3 ms·
Can you explain why the RISC-V needs to happen? I am not familiar with the chip industry, so I don't understand why the RISC-V will move computing forward and x
by elamje 7y ago
Can you explain why the RISC-V needs to happen? I am not familiar with the chip industry, so I don't understand why the RISC-V will move computing forward and x86/ARM won't move it forward.
Edit: Does it have to do with being open-source?
- lsllc 7y agoAny industry needs competition! Sadly the consolidation of the [server] processor market over the last decade from half a dozen or more very different designs (which had collectively driven computing for the last 30+ years) has left us with the duopoly of Intel who's not really innovating and ARM who kind of are, but mostly in mobile. Obviously, RISC-V also needs software support; gcc supports it, Golang has added RISC-V as a target (although it's not yet implemented) and there are several projects working on LLVM (e.g. lowRISC and SiFive's port). Having played around with the Fedora-RISCV port under QEMU, it's actually surprisingly good thus far. Having an open-source processor design with good software support that anyone can manufacture without royalties is a good thing and will hopefully spur both Intel and ARM into innovation.
- tyingq 7y agoRemoval of "percentage of revenue" based royalties is probably the big one. Others may cite the open source ISA, but I think royalties is the big deal. See Western Digital's plans for RISCV. Taking a 1.5 to 2 percent "off the top revenue/not-profit skim" away is a big deal. Edit: Fwiw, I hope the open source ISA has secondary societal benefits. I'm not skeptical, just pragmatic. Follow the money.
- madez 7y agoNeither AMD nor Intel offer x86 chips that give end users full access to the highest privilege levels.