> As for the actual facts, 32-bit RISC-V is very dense, but Thumb2 was better at some point Seeing a graphical library being a part of the benchmark, it remind

> As for the actual facts, 32-bit RISC-V is very dense, but Thumb2 was better at some point Seeing a graphical library being a part of the benchmark, it reminded me of the Acorn Risc Machine origins: a graphical workstation in which the processor does the bitmapping. Naturally Thumb2, as a descendant, would be strong here, and those instructions also work out for crypto. My second point would be, as you imply, that RISCV has a mostly unused code space, which could be filled in to make it more performant. To make it comparable to thumb2 that would mean adding bit-shifting instructions, notably lacking from RISCV, like the ARM has. Your comment is spot on. Third, at best this is a benchmark for high-end embedded systems, not what I would call embedded, a market which would be better served with a genuine operating system, if not for the power requirements that would entail. Lastly, there's competition for their benchmark in the form of a RISC-V backed initiative, by the same name, targeting embedded, quoting: "Dhrystone and Coremark have been the defacto standard microcontroller benchmark suites for the last thirty years, but these benchmarks no longer reflect the needs of modern embedded systems. Embench™ was explicitly designed to meet the requirements of modern connected embedded systems. The benchmarks are free, relevant, portable, and well implemented" That benchmark puts thumb at a 7% advantage: https://youtu.be/xX0krFFvlUM?t=1200 https://youtu.be/xX0krFFvlUM?t=1200, but is comparing to a slightly extended RV32IMC.