Leading semiconductor analyst says AMD should be investigated for 'treason' over availability of restricted chips in China, AMD blames diversion of export-controlled RFSoC — $36,000 radar silicon allegedly quoted at $1,000 for crowdfunding project

AMD
(Image credit: AMD)

A Chinese tech firm’s crowd-funded project has touched off a firestorm over U.S. export controls after an analyst spotted a heavily restricted, military-grade AMD chip in its design selling for pennies on the dollar. The discovery — and the analyst’s subsequent call for a treason investigation — puts a sharp spotlight on how easily dual-use silicon can bypass strict U.S. national security sanctions through third-party supply chains ... despite corporate denials of direct sales.

Dylan Patel, the head of top semiconductor analysis company SemiAnalysis, has discovered that China's Puzhi Electronic Technology is crowdfunding development of a system based on AMD's Zync UltraScale+ XCZU47DR RFSoC, which is a U.S. export-controlled dual-use component. He called on the government to investigate AMD for treason.

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

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.

  • Trake_17
    Does "analyst" mean Nvidia PR representative?
    Reply
  • compulsivecode
    The phrasing of this makes it sound like selling a $36,000 part for $1,000 would somehow be a good business opportunity.
    Reply
  • King_V
    When a so-called independent analyst throws around the word "treason" like that, it immediately makes me think there's something sketchy. That it's AMD who they're accusing, and Jensen Huang publicly cites and praises SemiAnalysis and Dylan Patel, also seems a little questionable.

    A quick search turned up this analysis, from Dec 2025, which concludes that their methodology is questionable, and that conflict of interest seems to be incentivized rather than discouraged. But Dylan Patel's wording sounded like he had an agenda even before I looked up anything about SemiAnalysis.

    Full disclosure: I was only able to briefly skim the meat of the article, and am relying mostly on the conclusion section.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    LOL.

    ALL of them should be investigated. All of them are traitors. Traitors to humanity and the common folk.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • F1NATIK
    It pretty obvious what's happening to the ones sold in the US for 36k. Its the same reason why the military pays 100k for a bag of small bolts. Insiders. Nuff said.
    Reply
  • alan.campbell99
    Hmm, whose chips have been found in Russian military systems being fired at Ukrainian civilians though, Dylan?
    Reply
  • Sal_Monella
    Wouldn't treason require China to be at war with USA?
    Reply
  • Nathan22211
    Whoever wrote this really needs to emphasize that the US Constitution has a very narrow definition of treason. It's only when you bring war against the US, nothing else.
    Reply
  • rgd1101
    Nathan22211 said:
    Whoever wrote this really needs to emphasize that the US Constitution has a very narrow definition of treason. It's only when you bring war against the US, nothing else.
    “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

    there are 2
    Reply
  • bit_user
    The article says they launched 6 years ago, so it seems plausible these chips might've been harvested from some obsolete or defunct or equipment. Lots of e-waste gets shipped abroad for recycling, and some of that recycling could involve removing and reselling valuable components.

    BTW, if someone could get their hands on one of these, I'd imagine the serial number should reveal who the original buyer was.
    Reply