3 ms·
As long as there are not much better and cheaper implementations available than we have on the ARM side today, it's unlikely to succeed (the humble opinion of s
by Rochus 3y ago
As long as there are not much better and cheaper implementations available than we have on the ARM side today, it's unlikely to succeed (the humble opinion of someone who implements embedded systems). And it's also unlikely to be royalty free; even if we don't have to pay royalties for the ISA, there will still be royalties for using patents and such if the implementation is really something. By the end of the day, RISC-V solves only a fraction of the problems (and has the potential to add new ones); personally, I think it is very unlikely that it will ever reach ARM's or AMD's volume.
- hakfoo 3y agoI think there's two messages RISC-V supplies, and one is less obvious. "It's free to license" means we don't have to send ARM a nickel. That looks compelling today. But the bigger story is much more the "It's open" angle. That means tomorrow you don't have to have faith in the stewards of the platform. You aren't relying on a fickle short-term license that they can strap stupid terms to next month (see: the ARM accelerator fracas) If you're planning a long-lifecycle product family, you don't want a sudden policy change to scrap half your roadmap, and RISC-V protects you there.
- Rochus 3y ago> you don't want a sudden policy change to scrap half your roadmap, and RISC-V protects you there. I didn't ever experience a situation where we were free of thirdparty IP; RISC-V only covers the ISA; everything else remains the same; so maybe we get less dependent of one company, but a lot of other dependencies remain; whether this is worthwhile remains to be demonstrated.
- photonbeam 3y agoand hopefully you have choices for that third party IP too This just reduces lock-in for CPU IP