News on China's scientific and technological development.

A

ansy1968

Brigadier
Registered Member
KYli said:
It is not just the design and manufacture but also the tech. At the beginning of the 5G tech war, Qualcomm and Nokia and Verizon supported the millimeter wave and Huawei supported the centimeter wave of sub-6. mmWave has better speed and capacity but not good at coverage and vulnerable to signal interference. After initial deployment, mmWave is just not ready yet. Verizon, At&t and many telecom vendors were forced to redeploy their resources to sub-6 5G which is Huawei specialty. That means it would take at least a few years for them to make their 5G ready for mass deployment and wide coverage. For the last few months, the US government has been forced to procure spectrum from the military and others to be used for sub-6 to compensate mmWave shortcoming.

Americans wouldn't be conceded that it has made a mistake and lost the 5G war. So it would continue to pursue mmWave and would try to compensate its shortcoming by using sub-6. On the other hand, China would use sub-6 but would enhance its performance by using mmWave in urban area. This mistake would cost Americans to fall a few years behind China in term of 5G tech and deployment. It doesn't mean the US won't have 5G. It just means the US 5G would not be fully ready for sometime and probably many resources were wasted.

As for Europe, most European countries don't have the US problem so using sub-6 5G wouldn't be a problem. The issue is the telecom equipment providers Ericsson and Nokia have fallen behind Huawei. However, Ericsson is still very competitive and not far behind Huawei. It just needs to offer better solution, less expensive products, and more energy efficient equipment with less need of maintenance. Nokia is the one that has a major problem as its chipsets needed to redesign and not ready. Nokia has many delays and telecom vendors are not happy about the quality of its equipment. Although, many telecom vendors were forced to use Ericsson and Nokia so they do have the time to get their shortcomings fix and their equipment would be deployed even if not as efficient and more difficult to maintain.
Click to expand...
hi KYli,

A great summary as usual, now a question , how many years in your opinion is HUAWEI advantage,? Can Huawei had the financial , technical and enough manpower to advance in 6g? with the chip problem will Huawei advantage will be reduced? sorry for being a nuisance.
 
K

KYli

Brigadier
ansy1968 said:
hi KYli,

A great summary as usual, now a question , how many years in your opinion is HUAWEI advantage,? Can Huawei had the financial , technical and enough manpower to advance in 6g? with the chip problem will Huawei advantage will be reduced? sorry for being a nuisance.
Click to expand...

Not that many years, Ericsson is just less than 2 years behind Huawei. However, it isn't like Huawei is not advancing. Huawei's r&d is the industry leading. Most of the best and brightest telecom equipment engineers work for Huawei. The question is can Ericsson narrows the gap.

For now, Huawei can probably maintain its lead. However, Huawei was forced to deploy many of its resources for survival. 6G is many years away and right now mostly research and development so the issue isn't 6G. The issue is can Huawei still make advanced telecom equipment after it runs out of stockpile of most advanced chips. I don't think anyone has answers to that question yet.
 
C

caudaceus

Senior Member
Registered Member
KYli said:
Not that many years, Ericsson is just less than 2 years behind Huawei. However, it isn't like Huawei is not advancing. Huawei's r&d is the industry leading. Most of the best and brightest telecom equipment engineers work for Huawei. The question is can Ericsson narrows the gap.

For now, Huawei can probably maintain its lead. However, Huawei was forced to deploy many of its resources for survival. 6G is many years away and right now mostly research and development so the issue isn't 6G. The issue is can Huawei still make advanced telecom equipment after it runs out of stockpile of most advanced chips. I don't think anyone has answers to that question yet.
Click to expand...

Probably China need to take a look at OpenRAN architecture so that she will not be beholden to a single company.
 
vincent

vincent

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Moderator - World Affairs
caudaceus said:
Probably China need to take a look at OpenRAN architecture so that she will not be beholden to a single company.
Click to expand...
Haha you are funny. Uncle Sam is trying its best to kill Huawei and you think the Chinese government should help it along?
 
W

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
localizer said:
If China’s fabs can reach Intel’s 14nm (2020) performance, then China should be fine for the near term until some genius figures out EUV or something even better.

The gap between 14nm and 45nm where Huawei is starting is too damn big like the first cars.

The <14nm regime is more like today’s cars where most people don’t really need a bugatti or tesla.



Intel’s 32nm 2nd gen i7 (2011) CPUs are still widely used with laudable performance compared to today’s CPUs. Intel and Apple have shown the importance of both good Architecture and Software. The process node is only half the story.

