46 ms·
This all rests on the several suppositions including: - Arm has no IP that can’t be quickly replicated by other firms (for very little money). - That the qual
by klelatti 5y ago
This all rests on the several suppositions including:
- Arm has no IP that can’t be quickly replicated by other firms (for very little money).
- That the quality of designs from other firms will be better than those from Arm (or for the architecture licensees their own).
- The really big Arm licensees would see a commercial advantage to switching.
Intel threw billions at the smartphone market and still lost against Arm. Today there are zero RISC-V smartphone designs. That may change but probably largely because of the Arm China and Nvidia missteps.
I expect (and look forward to) RISC-V establishing a presence in the market but this sort of commentary does the ISA no favours.
Edit: I see elsewhere you think they should abandon the Arm ISA in favour of RISC-V! really not sure about that ..
- renox 5y ago1) Intel is/was handicapped by using an old CISC ISA which has some cost in power/performance. This complex x86 decoder ain't free. 2) Network effect favoured ARM.
- klelatti 5y agoIntel also had the advantage at the time of a clear process advantage which almost certainly would have more than offset the decoder cost.