UTC (7 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.geeks3d.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.geeks3d.com)
        
       | kldx wrote:
       | Can't find anything about opencl support
        
       | edge17 wrote:
       | Who manufactures it? I think TSMC and Global Foundries both do
       | 12nm?
        
       | AbuAssar wrote:
        
         | MangoCoffee wrote:
         | i don't think so. the gpu is based on ip from Imagination
         | Technologies. the company is sold to China. unless MTT didn't
         | licensed the tech from Imagination
        
         | machinekob wrote:
         | As it is in China you can bet on it. There were no major china
         | tech company that product something and do not steal tech from
         | "west" yet (maybe there are smaller companies but no big tech
         | got it yet).
        
           | jbay808 wrote:
           | DJI seems pretty big. Whose tech are they stealing?
        
             | chaboud wrote:
             | They scuffed with Autel and initially lost (but then had
             | that patent invalidated), and their currently brewing fight
             | is with Bell Textron for camera control.
             | 
             | (This is just a quick googling. I have no skin in this game
             | either way, but I believe that the assertion that Chinese
             | companies always steal is a bigoted position to take.
             | Perhaps a more accurate description would be that IP is
             | most commonly held by incumbent businesses, and businesses
             | in China in new segments are, necessarily, new to market.)
        
               | chrischen wrote:
               | I think the last point you make is a big one, and
               | partially used to justify the Chinese industry behavior.
               | Basically China is late to the game and if they follow
               | Western rules they will be perpetually behind, partially
               | because such rules are obviously designed to preserve
               | wealth.
               | 
               | That being said, there is still plenty of legit
               | innovation coming from China and Chinese
               | founders/contributors: ant framework for react, vue,
               | tiktok.
               | 
               | I don't think it's a coincidence a lot of the innovation
               | is in the software sector, especially ML, which has less
               | incumbent IP protections.
        
             | randyrand wrote:
             | DJI is mostly an assembler.
        
         | daneel_w wrote:
         | That's a less interesting question on the whole. But, it quite
         | likely does.
        
         | ksec wrote:
         | Depends on how you define _stolen_ in this context.
         | 
         | It uses GPU IP from IMG commonly known as PowerVR, the same
         | technology powering current Apple's GPU and some Mediatek SoC.
         | And IMG the company is now wholly owned by Chinese Private
         | Equity Fund. The fund acquired IMG when Apple claimed to no
         | longer be using any of their IP and caused their market
         | valuation to drop by more than 70%.
        
           | StopDarkPattern wrote:
           | And has 100% appropriated Western hero names.
        
         | qiskit wrote:
         | Hope so. IP is rent seeking and should be abolished. Or china
         | might as well demand everyone pay IP for firecrackers or paper.
         | 
         | India, middle east, ASENA, africa, etc should steal as much IP
         | as they can and develop. Just like china did. Just like the US
         | did. Just like everyone did.
        
           | dataangel wrote:
           | Time limited "rent seeking" that feeds the technologists
           | necessary to develop the technology. In the absence of IP
           | businesses just rely on obfuscation to try to get the same
           | effect, except now you don't have a patent application to
           | read and can't take someone to court for stealing your years
           | of research.
        
             | t0suj4 wrote:
             | Except that it is used now to drive companies out of
             | business. I honestly think that it has done more damage
             | than benefit.
             | 
             | IMO If the funds used to prevent people from applying
             | technology would be used to fund research instead, the
             | gains would net at least zero.
             | 
             | Right now the benefits are localized to jurisdictions that
             | don't care about IP. It is impossible to measure how much
             | could have been gained from businesses that never existed
             | due to uncertainty arising in the jungle of IPs.
        
               | bsder wrote:
               | > I honestly think that it has done more damage than
               | benefit.
               | 
               | Then you will wind up with the Chitu/Chitubox issue where
               | everybody puts encryption chips into their stuff to lock
               | it down.
               | 
               | Moving everything to the cloud wasn't just about
               | developer convenience. It had the side benefit for
               | companies that their software couldn't be pirated
               | anymore.
        
           | cscurmudgeon wrote:
           | Should Russia also do the same? Going back a year, would a
           | similar statement apply to Russia too?
        
