4 ms·
> You don't need to be completely tied to ARM. The point is that if you want to use the ARM ISA you have to pay ARM. Not so with RISC-V. Anyone is free to fab
by jbarham 9y ago
> You don't need to be completely tied to ARM.
The point is that if you want to use the ARM ISA you have to pay ARM. Not so with RISC-V. Anyone is free to fab a RISC-V chip without paying royalties.
- sweden 9y agoYou are talking like you could download RISC-V from the internet and send it to the foundry for mass production without additional costs or effort. RISC-V is just a document, is not an implementation. There are many costs involved into designing a CPU that end up costing much more money than paying a license fee. Check this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14284450 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14284450
- jbarham 9y agoIn that comment you say "RISC-V is thrown around like if it's an already working CPU but it is not" which is false since there are multiple existing, functioning RISC-V implementations in silicon (https://www.sifive.com/products/freedom/ https://www.sifive.com/products/freedom/), FPGAs and software (https://bellard.org/riscvemu/ https://bellard.org/riscvemu/). Most people on HN should understand the difference between an ISA specification and its implementation in silicon.
- sweden 9y agoThe tone of your comment is very unfortunate taking into account the content of it. The second like you showed is just a simple FPGA implementation, you can't really use for ASIC designs. The first one is a completely different implementation by a different company. And they are not really providing the whole source. I challenge you to find a place to download their designs yourself. I will be waiting.
- FullyFunctional 9y agoThe second is real silicon. I have a couple. But all this talk is missing the point. For companies looking to design a product for which the processors is a means to an end, RISC-V holds a tremendous time-to-market advantage and full complete control of your own destiny. That, more than anything, will matter for the 1st wave of adopters. (RV has other technical merits that you for some reason discount).
- iliis 9y agoHow about this: http://www.pulp-platform.org/ http://www.pulp-platform.org/ ? It still in development, but the plan is to release the full CPU. You still need process/foundry specific data of course (things like flash-cells).
- sweden 9y agoPulp seems to be just a microcontroller, not a modern CPU. It is a good effort but you wouldn't be using it on a normal computer.
- petra 9y agoThe GAP8 is a real product based on the pulpino. It's a cpu, more of a low-power embedded dsp/mcu, and a good one at that. http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1330188 http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1330188
- zanny 9y agoA lot of the interest behind open ISAs like RISC-V isn't from a cost perspective, because most people recognize that the cost differences are negligible. They want to avoid the Intel scenario, where a company controls an ISA that industries depend on, and can force their ideology on implementing silicon for whatever ends they want. ARM, being proprietary and controlled by the company can do the same. If you want a specific part built, you need the permission of ARM to do anything involving the ISA. If you are going to build all civilization on the top of an ISA, it can't be reasonable to subjugate that ecosystem to the whims of one board of directors.
- Nokinside 9y agoI believe this is incorrect. It seems that there is lots of confusion related to RISC-V. Only RISC-V ISA and some simple (and relatively inefficient) architectural designs are free and without royalties. But when someone develops efficient RISC-V microarchitecture they are not going to provide it free. If some company develops RISC-V based architecture that is competitive with AMD,Intel or ARM, they are going to ask good money for it.
- Nomentatus 9y agoMoney yes, "good money" that leverages a proprietary network effect, no.