3 ms·
Totally, all the more reason that the specific ISA is less important than the implementation/micro-arch. Why pay for ARM if you can retarget to RISC-V and stil
by admax88qqq 5y ago
Totally, all the more reason that the specific ISA is less important than the implementation/micro-arch.
Why pay for ARM if you can retarget to RISC-V and still retain most of the benefits of your designs.
- baq 5y agoyou'll pay ARM for a good ARM RISC-V CPU.
- YorkshireSeason 5y agoAs "baq" also says: you pay Arm (or Apple, or Qualcomm or ...) for the micro-architecture. I expect Arm to drop licensing costs for their ISA to zero to compete with RISC-V at the low end. Right now, the Arm ISA has much better micro-architectures than RISC-V, why bother with RISC-V? I think this will change over the next 5 years. One of the ways to change this could be Arm selling RISC-V implementations. Of course there are also dangers in RISC-V: one is that we will get too many RISC-V versions, so no stable software ecosystem emerges for any single one of them. Adapting Linux, GCC and so on to your specific version of RISC-V (or any processor really) is rather expensive.