3 ms·

RISC-V will win because there will be intense competition to be the best cpu core IP for any given market segment. Whereas ARM & x86 each have only a couple of

RISC-V will win because there will be intense competition to be the best cpu core IP for any given market segment. Whereas ARM & x86 each have only a couple of companies competing with each other once you're fully committed to using them.

klelatti 5y ago
There are 15 firms with Arm architecture licenses almost all designing 64 bit cores - seems quite competitive to me.
- snvzz 5y ago
  >seems quite competitive to me. Not very competitive when the only company that can license ARM cores to third parties is ARM itself.
  - klelatti 5y ago
    The real money is in SoCs or end user devices not processor IP. Thus that’s where the resources to build the best cores will tend to go. If you had a second Arm selling licensed cores against Arm v1 would competition result in better cores? Maybe but it’s equally likely that it would make it harder for either company to compete for talent against Apple and Qualcomm.
    - snvzz 5y ago
      The problem with that is that RISC-V exists, which has such open market of cores.
      - klelatti 5y ago
        And is there a RISC-V core that is competitive with the leading Apple Arm cores?
        snvzz 5y ago
        >And is there a RISC-V core that is competitive with the leading Apple Arm cores? How does that even matter? You cannot license Apple's leading ARM cores.
        klelatti 5y ago
        You're trying to argue that the 'open market' in licensed designs results in better cores. I'm pointing out that the best cores today (and likely in the future) come from those with deep pockets - SoC / device manufacturers. Maybe there will be a better / cheaper RISC-V equivalent of an A75 say but I'm honestly not that bothered.
        snvzz 5y ago
        >You're trying to argue that the 'open market' in licensed designs results in better cores. No. There, you are wrong. Maybe this is something that you are worried about? What I was "trying to say" is that a company that needs a core now has at least these two options: License an ARM chip from ARM, license a RISC-V chip from somebody else. Somebody else there means the tens of vendors that are licensing their cores. A RISC-V core there would be one among the hundreds available. These numbers are growing every month. Picking ARM means you're stuck with ARM. Maybe you already are using ARM, and remaining there while keeping an eye on the market is your choice for now. Picking RISC-V means you're free to pick from a variety of vendors, and switch vendors anytime you wish. Some cores are even OSHW licensed, which means free as long as you don't need something better/not at your own risk. The point is not being stuck, thanks to RISC-V compliance. It is not surprising ARM is worried about this. They're doing PR trying to present their advantages and throw in FUD against RISC-V.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]

klelatti 5y ago

There are 15 firms with Arm architecture licenses almost all designing 64 bit cores - seems quite competitive to me.

snvzz 5y ago
>seems quite competitive to me. Not very competitive when the only company that can license ARM cores to third parties is ARM itself.
- klelatti 5y ago
  The real money is in SoCs or end user devices not processor IP. Thus that’s where the resources to build the best cores will tend to go. If you had a second Arm selling licensed cores against Arm v1 would competition result in better cores? Maybe but it’s equally likely that it would make it harder for either company to compete for talent against Apple and Qualcomm.
  - snvzz 5y ago
    The problem with that is that RISC-V exists, which has such open market of cores.
    - klelatti 5y ago
      And is there a RISC-V core that is competitive with the leading Apple Arm cores?
      - snvzz 5y ago
        >And is there a RISC-V core that is competitive with the leading Apple Arm cores? How does that even matter? You cannot license Apple's leading ARM cores.
        klelatti 5y ago
        You're trying to argue that the 'open market' in licensed designs results in better cores. I'm pointing out that the best cores today (and likely in the future) come from those with deep pockets - SoC / device manufacturers. Maybe there will be a better / cheaper RISC-V equivalent of an A75 say but I'm honestly not that bothered.
        snvzz 5y ago
        >You're trying to argue that the 'open market' in licensed designs results in better cores. No. There, you are wrong. Maybe this is something that you are worried about? What I was "trying to say" is that a company that needs a core now has at least these two options: License an ARM chip from ARM, license a RISC-V chip from somebody else. Somebody else there means the tens of vendors that are licensing their cores. A RISC-V core there would be one among the hundreds available. These numbers are growing every month. Picking ARM means you're stuck with ARM. Maybe you already are using ARM, and remaining there while keeping an eye on the market is your choice for now. Picking RISC-V means you're free to pick from a variety of vendors, and switch vendors anytime you wish. Some cores are even OSHW licensed, which means free as long as you don't need something better/not at your own risk. The point is not being stuck, thanks to RISC-V compliance. It is not surprising ARM is worried about this. They're doing PR trying to present their advantages and throw in FUD against RISC-V.
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]