4 ms·
I get it that you want RISC-V to succeed - so do I - and to advocate for it but I really don’t understand why it needs this sort of comment about Arm. I see exa
by klelatti 4y ago
I get it that you want RISC-V to succeed - so do I - and to advocate for it but I really don’t understand why it needs this sort of comment about Arm. I see exaggerated criticism of the Arm ISA elsewhere from people who ought to know better too - it’s really CISC, it’s 5000 pages vs 2 for RISC-V etc. It’s just not necessary.
- monocasa 4y agoI mean, nothing I said is exaggerated here. ARM doesn't even have a viable server core that can compete with x86 even as vaporware. SoftBank ruins everything they touch, and is super focused at the moment on stealing from Peter to pay Paul to get something out of the upcoming ARM IPO since their attempt to sell it off to Nvidia fell through. The rumor is they've been cutting R&D funding hard to get temporarily boost profitability. If anything this is more a dig at how vulture capitalism ruins productive companies. As an aside, ARM has always been a hybrid CISC/RISC core. It has nothing to do with the number of instructions, but the fact that not having an I$ on the ARM1 forced it to have microcoded instructions to mainly to support LDM/STM. That's not a dig at ARM. It's a valid design; particularly at that gate count.
- klelatti 4y agoYou jumped in in support of a comment that said Arm is ‘legacy’ tech. You said they don’t ‘even have a viable server core’. They are ‘haemorrhaging’ staff. Softbank have ‘ruined’ them. Sounds more apocalyptic than exaggerated tbh. I still don’t know why you think this is necessary.
- monocasa 4y agoI guess I don't see why you think it's necessary to not criticize them.