5 ms·

With Nvidia buying ARM, RISC-V might get a big push and investments from parties who preferred the independence of the former ARM Ltd.

by masta 6y ago

ernst_klim 6y ago
Let's hope so. Although Nvidia could go full-blown openARM initiative, which could effectively kill RISK-V.
- coronadisaster 6y ago
  nvidia and open aren't compatible
- dathinab 6y ago
  I expected Nvidia to first continue running ARM like it does now and then slowly push ARM+Nvidea chips whileeven more slowly hindering ARM+other GPU chips. The end goal would be to make ARM+other GPU technical viable but non copetive so that most customers will have to buy ARM+Nvidea to be competive leading to a hard to touch quasi monopoly of Nvidea for android phones (maybe except cheap ones) and and embedded ML. Oh and at some point they probably would restrict new "custom silicon" contacts to prevent something like Apple silicon from happening again.
  - tw04 6y ago
    I guess call me skeptical. ARM+Nvidia GPU (Tegra) already runs absolute circles around everything besides Apple. They didn't need to acquire ARM to make a chip that's still superior to just about everything else on the market 5 years later. I'm willing to bet this is entirely around controlling their own future, not changing the way ARM is licensed. With Intel at least acting like they're going to REALLY try to enter the GPU space at this point, Nvidia needed to acquire AMD or ARM to solidify their position. AMD was probably the preferred path but divesting of the GPU business would've been difficult if not impossible with all the embedded graphics chips they've put onto the market. Plus I would imagine the IP pollution potential would open them up to lawsuits from whoever acquired the GPU assets. And if Intel were to be the acquirer (seems like the most likely suitor) - they'd actually have to be seriously concerned about their GPU leadership.
    - ansible 6y ago
      > They didn't need to acquire ARM to make a chip that's still superior to just about everything else on the market 5 years later. Technically superior, yes. But at a price point for even the high-end flagship phones? No. The Tegra are quite expensive.
      - packetlost 6y ago
        Considering the Nintendo Switch is based on a Tegra SoC (likely the Tegra X1), and only costs $300~ I don't think cost is the primary issue. nVidia is mostly targeting platforms with higher performance requirements over building lower performing chips used in phones. They have different thermal and power draw requirements.
      - tw04 6y ago
        That's just not even a little bit accurate. The K1 tablet retailed at $199 - they absolutely could sell it at a price that meets a high-end smartphone price. https://www.droid-life.com/2015/11/17/nvidia-releases-the-shield-tablet-k1-priced-at-199/ https://www.droid-life.com/2015/11/17/nvidia-releases-the-sh...
        monocasa 6y ago
        The K1 tablet was Nvidia trying to get rid of a bunch chips they were unable to sell. You don't see Qualcomm out there making their own phones because they couldn't sell the chips they manufactured.
        tw04 6y ago
        > The K1 tablet was Nvidia trying to get rid of a bunch chips they were unable to sell. Based on... what? The only reason there wasn't an X1 tablet was because of the exclusive deal with Nintendo. I don't see Qualcomm out there making phones because they make far more money extorting others. If they didn't have the ability to push their patent portfolio down the throats of anyone who wants to make a phone that can actually connect to a cellular network, they would absolutely be making their own handsets.
  - dwild 6y ago
    > and embedded ML. I believe that's where they'll hit the hardest. They can keep GPU at the same competitive state, could even make it "easier" for competitors, but if they get a bit of advantage over ML, that's where phones and everything else will be kind of forced to go Nvidia for both GPU and ML. They don't have much competition as far as I am aware in that sphere, so they'll be able to argue that GPU were able to work with ARM without issues, even did X and Y to make it even easier for them while masking that they made it harder for everyone to compete on ML. That's just conspiracy theory though, I still have hope they understands the value of an open environment like ARM and buying them was just a way to protect that environment.

With Nvidia buying ARM, RISC-V might get a big push and investments from parties who preferred the independence of the former ARM Ltd.

by masta 6y ago

With Nvidia buying ARM, RISC-V might get a big push and investments from parties who preferred the independence of the former ARM Ltd.

ernst_klim 6y ago

Let's hope so. Although Nvidia could go full-blown openARM initiative, which could effectively kill RISK-V.

coronadisaster 6y ago
nvidia and open aren't compatible
dathinab 6y ago
I expected Nvidia to first continue running ARM like it does now and then slowly push ARM+Nvidea chips whileeven more slowly hindering ARM+other GPU chips. The end goal would be to make ARM+other GPU technical viable but non copetive so that most customers will have to buy ARM+Nvidea to be competive leading to a hard to touch quasi monopoly of Nvidea for android phones (maybe except cheap ones) and and embedded ML. Oh and at some point they probably would restrict new "custom silicon" contacts to prevent something like Apple silicon from happening again.
- tw04 6y ago
  I guess call me skeptical. ARM+Nvidia GPU (Tegra) already runs absolute circles around everything besides Apple. They didn't need to acquire ARM to make a chip that's still superior to just about everything else on the market 5 years later. I'm willing to bet this is entirely around controlling their own future, not changing the way ARM is licensed. With Intel at least acting like they're going to REALLY try to enter the GPU space at this point, Nvidia needed to acquire AMD or ARM to solidify their position. AMD was probably the preferred path but divesting of the GPU business would've been difficult if not impossible with all the embedded graphics chips they've put onto the market. Plus I would imagine the IP pollution potential would open them up to lawsuits from whoever acquired the GPU assets. And if Intel were to be the acquirer (seems like the most likely suitor) - they'd actually have to be seriously concerned about their GPU leadership.
  - ansible 6y ago
    > They didn't need to acquire ARM to make a chip that's still superior to just about everything else on the market 5 years later. Technically superior, yes. But at a price point for even the high-end flagship phones? No. The Tegra are quite expensive.
    - packetlost 6y ago
      Considering the Nintendo Switch is based on a Tegra SoC (likely the Tegra X1), and only costs $300~ I don't think cost is the primary issue. nVidia is mostly targeting platforms with higher performance requirements over building lower performing chips used in phones. They have different thermal and power draw requirements.
    - tw04 6y ago
      That's just not even a little bit accurate. The K1 tablet retailed at $199 - they absolutely could sell it at a price that meets a high-end smartphone price. https://www.droid-life.com/2015/11/17/nvidia-releases-the-shield-tablet-k1-priced-at-199/ https://www.droid-life.com/2015/11/17/nvidia-releases-the-sh...
      - monocasa 6y ago
        The K1 tablet was Nvidia trying to get rid of a bunch chips they were unable to sell. You don't see Qualcomm out there making their own phones because they couldn't sell the chips they manufactured.
        tw04 6y ago
        > The K1 tablet was Nvidia trying to get rid of a bunch chips they were unable to sell. Based on... what? The only reason there wasn't an X1 tablet was because of the exclusive deal with Nintendo. I don't see Qualcomm out there making phones because they make far more money extorting others. If they didn't have the ability to push their patent portfolio down the throats of anyone who wants to make a phone that can actually connect to a cellular network, they would absolutely be making their own handsets.
- dwild 6y ago
  > and embedded ML. I believe that's where they'll hit the hardest. They can keep GPU at the same competitive state, could even make it "easier" for competitors, but if they get a bit of advantage over ML, that's where phones and everything else will be kind of forced to go Nvidia for both GPU and ML. They don't have much competition as far as I am aware in that sphere, so they'll be able to argue that GPU were able to work with ARM without issues, even did X and Y to make it even easier for them while masking that they made it harder for everyone to compete on ML. That's just conspiracy theory though, I still have hope they understands the value of an open environment like ARM and buying them was just a way to protect that environment.