             | hulitu wrote:
             | No Russia shall be better than US /s
        
             | xtian wrote:
             | Yes, they should, and there's good odds they will.
        
         | WithinReason wrote:
         | The bigger question is, does it violate any patents? Not
         | necessarily intentionally, but because there's only so many
         | ways you can build a GPU and (almost) all of them are patented
         | already. Apple themselves failed to build a GPU from the ground
         | up, so it's actually difficult.
        
           | Retric wrote:
           | Many of those core GPU patients must be expiring right now.
           | 
           | The GeForce 4 is 20 years old at this point, and many newer
           | technologies are going to have significantly older patents.
        
             | WithinReason wrote:
             | That's right, but then you're building a GPU with 20 year
             | old tech
        
               | speed_spread wrote:
               | Even with 20 year old design, you'd be using modern
               | process which in itself should make room for significant
               | improvements in scaling, frequency and power usage.
        
               | ac29 wrote:
               | Yeah, but it would still be stuck at supporting something
               | like DirectX 8 and OpenGL 1.3 (like the GeForce4). It
               | would certainly be faster and more efficient but modern
               | games and other software wouldn't run on it.
        
               | MichaelBurge wrote:
               | The hardware seems separate from the software interface.
               | Projects like WINE can convert DirectX calls to OpenGL or
               | Vulkan calls, so it seems like a driver update could
               | support a newer interface if needed.
               | 
               | For something that isn't supported at all like
               | raytracing, those API calls would have to be dropped so
               | you'd get a blank screen or only a UI. But something
               | polygon-based, maybe you could drop the resolution and
               | polygon count and that could be translated to the newer
               | API.
        
               | Retric wrote:
               | It's a question of wiggle room. Foundational patents are
               | generally a lot harder to work around.
        
           | inetknght wrote:
           | > _does it use any stolen ip?_
           | 
           | > _The bigger question is, does it violate any patents?_
           | 
           | The former implies the latter.
           | 
           | On the other hand if the IP isn't stolen but would still fall
           | afoul of the patent then I would argue that the patent is
           | wrongly provided. Patents don't exist to protect _obvious_
           | implementations.
           | 
           | I'm not a lawyer but we all know patent law is all kinds of
           | fucked up.
        
             | jhgb wrote:
             | > The former implies the latter.
             | 
             | Isn't it the reverse? Patents are one of the several forms
             | of IP that one can violate, so the latter should imply the
             | former.
        
         | nynx wrote:
         | Who cares? Intellectual property frankly makes no sense if you
         | don't worship money.
        
           | JaimeThompson wrote:
           | Should all software be licensed as public domain or the
           | closes available to PD in countries that don't allow public
           | domain software?
        
             | nynx wrote:
             | Software is a lot less important than patents. Patents
             | should not be allowed or should expire in a year.
        
               | JaimeThompson wrote:
               | Licenses are intellectual property too so I am a bit
               | confused why the difference? Was the first statement just
               | over broad? Not trying to be argumentative, just trying
               | to understand your position when I am a bit tired.
        
               | nynx wrote:
               | Yeah, too broad. Licenses and copyright are a net
               | negative in my view, but patents are far worse.
        
           | causality0 wrote:
           | It makes sense if you have one scheme that creates that is
           | choked out by a different scheme that copies instead.
           | Eventually there is no creation.
        
             | FpUser wrote:
             | Yeah, it had taken me 10 years of heavy R&D investments to
             | come up with this ingenious idea that the phone can have
             | rounded corners. /s
             | 
             | Sorry but the situation now it that one can not even fart
             | without breaking some patent. It is ridiculous, serves only
             | big corps and keeps smaller companies under constant threat
             | of litigations they can not afford. And most of the patents
             | are plain obvious.
             | 
             | I was once asked to come up with the idea of how to
             | implement some XXX feature. It had taken me about 10
             | minutes to "invent" the main approach and then couple of
             | days to spec it down to such form that it could be given to
             | subcontractor. Upon checking however we've easily found at
             | least 10 patents covering this exact XXX. And this is
             | everywhere.
             | 
             | From a tool to compensate the inventors the patents system
             | has become a tool to serve fat cats.
        
