4 ms·
> Just getting a license from ARM is 10+ million dollars. Which license? ARM offers several different models. > Apple creates their own CPU and GPU designs, G
by dom0 9y ago
> Just getting a license from ARM is 10+ million dollars.
Which license? ARM offers several different models.
> Apple creates their own CPU and GPU designs, Google has custom hardware for machine learning, and Samsung is about to overtake Intel as the world's largest chip manufacturer. Why should they keep shelling out billions to ARM, Intel, and AMD just to use their ISA?
The Google hardware we know (TPU) for learning does not use ARM at all, so they would obviously pay nothing there. BigCo's like Apple or Samsung are probably ARM partners, so no per-design/unit fees.
Samsung Electronics may become the biggest chip manufacturer soon, but much like with smartphones that's only by turnover, not profit. But profit is what ultimately finances your R&D.
An interesting titbit is that even Intel and ARM are, at least on paper, partners.
- raverbashing 9y agoWell, a 10 million dollar license is nothing of you factor the Fab costs
- yaantc 9y agoApples and oranges. The companies that design the chips and pays royalties for IP are mostly fabless (with rare exceptions like Intel). The fabs are owned by separate entities like TSMC, Samsung, SMIC that specialize in the production itself. The fabs don't pay for CPU IP (they sometimes pay for some other basic IP to be able to offer them as standard to their customers, but that doesn't cover CPUs/GPUs). About Samsung, they're on both sides but with separate legal entities. The licensing cost IS usually significant to most fabless companies, who come in many sizes. Most are not as big as Apple or NVidia. The fabless model comes from the very high cost of a modern fab, it allows sharing a fab through many fabless design houses. ARM has the reputation of being cheap, because the typical IT/software people compare them to Intel. And yes, compared to Intel most anyone is cheaper ;) But in the embedded space, which is cost sensitive, ARM is not cheap. It's like what IBM and Microsoft were in IT: nobody got fired for choosing them, and they come with a very powerful ecosystem. Something they make client pay for. In front of ARM, one can find good technical competitors depending on the target market (MIPS, Cortus, Andes, Beyond Semi...). But MIPS ecosystem is smaller, and for the others waaaaay smaller. RISC V has an opportunity in time to provide a good technology, backed by a strong ecosystem, for lower costs. In the embedded space at least, this is a very powerful combination.
- makomk 9y agoThe older OpenRISC had already found a few niches. For example, the management core in some of Allwinner's newer ARM SoCs is apparently OpenRISC, presumably because they didn't want to license another lower-end ARM core or something. Similarly, some Samsung TVs apparently use it.
- deepnotderp 9y ago$10 million is approximately the cost of a mask set even on the cutting edge fabs.
- desdiv 9y ago>BigCo's like Apple or Samsung are probably ARM partners, so no per-design/unit fees. Nope, all ARM licensees pay a per-unit royalty, regardless of their partnership level[0]. Being the biggest might help Apple and Samsung negotiate a slightly lower royalty rate, but by the end of the day it's still at least 1% of the chip's selling price. [0] http://www.anandtech.com/show/7112/the-arm-diaries-part-1-how-arms-business-model-works/2 http://www.anandtech.com/show/7112/the-arm-diaries-part-1-ho...
- kogepathic 9y ago> but by the end of the day it's still at least 1% of the chip's selling price. Right, but you cannot just consider the difference in royalty fees between ARM and another ISA. For example, the STM32F* chips cost between $0.60 (STM32F0) [0] and $19 (STM32F7) [1]. You can't just compare the royalty fee here when thinking of lost revenue for the manufacturer. The ARM ecosystem is huge, and if ST switched to another ISA, they would probably lose customers unless the new ISA had an ecosystem that was as good or better than ARM. Yes, the royalty amount matters, but customer preferences also matter. I doubt any high volume ST customer would be willing to switch to an entirely new ISA without the kind of ecosystem that ARM has for a few pennies per chip. And who is going to pay for the development of the tools? Unless it's someone like RISC-V, then they're probably stuck developing it themselves. Kiss goodbye to all the money you "saved" by not paying ARM royalties. Furthermore, if ST switched to a different ISA to save the ARM royalty, what makes you think they would pass along that savings to the customer? [0] https://www.digikey.com/products/en/integrated-circuits-ics/embedded-microcontrollers/685?FV=ffe002ad&mnonly=0&newproducts=0&ColumnSort=1000011&page=1&stock=0&pbfree=0&rohs=0&k=STM32F0&quantity=&ptm=0&fid=0&pageSize=25 https://www.digikey.com/products/en/integrated-circuits-ics/... [1] https://www.digikey.com/products/en/integrated-circuits-ics/embedded-microcontrollers/685?FV=ffe002ad&mnonly=0&newproducts=0&ColumnSort=-1000011&page=1&stock=0&pbfree=0&rohs=0&k=STM32F7&quantity=&ptm=0&fid=0&pageSize=25 https://www.digikey.com/products/en/integrated-circuits-ics/...
- indolering 9y agoBluespec, AMD, Qualcomm, IBM, NVidia, Micron, NXP, Samsung and a few dozen other companies are all dues paying members of the RISC-V foundation. I think it's possible for them to create a new ecosystem, just give them time.
- deepnotderp 9y agoThe Google TPU is designed as an ISA extension of RISC-V according to the paper, and David Patterson's heavy influence implies this as well.