5 ms·

Hopefully, we get worldwide non-toxic IP cores with enough performance from RISC-V to replace those abominations.

shjake 3y ago
IMHO ARM is one of the best things that ever happened in the computer industry. > non-toxic IP cores with enough performance from RISC-V Why would anyone also their designs to be used for free or for cheaper than ARM does?
- Yujf 3y ago
  Competition. Multiple vendors can compete with RISC-V while ARM can prevent all competition with licenses, if it really will happen is a different case, but I'm optimistic about the potential.
  - shjake 3y ago
    Possibly, but historically it high end semiconductors seem to turn into a winner takes all market more often than not. If that’s the case it’s probably preferable to have someone like ARM at the top than Intel or Nvidia.
    - sylware 3y ago
      nope, it is would be better if it was RISC-V.
      - shjake 3y ago
        Why (besides religious reasons)? I don’t see how can high-end/competitive RISC-V cores could be fully open/free and without that how is it better than ARM.
        sylware 3y ago
        There is nothing religious here. arm and x86 are not royalty free ISAs, RISC-V is, then RISC-V is mechanically a better choice, until it does a good enough job.
        snvzz 3y ago
        >and without that how is it better than ARM. Only ARM can license ARM cores to others. Using RISC-V, any company who can design their own cores can also offer them for licensing. There's already tens of companies offering hundreds of cores for licensing. This is much better than ISA-enforced vendor lock-in, which is the situation with x86 and ARM.
    - rektide 3y ago
      It's winner take all in a competitive scenario, maybe. Winner is all is what RISC-V is trying to make happen.
- rektide 3y ago
  Most people want to build things not cores, the cores aren't the core competency. So the hope is, release what cores you have & let others improve it for you. Western Digital's swer-v core is seemingly an example of this thinking.
  - shjake 3y ago
    Would you not expect companies which actually want to make to cores to have an advantage? And the companies that don’t want to make it their core business but can afford enough resources (e.g. Google, Apple, Amazon) would just use them to leverage their core products. I could only see this on the lower end where margins/required R&D investment are relatively low.
    - rektide 3y ago
      I expect going it alone will get totally owned by everyone else working together.
Symmetry 3y ago
There's a lot to be said for open source ISAs like RISC-V. But it's a lot harder to create a top of the line open source microarchitecture implementing it that's competitive to closed source designs. A Linux kernel developer can make changes and test them several times a day for a cost in electricity measured in cents. An equivalent build/test cycle on a CPU core is going to be north of a month and a million dollars. Simulation helps but to optimize speed and yield you really need to build the chips and due to physical effects that's a process with much weaker abstraction barriers than software development. So I'm skeptical that we'll ever have cutting edge open source microarchitectures.
- sylware 3y ago
  I am not talking about open source architecture, but more about a worldwide non-toxic ISA: namely anybody can create FREELY a RISC-V microarchitecture AT WORLWIDE SCALE, and that closed or open, which you cannot with arm or x86. Ofc, worldwide royalty free is not enough (or just be allowed to implement the ISA...), silicium is really about performance, and I sincerely hope RISC-V will end up providing microarchitectures (open or not) "good enough" to do the job. I am perfectly aware RISC-V will fail if not providing at scale really good implementations. Rumors say "really performant" implementations are not expected before 2024.
  - klelatti 3y ago
    > namely anybody can create FREELY a RISC-V microarchitecture AT WORLWIDE SCALE The problem with this argument is that it ignores the cost of creating the microarchitecture. It’s almost certainly cheaper to license an Arm A series core than to create a comparable RISC-V core from scratch. Sure we have a firm like SiFive that licenses RV cores to third parties but the existence of firms like Arm and SFive shouldn’t be taken for granted. If rumour has it SiFive were almost taken over by Intel. Thankfully Nvidia were stopped from buying Arm. If you wish for Arm’s demise you may get the end of their business model and that probably isn’t a great outcome.
    - sylware 3y ago

IMHO ARM is one of the best things that ever happened in the computer industry. > non-toxic IP cores with enough performance from RISC-V Why would anyone also their designs to be used for free or for cheaper than ARM does?

Yujf 3y ago
Competition. Multiple vendors can compete with RISC-V while ARM can prevent all competition with licenses, if it really will happen is a different case, but I'm optimistic about the potential.
- shjake 3y ago
  Possibly, but historically it high end semiconductors seem to turn into a winner takes all market more often than not. If that’s the case it’s probably preferable to have someone like ARM at the top than Intel or Nvidia.
  - sylware 3y ago
    nope, it is would be better if it was RISC-V.
    - shjake 3y ago
      Why (besides religious reasons)? I don’t see how can high-end/competitive RISC-V cores could be fully open/free and without that how is it better than ARM.
      - sylware 3y ago
        There is nothing religious here. arm and x86 are not royalty free ISAs, RISC-V is, then RISC-V is mechanically a better choice, until it does a good enough job.
      - snvzz 3y ago
        >and without that how is it better than ARM. Only ARM can license ARM cores to others. Using RISC-V, any company who can design their own cores can also offer them for licensing. There's already tens of companies offering hundreds of cores for licensing. This is much better than ISA-enforced vendor lock-in, which is the situation with x86 and ARM.
  - rektide 3y ago
    It's winner take all in a competitive scenario, maybe. Winner is all is what RISC-V is trying to make happen.
rektide 3y ago
Most people want to build things not cores, the cores aren't the core competency. So the hope is, release what cores you have & let others improve it for you. Western Digital's swer-v core is seemingly an example of this thinking.
- shjake 3y ago
  Would you not expect companies which actually want to make to cores to have an advantage? And the companies that don’t want to make it their core business but can afford enough resources (e.g. Google, Apple, Amazon) would just use them to leverage their core products. I could only see this on the lower end where margins/required R&D investment are relatively low.
  - rektide 3y ago
    I expect going it alone will get totally owned by everyone else working together.

Symmetry 3y ago

There's a lot to be said for open source ISAs like RISC-V. But it's a lot harder to create a top of the line open source microarchitecture implementing it that's competitive to closed source designs. A Linux kernel developer can make changes and test them several times a day for a cost in electricity measured in cents. An equivalent build/test cycle on a CPU core is going to be north of a month and a million dollars. Simulation helps but to optimize speed and yield you really need to build the chips and due to physical effects that's a process with much weaker abstraction barriers than software development. So I'm skeptical that we'll ever have cutting edge open source microarchitectures.

sylware 3y ago
I am not talking about open source architecture, but more about a worldwide non-toxic ISA: namely anybody can create FREELY a RISC-V microarchitecture AT WORLWIDE SCALE, and that closed or open, which you cannot with arm or x86. Ofc, worldwide royalty free is not enough (or just be allowed to implement the ISA...), silicium is really about performance, and I sincerely hope RISC-V will end up providing microarchitectures (open or not) "good enough" to do the job. I am perfectly aware RISC-V will fail if not providing at scale really good implementations. Rumors say "really performant" implementations are not expected before 2024.
- klelatti 3y ago
  > namely anybody can create FREELY a RISC-V microarchitecture AT WORLWIDE SCALE The problem with this argument is that it ignores the cost of creating the microarchitecture. It’s almost certainly cheaper to license an Arm A series core than to create a comparable RISC-V core from scratch. Sure we have a firm like SiFive that licenses RV cores to third parties but the existence of firms like Arm and SFive shouldn’t be taken for granted. If rumour has it SiFive were almost taken over by Intel. Thankfully Nvidia were stopped from buying Arm. If you wish for Arm’s demise you may get the end of their business model and that probably isn’t a great outcome.
  - sylware 3y ago