6 ms·

A large organization like Alibaba spending the effort to get Android running on their own RISC-V platform seems like a clear sign that we're on the cusp of seei

A large organization like Alibaba spending the effort to get Android running on their own RISC-V platform seems like a clear sign that we're on the cusp of seeing RISC-V development and adoption snowball in the next few years.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
I sure hope so. I think we may be on the cusp of a renaissance in the CPU space. Intel UCIe, RISC-V, ARM, etc, have all been quite exciting lately. I'm an optimist so I imagine buying made to order CPUs from Intel or TSMC where you can pick and choose features and chiplets that can come from any number of companies.
- not2b 4y ago
  The problem with your "mix and match" idea is that it's hugely expense to create masks for chip design, even for chips that simple compositions of predesigned cores, memory, and interconnect, and that expense only pays off because the one mask is used to fabricate anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of chips. A custom choice just for you would be very pricy. We already live in a world where chip designers pick and choose cores and components from any number of companies: processors we all know about, but things like USB3, HDMI, Bluetooth, and many others are often licensed from third parties. But for the numbers to work you've got to make lots of chips to handle the fixed costs.
  - monocasa 4y ago
    Does anyone have a decent break down of the cost of masks? I've never really gotten a good sense of what's actually COGS of the actual mask set, and how much is NRE costs that's subject to disruption if chip making is commoditized as we get further up the s-curve that is Moore's Law.
    - not2b 4y ago
      While it isn't directly applicable, here's a decent analysis of the costs of doing a custom ASIC to replace generic components, should provide an idea. https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/embedded-revolution/article/21808278/ensilica-the-economics-of-asics-at-what-point-does-a-custom-soc-become-viable https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/embedded-revol...
  - not2b 4y ago
    ugh, typos: "hugely expensive", "even for chips that are simple compositions".
- usrn 4y ago
  We've had free CPU designs before: 8051 and MIPS. I think RISC-V popularity will just lead to less compatibility.
  - monocasa 4y ago
    Neither of those were free designs. 8051s are heavily cloned, but it's not like there's heavily used HDL floating around for free. Additionally the gate count niche of an 8051 is rather constrained. MIPS made a big deal about being open, but at the end of the day that seemed to just mean that they put their sales contacts on the main page. 'Open' in that case meant 'open access for our business partners to make RTL changes with the right signed contract'.
- mhh__ 4y ago
  We the consumer will probably never do that but in industry that's been the case for a while. It's a SoC game not a CPU game anymore.
stingraycharles 4y ago
Could someone elaborate a bit on how RISC-V relates to ARM? From what I understand the former is a completely open source spec, and ARM is a proprietary one. But both are just specs, right? It’s not as if I can buy a RISC-V CPU from an organization behind it, it’ll have to be from a manufacturer that produces their own RISC CPUs? Is it also an entirely different instruction set? How does it compare to x86 and ARM in terms of performance? Last but not least, other than it being free / opensource, what are some of the reasons why anyone would choose RISC? Phrased differently, if they are going to take marketshare in the CPU world in the next decade, what will be the reason?
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
  take my comment with a bag full of sand, i am no expert, still when you talk about ARM, you have to license designs from the ARM, inc. Apple with its apple silicon is licensing from ARM the designs and IP from them. with RISC-v, there is no company to hold you hostage for designs and all. its all open source so you can build your own chip, own design, own tech, everything. this also means i assume that in the long run, if RISC-v and ARM are on equal footing, RISC-v would be more freer, cheaper because there is no licensing and other corporate stuff to go through like with ARM, inc
  - goodpoint 4y ago
    > with RISC-v, there is no company to hold you hostage for designs and all No no no. The RISC-V ISA is open. The implementation of RISC-V CPUs is often proprietary.
    - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
      OK. So can't there be multiple competing implementations? Proprietary but some like those university projects, Foss ?
      - monocasa 4y ago
        Yeah, the spec is free with a permissive license, and individual implementations are expanding to fill the full gamut of free to proprietary.

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

I sure hope so. I think we may be on the cusp of a renaissance in the CPU space. Intel UCIe, RISC-V, ARM, etc, have all been quite exciting lately. I'm an optimist so I imagine buying made to order CPUs from Intel or TSMC where you can pick and choose features and chiplets that can come from any number of companies.

not2b 4y ago
The problem with your "mix and match" idea is that it's hugely expense to create masks for chip design, even for chips that simple compositions of predesigned cores, memory, and interconnect, and that expense only pays off because the one mask is used to fabricate anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of chips. A custom choice just for you would be very pricy. We already live in a world where chip designers pick and choose cores and components from any number of companies: processors we all know about, but things like USB3, HDMI, Bluetooth, and many others are often licensed from third parties. But for the numbers to work you've got to make lots of chips to handle the fixed costs.
- monocasa 4y ago
  Does anyone have a decent break down of the cost of masks? I've never really gotten a good sense of what's actually COGS of the actual mask set, and how much is NRE costs that's subject to disruption if chip making is commoditized as we get further up the s-curve that is Moore's Law.
  - not2b 4y ago
    While it isn't directly applicable, here's a decent analysis of the costs of doing a custom ASIC to replace generic components, should provide an idea. https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/embedded-revolution/article/21808278/ensilica-the-economics-of-asics-at-what-point-does-a-custom-soc-become-viable https://www.electronicdesign.com/technologies/embedded-revol...
- not2b 4y ago
  ugh, typos: "hugely expensive", "even for chips that are simple compositions".
usrn 4y ago
We've had free CPU designs before: 8051 and MIPS. I think RISC-V popularity will just lead to less compatibility.
- monocasa 4y ago
  Neither of those were free designs. 8051s are heavily cloned, but it's not like there's heavily used HDL floating around for free. Additionally the gate count niche of an 8051 is rather constrained. MIPS made a big deal about being open, but at the end of the day that seemed to just mean that they put their sales contacts on the main page. 'Open' in that case meant 'open access for our business partners to make RTL changes with the right signed contract'.
mhh__ 4y ago
We the consumer will probably never do that but in industry that's been the case for a while. It's a SoC game not a CPU game anymore.

stingraycharles 4y ago

Could someone elaborate a bit on how RISC-V relates to ARM? From what I understand the former is a completely open source spec, and ARM is a proprietary one. But both are just specs, right? It’s not as if I can buy a RISC-V CPU from an organization behind it, it’ll have to be from a manufacturer that produces their own RISC CPUs? Is it also an entirely different instruction set? How does it compare to x86 and ARM in terms of performance? Last but not least, other than it being free / opensource, what are some of the reasons why anyone would choose RISC? Phrased differently, if they are going to take marketshare in the CPU world in the next decade, what will be the reason?

2Gkashmiri 4y ago
take my comment with a bag full of sand, i am no expert, still when you talk about ARM, you have to license designs from the ARM, inc. Apple with its apple silicon is licensing from ARM the designs and IP from them. with RISC-v, there is no company to hold you hostage for designs and all. its all open source so you can build your own chip, own design, own tech, everything. this also means i assume that in the long run, if RISC-v and ARM are on equal footing, RISC-v would be more freer, cheaper because there is no licensing and other corporate stuff to go through like with ARM, inc
- goodpoint 4y ago
  > with RISC-v, there is no company to hold you hostage for designs and all No no no. The RISC-V ISA is open. The implementation of RISC-V CPUs is often proprietary.
  - 2Gkashmiri 4y ago
    OK. So can't there be multiple competing implementations? Proprietary but some like those university projects, Foss ?
    - monocasa 4y ago
      Yeah, the spec is free with a permissive license, and individual implementations are expanding to fill the full gamut of free to proprietary.