US Congressman accuses SMIC of making 7nm chips for China, violating U.S. sanctions
Chinese semiconductor sector is thriving instead of struggling.
Although the U.S. government has imposed strict restrictions on Huawei and Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. (SMIC), the former can still access leading-edge process technologies, and the latter can obtain advanced production tools. Michael McCaul (R, TX), who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, is calling on the U.S. Commerce Department to investigate SMIC's potential production of chips for Huawei and its violation of the U.S. export controls, reports Reuters.
McCaul urged the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) within the Commerce Department to visit SMIC's fabs. He suggested that SMIC may be aiding Huawei in evading U.S. export restrictions, a concern shared across both parties, and emphasized the importance of more stringent enforcement of trade controls.
McCaul called into question SMIC's recent achievements, such as making Huawei's HiSilicon Kirin 9000S application processors for smartphones and HiSilicon Ascend 9000B processor for AI applications on N+2 manufacturing technology (7nm-class), along with the Ascend 910C made on SMIC's N+3 fabrication technology (6nm-class). He deduces that these advances clearly indicate that SMIC continues to advance its process technologies in a potential violation of U.S. export laws.
The U.S. export controls imposed in 2022 require makers of fab tools to obtain an export license on equipment that could be used to make FinFET-based chips on 14nm/16nm-class process technologies. However, this only applies to fabs that can already make semiconductors on the said production nodes. As result, these restrictions are sidestepped by channeling advanced fab equipment to unrestricted fabs that formally do not support sophisticated process technologies. Policies set during the Trump administration allowed U.S. exporters to obtain licenses to sell certain products to Huawei and SMIC, enabling billions of dollars in sales, but also opening doors to circumventing restrictions.
Back in October it was revealed that SMIC has both an unrestricted legacy fab and a restricted advanced logic fab, connected by a wafer bridge allowing wafers to move between the two. This interconnection essentially makes the fabs function as a single facility, enabling SMIC to produce advanced processors, such as the Kirin 9000S and Ascend 910B, at its advanced fab, while the facility labeled as a legacy fab legally acquires tools necessary for making chips on 7nm-class nodes.
In response, McCaul recommended suspending all existing export licenses for SMIC unless China permits a thorough audit of the company's facilities and records. He emphasized that without transparency, the U.S. risks inadvertently supporting technological advancements that could strengthen China's AI and military sectors.
The Commerce Department acknowledged the receipt of McCaul's letter and indicated that it would respond through official channels. Addressing prior similar critiques, the department defended its track record, asserting that it has implemented some of the toughest restrictions on China to date.
Stay On the Cutting Edge: Get the Tom's Hardware Newsletter
Get Tom's Hardware's best news and in-depth reviews, straight to your inbox.
Both Huawei and SMIC are on the U.S. Entity List due to suspected links to the Chinese military-industrial complex and alleged sanctions violations. Inclusion on this list generally limits U.S. companies from selling to these firms without export licenses that are supposed to be reviewed with a presumption of denial, but which are still granted. As a result, Huawei and SMIC can not only advance their semiconductor prowess, but actually thrive, introducing innovative process technologies.
Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.
-
Pierce2623 Somebody should probably explain to them that SMIC’s 7nm isn’t actually 7nm or really even particularly close and it’s made with tools designed for 14nm/16nm chips….Reply -
AkroZ
As TSMC (or others) 3nm is not 3 nanometers, 3nm or 2A or other names are only commercial names of the process and doesn't refere to any unit of measure (officially).Pierce2623 said:Somebody should probably explain to them that SMIC’s 7nm isn’t actually 7nm or really even particularly close and it’s made with tools designed for 14nm/16nm chips….
