4 ms·
If X86 still competes I see no reason why RISC-V can't also
by mhh__ 5y ago
If X86 still competes I see no reason why RISC-V can't also
- pjmlp 5y agoRISC-V doesn't have 40 years of ecosystem.
- mhh__ 5y ago> but it isn't a competitor for high-end performance. It's simply not designed for that.
- pjmlp 5y agox86 owns most high-end performace systems, still fail to see the relation of the statement. > If X86 still competes I see no reason why RISC-V can't also First RISC-V needs to catch up with the 40 years of x86 improvements that kicked out SPARC, Cray, SGI and others from high-end performace systems.
- mhh__ 5y agoWhat is RISC-V? It's an ISA not a microarchitecture. If you can make x86 fast you can make RISC-V fast
- toast0 5y agoSure, you can make anything fast, but the question is will it take 40 years of a lot of work, and if so, where will x86 and ARM be when you get there? I'd suspect an ISA designed in the last few years with performance in mind (even if not a priority), wouldn't take as long to get to where the industry is now, but it's still a lot of years of focused effort required, and we'll see. I don't have a horse in the race, except that I do like my experience to not evaporate; and I sincerly hope real mode segmented address edge cases aren't something I'd need to relearn on another ISA even though they're still (barely) relevant on x86 in early boot.
- mhh__ 5y agoThe point is that you can make it fast more easily. Decoding x86 instructions in parallel efficiently is taxing, whereas with ARM and RISC-V it's much more tractable for example. Saying X86 is 40 years work is also kind of stupid, as a huge amount of the ISA dead weight, and high performance implementations have their roots much earlier than that (e.g. Intel have tried to move on at least once and ended up coming back to the OOO superscalar paradigm).