4 ms·

Why would we want RISC-V on laptops?

sigzero 7y ago
Just reading up on it, the big thing pushing this is that the instruction set is completely open source. That's why someone might want it. https://hackernoon.com/why-we-need-risc-v-f94e3929891b https://hackernoon.com/why-we-need-risc-v-f94e3929891b
- Nokinside 7y ago
  The cost of licensing instruction set is very small part of licensing. High performance microarchitecture is never going to be open source. They cost hundreds of millions to design and the design stays relevant only 4-5 years.
Taniwha 7y ago
Why not? a diverse ecosystem of silicon with some actual competition is going to help get us out of this US-centric intel/amd world where all laptops are essentially the same
- ummonk 7y ago
  It appears likely that Apple will be transitioning to ARM for its laptops in the future so regardless we should start seeing architecture diversity in laptops.
  - zamadatix 7y ago
    Microsoft and Google have already mass marketed multiple iterations of ARM laptops (the latter to great success in certain spaces) but "2" is not much diversity. Power has remained an active player but not in the laptop/phone/mobile space (even still very niche in workstation). RISC-V will bring much needed diversity to spaces currently dominated by two titans.
  - jimmaswell 7y ago
    For even the top models? How can that be performant?
cmiles74 7y ago
Maybe it won't contain a vendor "management engine". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Claims_that_ME_is_a_backdoor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Claims...
- gruez 7y ago
  Maybe, but I doubt it. It's there to support a bunch of features that companies want (eg. remote management, trusted computing, etc.). The reason why the consumer version has it is that most consumers don't mind, and having a seperate sku with it disabled/not present would cost extra. This won't change with RISC-V. You might be able to get a low performance part without it, but all the mainstream (ie. high performance) parts will have it.
  - madez 7y ago
    Intel has a huge variety of different models. They are experts in market segmentation. They could do that. But they won't, and there are few who could do that. With RISC-V, it is reasonable to expect multiple vendors to provide CPUs. There is a very good case to expect non-backdoored chips.
    - gruez 7y ago
      >Intel has a huge variety of different models. They are experts in market segmentation. They could do that. But they won't, and there are few who could do that. That's true, but the way they do that is in a way that requires minimal changes. In terms of the management engine, that means not including AMT module (software) but keeping the rest of the ME (hardware). After all, it also does some essential things like power management and the bootloader. Removing it completely would also mean re-implementing the essential functionality. The best you can hope for if you want to use mainstream parts is something like me cleaner where the management engine is only there for the boot, but is disabled afterwards. Something without an management engine would certainly possible, but would be limited to niche products like the librem.
      - 7y ago
Barrin92 7y ago
if not for anything else why not simply for competition, more choice and lower prices?

Just reading up on it, the big thing pushing this is that the instruction set is completely open source. That's why someone might want it. https://hackernoon.com/why-we-need-risc-v-f94e3929891b https://hackernoon.com/why-we-need-risc-v-f94e3929891b

Nokinside 7y ago
The cost of licensing instruction set is very small part of licensing. High performance microarchitecture is never going to be open source. They cost hundreds of millions to design and the design stays relevant only 4-5 years.

Taniwha 7y ago

Why not? a diverse ecosystem of silicon with some actual competition is going to help get us out of this US-centric intel/amd world where all laptops are essentially the same

ummonk 7y ago
It appears likely that Apple will be transitioning to ARM for its laptops in the future so regardless we should start seeing architecture diversity in laptops.
- zamadatix 7y ago
  Microsoft and Google have already mass marketed multiple iterations of ARM laptops (the latter to great success in certain spaces) but "2" is not much diversity. Power has remained an active player but not in the laptop/phone/mobile space (even still very niche in workstation). RISC-V will bring much needed diversity to spaces currently dominated by two titans.
- jimmaswell 7y ago
  For even the top models? How can that be performant?

cmiles74 7y ago

Maybe it won't contain a vendor "management engine". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Claims_that_ME_is_a_backdoor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Management_Engine#Claims...

gruez 7y ago
Maybe, but I doubt it. It's there to support a bunch of features that companies want (eg. remote management, trusted computing, etc.). The reason why the consumer version has it is that most consumers don't mind, and having a seperate sku with it disabled/not present would cost extra. This won't change with RISC-V. You might be able to get a low performance part without it, but all the mainstream (ie. high performance) parts will have it.
- madez 7y ago
  Intel has a huge variety of different models. They are experts in market segmentation. They could do that. But they won't, and there are few who could do that. With RISC-V, it is reasonable to expect multiple vendors to provide CPUs. There is a very good case to expect non-backdoored chips.
  - gruez 7y ago
    >Intel has a huge variety of different models. They are experts in market segmentation. They could do that. But they won't, and there are few who could do that. That's true, but the way they do that is in a way that requires minimal changes. In terms of the management engine, that means not including AMT module (software) but keeping the rest of the ME (hardware). After all, it also does some essential things like power management and the bootloader. Removing it completely would also mean re-implementing the essential functionality. The best you can hope for if you want to use mainstream parts is something like me cleaner where the management engine is only there for the boot, but is disabled afterwards. Something without an management engine would certainly possible, but would be limited to niche products like the librem.
    - 7y ago

Barrin92 7y ago

if not for anything else why not simply for competition, more choice and lower prices?