             | tovej wrote:
             | Patents also choke creativity, and arguably in a worse way.
             | If you can't remix existing ideas, how are you supposed to
             | create anything useful if you need to come up with an
             | alternative scheme to every component problem that has
             | already been solved but is already patented.
        
           | pfisherman wrote:
           | > Intellectual property frankly makes no sense if you don't
           | worship money.
           | 
           | Patents incentivize inventors to publicly disclose how their
           | inventions work. They publicly disclose how their invention
           | works and in exchange are given exclusive rights to it for a
           | limited period of time.
           | 
           | This is predicated on the idea that in the absence of such a
           | system, inventors have strong incentives to not disclose how
           | their inventions work, which ultimately slows the spread of
           | knowledge and puts a damper on innovation.
           | 
           | What parts of this do not make sense? How else would you
           | solve the problem of incentives around disclosing how
           | technologies work?
        
             | nynx wrote:
             | I agree that was the original intention, but these days
             | (and possibly the entire time) it just slows innovation by
             | preventing people from using technologies.
        
               | pfisherman wrote:
               | Yes, patents do hamper innovation. But this does not
               | acknowledge or address the counterfactual of whether not
               | having a patent system would hamper innovation to a
               | greater extent.
               | 
               | Without this the argument rests on an unstated assumption
               | / magical thinking, which is not borne out by historical
               | data.
               | 
               | It's like saying that traffic lights impede the flow of
               | traffic (true), without acknowledging the fact that not
               | having traffic lights would result in much greater
               | congestion (also true).
        
             | randomhodler84 wrote:
             | Open source licensing incentivizes inventors to release
             | their creations to the world to benefit humanity. Their
             | copyright is protected and depending on the license that
             | picked can control redistribution. Their work is protected
             | against people passing their work off as their own, which
             | is the intention of the patent idea.
             | 
             | Patents do nothing like this, in fact, they cause inventors
             | to invent around "protected ideas". Technology history is
             | littered with examples of inefficient implementations
             | become standard to avoid patent infringement. We end up
             | with negative-incentives with patented ideas. In
             | technology, a patent is a sure way to ensure that an idea
             | is never implemented.
             | 
             | Nothing about patents, or the idea that an idea is
             | exclusive and protection worth is worth salvaging. Patents
             | do not achieve their stated goal.
             | 
             | Closed source software is inherently untrustworthy. The
             | incentive to disclose ideas protected against plagiarism
             | can be achieved through both public trust in our free and
             | open source ecosystem without the need to enforce state
             | violence because some dude dreamed an idea once and wrote a
             | paper.
        
               | pfisherman wrote:
               | > Patents do not achieve their stated goal.
               | 
               | This assertion is being made without evidence.
               | 
               | Can you point to any modern technologically advanced
               | civilizations / nations that do not have something like a
               | patent system? How did those without well developed legal
               | frameworks for intellectual property perform over time
               | relative to others in measures of scientific output and
               | economic development?
               | 
               | What is the alternative? Wouldn't open source have been
               | the default prior to the invention of patent law?
               | 
               | I am sorry, but if you are arguing for the abolition of
               | the patent system, then you need to provide some
               | alternative solution for the problem the patent system
               | addresses along with some sort of data / evidence that
               | your solution is not vastly inferior. Otherwise the
               | argument is just not very persuasive.
        
             | ris wrote:
             | Except that's not how patents are used in the 21st century.
             | Patents are generally written to be as broad in scope as
             | possible while disclosing as little as possible information
             | on how to get said invention to _work_ (if the grantee has
             | actually figured out that part at all). Registering and
             | successfully defending a patent is extremely expensive and
             | patent lawsuits are usually won by the party with the most
             | legal resources, so arguments that it protects small
             | "garden shed" inventors are largely fantasy.
        
       | curling_grad wrote:
       | Is "Moore" of the company's name is the "Moore" of Moore's law?
       | 
       | If so, I wonder why one would name his/her company after their
       | competitor's founder.
        
