4 ms·
The most compelling argument for POWER was to make sure there is competition to amd64/x86 and we do not develop a monoculture. I think arm and risc-v have fille
by markphip 5y ago
The most compelling argument for POWER was to make sure there is competition to amd64/x86 and we do not develop a monoculture. I think arm and risc-v have filled that hole nicely and taken over for POWER. Without readily available and affordable hardware I do not see much of a future for POWER in open-source. It seems entirely dependent on IBM to keep it going unless this changes.
- classichasclass 5y agoI'm not sure I agree about RISC-V. ARM is now indisputably in the same performance ballpark as x86_64 (M1 most obviously but there are others), as is Power, but RISC-V has a ways to go before it can compete on the same turf. It hasn't even really competed with ARM in embedded, despite its advantages there (though it has all but killed the zombie corpse of neo-MIPS). I do agree that without other processor makers, however, the Power ecosystem is crucially overdependent on IBM policy. This is not a new problem but it hasn't gotten any better with OpenPOWER.
- markphip 5y agoI did not mean to imply that I thought RISC-V was a challenger to x86 and ARM right now. Just that it is accessible to those that want it which can let them make sure software runs on it. Even that, I do not think is really true yet but it seems like it is the direction things are heading. With POWER, I just do not see the motivation, outside of IBM, for doing any work with it anymore.