Chinese-Produced Zhaoxin KX-6000 CPUs Purportedly Match Intel's Core i5-7400

64

(Image credit: Twitter - David Schor Wikichip)
Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Matthew Connatser

Matthew Connatser is a freelancing writer for Tom's Hardware US. He writes articles about CPUs, GPUs, SSDs, and computers in general.

  • rinosaur
    This is a huge development and can't be understated. Chinese owned/produced, legitimate x86 licensed, and runs x86 Windows with very respectable performance... enough said.
    Reply
  • jimmysmitty
    rinosaur said:
    This is a huge development and can't be understated. Chinese owned/produced, legitimate x86 licensed, and runs x86 Windows with very respectable performance... enough said.

    Minus the hardware built in spyware. Since its co-developed by a government owned entity I wouldn't go anywhere near it.
    Reply
  • GetSmart
    These were actually VIA (also formerly Cyrix) chips, and designed by Centaur Technology. That is where that x86 licensed comes from. That KX-6000 is actually an octa-core CPU. Can find other benchmarks here https://browser.geekbench.com/v4/cpu/search?q=ZHAOXIN+KaiXian The IPC of this falls roughly around Intel's Goldmont in Intel's Apollo Lake SoC.
    Reply
  • Finstar
    jimmysmitty said:
    Minus the hardware built in spyware. Since its co-developed by a government owned entity I wouldn't go anywhere near it.

    You know Intel and AMD have those too? Only difference is that NSA controls the backdoors.
    I guess that's absolutely fine though because reasons.
    Reply
  • jimmysmitty
    Finstar said:
    You know Intel and AMD have those too? Only difference is that NSA controls the backdoors.
    I guess that's absolutely fine though because reasons.

    The big difference is that AMD and Intel are not government owned. That makes a massive difference alone.

    As for backdoors, sure. Everything has them but again the less government owned the better.
    Reply
  • hrlincon
    I doubt this advancement came without intellectual property theft. AMD, INTEL, IBM need to do their due diligence.
    Reply
  • jimmysmitty
    hrlincon said:
    I doubt this advancement came without intellectual property theft. AMD, INTEL, IBM need to do their due diligence.

    It was done with VIA so it probably was legitimate although I am not sure if VIAs license allows them to share the x86 IP with others, especially China where a lot of IP is heavily restricted. Not too long ago China had another CPU, the Loongson, that was their own CPU design using MIPS but had to emulate x86 and was very far from AMD or Intel in performance.
    Reply
  • GetSmart
    hrlincon said:
    I doubt this advancement came without intellectual property theft. AMD, INTEL, IBM need to do their due diligence.
    Zhaoxin Semiconductor is a joint venture between VIA Technologies and the Shanghai Municipal Government. As mentioned earlier, the CPU architecture is designed by Centaur Technology.
    Reply
  • Finstar
    jimmysmitty said:
    The big difference is that AMD and Intel are not government owned. That makes a massive difference alone.

    As for backdoors, sure. Everything has them but again the less government owned the better.

    US government still very much has control over American companies. Remember what happened between Google and Huawei not too long ago?
    They're causing hysteria by accusing others of doing something they themselves have been caught doing for years now.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    Finstar said:
    You know Intel and AMD have those too? Only difference is that NSA controls the backdoors.
    I guess that's absolutely fine though because reasons.
    Source?

    There's no legal framework for the US government to mandate backdoors in US-made technology products. Were such a law to exist, it would probably be found unconstitutional.

    I'm not saying it never happened, but I don't think it would happen today. The lack of such intentional backdoors is why the NSA hoards what hacks and security flaws it finds, without telling anyone who could fix them.
    Reply