It's the reason why you can't compare TSMC 3nm process with Samsung 3nm process: they don't have the same precision of gravure. -
The Historical Fidelity
Well, if you read the article, it looks as though SMIC’s legacy node fabs can still purchase the latest DUV tech, funnel advanced wafers into their legacy fab for lithography and then back out to their advanced fab for non-lithography processing.Pierce2623 said:Somebody should probably explain to them that SMIC’s 7nm isn’t actually 7nm or really even particularly close and it’s made with tools designed for 14nm/16nm chips…. -
thth
According to TechInsights it is 7nmPierce2623 said:Somebody should probably explain to them that SMIC’s 7nm isn’t actually 7nm or really even particularly close and it’s made with tools designed for 14nm/16nm chips….
https://www.techinsights.com/blog/smic-7nm-truly-7nm-technology-how-it-compares-tsmc-7nm
TSMC is now the leader and considered the benchmark for nodes. TechInsights reverse engineered Huawei chip and concluded that it is equal to TSMC 7nm. TSMC originally did 7nm using the same type of tools that SMIC is using (without using EUV). So did Intel. So there's nothing to be surprised about making 7nm on DUV. The only difference is that it is going to cost more to make than using EUV. -
KraakBal What does a US congressman have to do with a Chinese company making a product for the Chinese gov? Cry, cope US, focus on yourselfReply -
eichwana
Right?? It seems the US gov is surprised that a Chinese tech company is making stuff for a Chinese tech company… this shouldn’t have been unprecedented.KraakBal said:What does a US congressman have to do with a Chinese company making a product for the Chinese gov? Cry, cope US, focus on yourself
For now the US should focus on their own interests like Intel and their business with TSMC, this will allow them to maintain their chip superiority. -
Pierce2623
I didn’t say 7nm couldn’t be done with DUV. I’m talking about the minimum resolution of their machines. They have to do insane levels of multi- patterning. TSMC 7nm isn’t 7nm either. I thought that was well known. Intel 10nm/Intel 7 was denser than TSMC 7nm. Regardless of the transistor size or density, the performance that SMIC is getting is closer to TSMC 14nm or 12nmthth said:According to TechInsights it is 7nm
https://www.techinsights.com/blog/smic-7nm-truly-7nm-technology-how-it-compares-tsmc-7nm
TSMC is now the leader and considered the benchmark for nodes. TechInsights reverse engineered Huawei chip and concluded that it is equal to TSMC 7nm. TSMC originally did 7nm using the same type of tools that SMIC is using (without using EUV). So did Intel. So there's nothing to be surprised about making 7nm on DUV. The only difference is that it is going to cost more to make than using EUV. -
Pierce2623
I read the article. I’m talking PPA characteristics. SMIC’s 7nm might be similar in transistor density to TSMC, but it’s miles off in terms of performance and efficiency. The Kirin 9000s has 2023 core designs with 2018 performance.The Historical Fidelity said:Well, if you read the article, it looks as though SMIC’s legacy node fabs can still purchase the latest DUV tech, funnel advanced wafers into their legacy fab for lithography and then back out to their advanced fab for non-lithography processing. -
thth
Performance of the node itself is better than TSMC's DUV based 7nm and more closer to TSMC's EUV based 7nm. Density is also on par with TSMC 7nm according to TechInsights.Pierce2623 said:I didn’t say 7nm couldn’t be done with DUV. I’m talking about the minimum resolution of their machines. They have to do insane levels of multi- patterning. TSMC 7nm isn’t 7nm either. I thought that was well known. Intel 10nm/Intel 7 was denser than TSMC 7nm. Regardless of the transistor size or density, the performance that SMIC is getting is closer to TSMC 14nm or 12nm
Performance of the chip (9010) is much better than any chip that was fabbed on TSMC 7nm. Chip performance is more closer to chips fabbed on TSMC 5nm.
So calling it equal to TSMC 14nm/12nm is ridiculous.
Yes as per Intel's earlier naming what intel called 10nm had density closer to TSMC 7nm and what Intel called 7nm had density closer to TSMC 5nm. So Intel aligned with TSMC's naming scheme and renamed their nodes, changed 10nm to Intel-7 and 7nm to Intel-4. So TSMC 7nm is now what everyone in the industry including Intel accepts as 7nm and SMIC 7nm is not worse than TSMC 7nm or Intel-7 in terms of performance.