         | nomay wrote:
         | Yes it is, the name is a stereotypical western name, which
         | alone is preferred choice for Chinese brands hoping for the
         | most hype and recognition, and the phrase Moore's law is pretty
         | wellknown in China for geopolitial reasons, tho most of the
         | people don't know and don't care about it's backstory.
        
         | throwaway4good wrote:
         | I think it is kind of cheeky.
         | 
         | You cannot use the progress in manufactoring technology if you
         | insists on creating a single (or few) threaded computer like an
         | x86-machine. To really progress computing your have to go
         | massively parallel.
         | 
         | In other words. Moore needs to quit his job at Intel, and go
         | and make GPUs or AI-co processors, if he still wants to see
         | computing power double every 18 months.
        
           | wincy wrote:
           | Wow I thought to myself "surely Moore is dead" but he's 93,
           | worth 10 billion and still kicking.
        
           | ant6n wrote:
           | Intel is coming out with gpus.
        
         | ramesh31 wrote:
         | Same reason I have a $25 pair of "Tesla" brand sneakers from
         | Amazon. The Chinese are as obsessed with American brands as we
         | are.
        
           | throwaway4good wrote:
           | Yeah - because Tesla is a classic all-American name, right?!
        
             | hulitu wrote:
             | Yes, today Tesla is a classic all-American name. I really
             | doubt that many people heard about this obscure guy called
             | Nikola Tesla.
        
               | spzb wrote:
               | Depends on whether they've seen S12E04 of Doctor Who
               | https://www.imdb.com/title/tt9354212/
        
               | GauntletWizard wrote:
               | Even when he was working, the majority of his output was
               | as a naturalized American Citizen, on American soil.
               | Tesla is as classicly an American name as Edison,
               | Eisenhower, Truman or Monroe - It's an immigrant name
               | from a country of immigrants.
        
         | ascendantlogic wrote:
         | I feel like it has double meaning, both with "Moore's Law" and
         | "More Threads".
        
         | caslon wrote:
         | Why not?
        
         | qeternity wrote:
         | > the "Moore" of Moore's law?
         | 
         | I don't know why I find this so funny, but "Moore's Law" is
         | Gordon Moore, founder of Intel...
        
           | throwaway81523 wrote:
           | Ya know, my first thought was Chuck Moore, inventor of Forth,
           | and I wondered whether the GPU used Forth cores (stack
           | oriented) somehow. It wasn't THAT crazy a thought, given the
           | GreenArrays GA144 chip from Chuck Moore's company, with 144
           | tiny Forth cores running asynchronously. Moore threads, if
           | you will.
        
       | haunter wrote:
       | So it's a card equal to the performance of the 2016 Nvidia cards
       | (1060/70)
        
       | MangoCoffee wrote:
       | would it have any backdoor?
       | 
       | https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2021-supermicro/
       | 
       | https://www.phonearena.com/news/xiaomi-browsers-have-backdoo...
        
         | DethNinja wrote:
         | Probably, but I would imagine it would be a lower priority
         | compared to NIC or CPU based backdoors.
         | 
         | Considering that China controls most of the NIC supply, I doubt
         | they would be too concerned about implementing a GPU based
         | backdoor.
         | 
         | I'm surprised that we still don't have a cheap domestic Data
         | Diode option. It is clear that only way to be secure is to
         | never directly connect to internet.
        
           | userbinator wrote:
           | _Considering that China controls most of the NIC supply_
           | 
           | If you're referring to Realtek, that's Taiwanese.
        
             | kjs3 wrote:
             | And Intel might have have an opinion on the NIC supply
             | numbers.
        
         | pzduniak wrote:
         | Wasn't the Bloomberg story debunked?
        
           | kyralis wrote:
           | Yes, there's been effectively no evidence for any of the
           | claims.
        
           | heavyset_go wrote:
           | "Debunked" as in no conclusive evidence was confirmed by 3rd
           | parties. It could just as equally mean that investigators
           | might not have found the needle they're looking for in the
           | supply chain haystack.
        
       | zitterbewegung wrote:
       | If it performs similar to a 1060 or 1070 gpu from MVIDIA and has
       | an appropriate price point people who want to create a budget
       | gaming computer would be an appropriate target market.
        
         | StopDarkPattern wrote:
        
           | kidfiji wrote:
           | Mind elaborating what you mean by this?
        