AMD didn’t match Intel performance until last year and the gain could be attributed to the 7nm TSMC node. Apple not only has a lead in architecture and software, but they also have access to TSMC’s latest nodes.

Huawei was aiming to become the Chinese Apple but Apple probably lobbied Congress and Trump to stop that.
Click to expand...

Apple is probably hoping to capture the predominant share in China of most of the future phones that will be made using EUV chips of 7 nm nodes or less. The entire system is being rigged so as to ensure that Chinese companies don't make phones that possess those chips, while those of US and US allied companies do make such phones, as the chip makers from such countries will all be free to purchase chips made by fabs using ASML's EUV lithography machines.

China should probably retaliate by eventually banning Apple. Samsung can be used instead.
 
W

Weaasel

Senior Member
Registered Member
KYli said:
Not that many years, Ericsson is just less than 2 years behind Huawei. However, it isn't like Huawei is not advancing. Huawei's r&d is the industry leading. Most of the best and brightest telecom equipment engineers work for Huawei. The question is can Ericsson narrows the gap.

For now, Huawei can probably maintain its lead. However, Huawei was forced to deploy many of its resources for survival. 6G is many years away and right now mostly research and development so the issue isn't 6G. The issue is can Huawei still make advanced telecom equipment after it runs out of stockpile of most advanced chips. I don't think anyone has answers to that question yet.
Click to expand...

The chips used by Huawei to enable the propagation and transmission of 5G telecoms systems do not require EUV lithography to make them and can be made by SMEE's equipment or by Chinese companies, such as SMIC, or foreign based companies with fabs operating in a China, right?

What exactly are the different types of chip nodes that 5G propagation and transmission systems use?
 
horse

horse

Major
Registered Member
Gatekeeper said:
Thanks guys,

As you all know I'm not techy. So please bear with me on this. From reading your replies, the 5G tech is there but the other companies is more expensive because their tech is less efficient than Huawei's.

So it is the tech in designing and making the stuff as opposed to the tech of 5G itself. So Huawei's patents are on processes and not not on how 5G itself works. As the other two companies can offer 5G but much more expensive and more difficult to implement and maintain.

Sorry for this simplistic view, but this is how my simple mind make sense of this. And don't forget I got to explain this to my wife who.... how should I put it.... its even less complex than me! Lol
Click to expand...

1. KYli made a very good explanation. Just want to add a couple of other points to it, as we must be fully clear about the wave lenghts. Although I am not tech myself, when we turn on our phones, it is important we have a clear signal. The short wave length carries more data, faster, but cannot pass through walls. The longer wave length is slower and less data, but has more range.

(Note, if it is not clear for the non-tech people, think of the mmWave as being like your Wifi and the other sub-6 waves as being like your radio, car radio etc. )

2. If your signal travels only short distances, you need more base stations and antenna. Makes sense right?

3. Apparently the Huawei 5G antenna is better at switching between the wave lengths and gives better performance.

Actually, there is too much to talk about on this topic. LOL!

:p
 
K

KYli

Brigadier
Weaasel said:
The chips used by Huawei to enable the propagation and transmission of 5G telecoms systems do not require EUV lithography to make them and can be made by SMEE's equipment or by Chinese companies, such as SMIC, or foreign based companies with fabs operating in a China, right?

What exactly are the different types of chip nodes that 5G propagation and transmission systems use?
Click to expand...

Huawei most advanced 5G systems require 7nm chips. SMEE's equipment is still a year or two away from developing 28nm equipment that could be used for 7nm chips. SMIC has indicated that it couldn't make Huawei chips anymore at least temporary. Huawei has stockpiled at least one year or maybe even two years supplies of chips for 5G systems. However, Huawei still needs to resolve this issue as SMEE is known for delays.
 
A

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
KYli said:
Huawei most advanced 5G systems require 7nm chips. SMEE's equipment is still a year or two away from developing 28nm equipment that could be used for 7nm chips. SMIC has indicated that it couldn't make Huawei chips anymore at least temporary. Huawei has stockpiled at least one year or maybe even two years supplies of chips for 5G systems. However, Huawei still needs to resolve this issue as SMEE is known for delays.
Click to expand...

For telecoms base stations which have access to mains power, you can work with 14nm chips instead of 7nm.

Given the likely production volumes, you're looking at comparable costs for those 14nm chips, but higher electricity consumption.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top