4 ms·
No chance. Nvidia will invent their own proprietary standard.
by dannyw 5y ago
No chance. Nvidia will invent their own proprietary standard.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- msk-lywenn 5y agoLooks like they are already using RISC-V: https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Tue1345pm-NVIDIA-Sijstermans.pdf https://riscv.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Tue1345pm-NVIDI...
- amelius 5y agoInteresting to see that slide (8) about embracing open source. Would it go both ways?
- kelnos 5y agoI would doubt it. They already use both ARM and RISC-V in their products, why would they invent a new ISA? That's not a trivial thing to do, and it doesn't seem worth their time.
- avidphantasm 5y agoYeah, Apple, who has more money than god, didn’t invent their own ISA.
- mdasen 5y agoApple now has that kind of money, but they didn't in 2006 when ARM was selected for the iPhone (which would launch in 2007). Apple was a $50B company back in 2006. A decade later, they have a lot of experience and investment with ARM. For example, how much time has Apple put into LLVM for ARM? I don't think Nvidia will make their own ISA, but when Apple chose ARM they didn't have lots of money and needed to launch something sooner than later. Even when it came to switching their laptops in 2020, creating a new ISA would have meant a lot of time and effort (and money) over continuing with ARM. Apple was able to use the same Firestorm/Icestorm design for the iPhone CPUs and laptop CPUs. While Apple has a lot of money, it takes time to bring new stuff to market. Would Apple also move the iPhone to a new ISA and require Rosetta 2 on mobile? How long would it take them to get similar performance from compilers for the new ISA? Likewise, Apple benefits from large investment in the whole ARM ecosystem. Microsoft wants to support ARM with their stuff because they want Windows on ARM and iOS support for C#. While the Mac is a compelling platform, requiring more work for something custom means less enthusiastic support from third parties and longer times before things are supported. Money can certainly do a lot, but Apple launched M1 at a very auspicious time when Intel was at a real low point. If they'd chosen to go with a new ISA, does it take an extra couple years? Does it launch with a smaller performance boost because it isn't as mature? Is it harder to get third-party support because there's nothing in it for anyone else?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- monocasa 5y agoApple codesigned AArch64 with ARM. That's how they beat every other vendor to having a 64 bit ARM chip on the market and with a core that wasn't even an ARM design at all. They arguably did invent their own ISA.
- uxp100 5y agoIn some sense they already have an ISA, denver. But I'd say the odds of this deal falling apart leading them to making SoCs that (primarily) run an ISA besides Arm is exactly 0%. If they eventually do do that, my baseless speculation is it would be because of demands of automotive customers. If it was decided that risc-V was a selling point for automotive, then maybe. (Proprietary ISA? I'd guess never.)
- IceWreck 5y agoDeveloping your own instruction set and getting all compilers to work with it is a pain and very expensive compared to adopting an up and coming open standard.
- baq 5y agothey'll combine the worst of both approaches: pretend to use an open standard and establish extensions that will become de facto standard, like CUDA.
- dkjaudyeqooe 5y agoA new proprietary standard is DOA in today's environment. No one wants to be locked in to that.