           | hrrsn wrote:
           | "Moore" feels like a very appropriate name for a
           | semiconductor company?
        
             | kjs3 wrote:
             | The guy is still alive.
        
         | linuxbo wrote:
         | Why did you call if Mvidia?
         | 
         | As a proud owner of a 1070ti, I don't think that's the budget
         | gaming computer.
        
           | throwaway0a5e wrote:
           | Probably because M and N are adjacent on most keyboards
        
           | zokier wrote:
           | 6TFLOPS would be competing against 3050 (9TFLOPS), lowest
           | tier current-gen GPU from nvidia.
        
       | bcatanzaro wrote:
       | Importantly, it appears some of their GPU comes from Imagination
       | Technology. https://www.theinformation.com/articles/chinas-
       | little-nvidia...
        
         | userbinator wrote:
         | That company's GPU was used in a few of Intel's early Atom
         | SoCs, and infamously lacked documentation and source code,
         | unlike other Intel GPUs of the time. It was also dismal in
         | performance and efficiency, lacking a blitter and other
         | acceleration for 2D unlike nearly all PC GPUs since the
         | original 8514.
         | 
         | Ironically the source and docs were leaked many years ago,
         | causing a lot of commotion in the OSS community; and more
         | relevantly to this article, a Chinese underground forums
         | community managed to make a decent usable driver for Windows
         | XP, something neither Intel nor Imagination had.
        
           | muizelaar wrote:
           | Do you have a link to more information on that XP driver?
        
             | userbinator wrote:
             | It's been quite a few years now, I tried looking for it
             | again with no success (Google's increasingly worse results
             | don't help either) and I'd have to dig out the Atom box to
             | check what the files were called...
             | 
             | There were plenty of these tiny Atom PCs sold cheaply and
             | they ended up in lots of semi-embedded applications, which
             | might be why the community was so motivated to make a
             | driver, and possibly even the initial source leak was
             | because of that.
        
         | throwaway4good wrote:
         | Even if relies on TSMC and IP-blocks purchased from other
         | companies - it is still cool that a 2-year old startup can
         | create graphics card that appears to compete with what giants
         | like NVDIA and AMD are offering.
        
           | ferminaut wrote:
           | there is no price, there is no power usage, the rated fp32 is
           | roughly on par with a video card that is 6 years old now.
           | 
           | unless it's crazy efficient (at 12nm I doubt it), I wouldnt
           | say it's competing with the giants.
        
             | nwatson wrote:
             | But maybe it can be sold in Russia.
        
               | keewee7 wrote:
               | Doubt it. It's either manufactured in Taiwan or by a
               | Taiwanese compant in China.
        
               | [deleted]
        
             | FpUser wrote:
             | If available and priced attractively I would very much buy
             | this card. I never buy top of the line graphics cards but
             | the equivalent of 1060-1070 works just fine for my needs.
             | And I bet that there are enough people all over the world
             | in the same position. I think it is a competition assuming
             | they do not fold.
             | 
             | Also it is a startup. If they do not go down for one or
             | another reason nothing precludes them from going higher end
             | given a time and favorable market.
        
               | tyrfing wrote:
               | My guess from this press release is it'll be heavily
               | focused on the China domestic market, since there are a
               | lot of MIC 2025 related subsidies/incentives for that.
               | Note the list of compatibility with various domestic
               | architectures and software.
        
               | MangoCoffee wrote:
               | >If available and priced attractively
               | 
               | i'm thinking the same. the game that i play now is either
               | wow or hearthstone which isn't very graphic intensive. i
               | think this card if price cheaply can be use for casual
               | gaming and workstation (maybe?)
        
               | FpUser wrote:
               | It would run most of the games just fine. Sure heavy
               | games would not be able to run at the highest settings
               | but then again not that many people would care. And the
               | ones who do can always splurge some megabucks on high end
               | nVidia / AMD.
        
           | wang_li wrote:
           | Except it's three or four generations behind in performance.
           | The article compares it to a 1060 from Nvidia.
        
             | neogodless wrote:
             | According to Steam Survey, the 1060 is the most popular GPU
             | in use today.
        
             | tromp wrote:
             | to a GeForce GTX 1070 in fact, 2 generations behind the
             | current RTX 3070. All 3 generations are compared in this
             | video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3Iq6pFUdvE
        
               | epolanski wrote:
               | A 1070 though was slower or on par to a 980ti which was
               | released 7 years ago.
        
             | phkahler wrote:
             | Half of that is because it's on a 12nm node.
        
           | JohnHaugeland wrote:
           | > can create graphics card that appears to compete with what
           | giants like NVDIA and AMD are offering.
           | 
           | uh ... no. six teraflops is a card from 2017.
        
             | nottorp wrote:
             | But the market is how it is. I'm on an 1050Ti. Even this
             | would be an upgrade if price/power consumption is right.
             | 
             | I have strong doubts about power consumption though.
        
               | JohnHaugeland wrote:
               | well, if you want to say "competes with 2017 nvidia,"
               | that i could agree with
               | 
               | but i basically guarantee that they keep falling further
               | and further behind.
        
           | ceeplusplus wrote:
           | The entire GPU IP is licensed from Imagination. This is like
           | Google making their Tensor phone chip and claiming it's novel
           | when in reality everything is licensed from someone else and
           | all they had to do was integrate it together.
        
         | WithinReason wrote:
         | There's another Chinese GPU coming based on that design:
         | 
         | https://videocardz.com/newz/innosilicon-graphics-cards-based...
        
         | ralph84 wrote:
         | What rationale did the UK government use when approving
         | Imagination being sold to a private equity firm controlled by
         | the Chinese government?
        
           | philjohn wrote:
           | None whatsoever - they don't care.
        
             | swarnie wrote:
             | Oh trust me, they do care if your company is important
             | enough.
             | 
             | The sale of a company I'm deeply invested in has been
             | dragging on through reviews from the UK MOD for most of a
             | year.
             | 
             | This place had revenues of 125m freedom bucks last year,
             | its hardly a big player.
        
             | WithinReason wrote:
             | They do:
             | 
             | https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-8196445
             | /...
        
           | stupidcar wrote:
           | Supposedly because at the time of the acquisition, "Canyon
           | Bridge was licensed and regulated by US law." but "Since then
           | it has moved its headquarters to the Cayman Islands and as
           | such is no longer a US-controlled entity." [1]. Although that
           | sounds pretty flimsy. I suspect, given it happened in 2017,
           | it was judged politically unwise to block a Chinese state
           | investor when the UK was looking to increase global trade
           | post-Brexit.
           | 
           | Eventually it seems the UK gov woke up and blocked a Chinese
           | attempt to take over the board and move the company to
           | China[2]. Now it seems there's a plan to IPO again in London
           | or Nasdaq[3] so the Chinese owners can exit.
           | 
           | [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52275201 [2] https://
           | www.ft.com/content/654a6d68-ef26-47b2-9da5-9029c570f... [3] h
           | ttps://www.ft.com/content/e0c48d30-866d-4efd-9d78-21e49d366..
           | .
        
       | JohnHaugeland wrote:
       | 6 teraflops is on par with the NVidia Titan V, from 2017
        
       | calin2k wrote:
       | can I has more threads for my gamez
        
       | antattack wrote:
       | MTT S60 has a 6-pin power connector so it's safe to assume that
       | power consumption is under 150W (75W PCI + 75W connector). That
       | would be on par with GTX 1070 but hopefully it's lower due to
       | 12nm vs 16nm process.
        
       | jonkoops wrote:
       | Interesting, are the Linux drivers upstreamed or is this another
       | proprietary GPU driver?
        
         | casta wrote:
         | It looks like Imagination is trying to land their user space
         | drivers for Rogue GPUs in mesa3d:
         | https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/mesa/mesa/-/merge_requests/15...
         | 
         | In parallel, they're working on upstreaming the kernel bits
         | too:
         | https://gitlab.freedesktop.org/frankbinns/powervr/-/tree/pow...
         | 
         | Their ISA is here: http://cdn.imgtec.com/sdk-
         | documentation/PowerVR+Instruction+...
        
           | [deleted]
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-04-10 23:00 UTC)