6 ms·
Somewhat related: I believe RISC-V is going to well in the coming decade. I've been trying to figure out what I can invest in to get exposed to it, but have be
by micvbang 3y ago
Somewhat related: I believe RISC-V is going to well in the coming decade. I've been trying to figure out what I can invest in to get exposed to it, but have been unable to find anything. If anybody had got any angles, I'd love to hear them!
- cinntaile 3y agoThen your actual bet is that RISC-V based products will outperform products based on competing ISAs, no?
- 3cats-in-a-coat 3y agoThey might, on the basis of it being an open unencumbered ISA that will see a lot of investment from parties trying to get rid of Intel/ARM dependencies. Think of it a bit like what happened to JS. Being the open language the web runs, it saw immense competition from multiple particles and today we have a what should be a shitty dynamically typed prototype based scripting language outperform and outoptimize the likes of Java with its static classes and types in some scenarios.
- qwytw 3y agoI would be wary about comparing software to hardware in this way. Open source software is generally only successful in cases when it's a cost center not the actual end product. I don't see how than can work when developing competitive CPU cores is extremely expensive. Why would anyone who does that make them free? (even licensing seems like a poor idea looking at ARMs business model).
- alostpuppy 3y agoJust as God intended
- mhh__ 3y agoIs JS faster than java? Also the web ecosystem is still basically a pile of shit on a few key metrics compared.to (say) boring Microsoft-land stuff a decade or 3 ago, so I'm not so sure if that's such a good argument.
- voytec 3y agoIt may not overpower other ISAs but could be attractive from the cost-effectiveness perspective.
- cinntaile 3y agoI meant outperform in a general sense. It could be on cost-effectiveness, especially for low-margin chips. It would mean he'd invest in companies that make this transition, but I expect almost all low-margin producers to make this shift. High-margin we're probably looking at proprietary ISA extensions that they don't open source.
- micvbang 3y agoYeah. My thought is that RISC-V has the potential to be very competitive in terms of compute/watt and compute/$. At the very least versus x86, but hopefully also with arm
- mhh__ 3y agoThat's such a weak edge you might as well just buy TSMC/ASML or even Intel their fab business play works out.
- hakfoo 3y agoI'd expect it would expand the market for customized SoC/microcontroller parts. We know there's already a lot of "built to purpose" RISC-V products ending up in embedded environments. When you have less obligations to a restrictive ISA grant, you can make something that fits your needs exactly. So the business case is second-order: * As has repeatedly been joked, fab companies who aren't locked to a captive/capricious owner (Intel) look appealing. It likely isn't about cutting-edge there, but the flexibility to handle diverse custom orders. Plenty of these products will be like "133MHz and a couple hundred thousand gates" that would be fine on 90nm or bigger. * Firms that can move from "product" to "consultancy". There's a lot of brilliant work in existing ARM and RISC-V MCUs, but will existing firms be able to move away from "here's a matrix of features, order from the list" and into "Let us meet with your team, build a custom pick-and-mix and add a bespoke unit to meet your need for (smaller number than was historically common) product-specific MCUs?"
- bradstewart 3y agoIs there something unique to RISC that makes it inexpensive to manufacture custom chips? Otherwise, I'd imagine the cost of the mask set and validation to far, far outweigh any reduction in unit cost you might see from a custom chip. MCUs are already extremely cheap, especially if you're buying significant quantities.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rwmj 3y agoThe ISA is permissionless. You don't have to sign any legal documents, just download the specs, download some chip designs off github, and get going. The model is very different from x86 and Arm.
- cinntaile 3y agoI am aware, the distinction doesn't affect my question.
- prabhu-yu 3y ago.
- photonbeam 3y agoYou could buy private stock for some companies like SiFive on something like EquityZen. Other companies are already public, like Andes Look at names of companies that give talks at https://events.linuxfoundation.org/riscv-summit/ https://events.linuxfoundation.org/riscv-summit/
- rwmj 3y agoI'm guessing most of the value will be taken by TSMC. They don't care who wins :-) This move is about Intel Foundry Services (IFS) trying to get some of that action. IFS is now operated separately from the x86 part of the company.
- mattnewton 3y agoDepends on where you think the value will accrue - Maybe cloud providers who are some of x86’s biggest customers today but would switch if workloads work there? But their bottom line is exposed to so many different things it’s not a clean bet. For the processors designers themselves, I wouldn’t bet outside value accrues to them since the instruction set is open and competition could be fierce. Another option would be to figure out who you think will be manufacturing the other peripherals needed to use RISC processors. Something like Supermicro on the server side (which benefitted hugely from a similar relationship making nvidia cards into servers), or find some supplier on whatever market you think will pop because of RISC-V (automotive, military systems, etc). Basically whoever turns these processors into finished systems is probably a good bet, but I haven’t done enough research to know who that would be.
- micvbang 3y agoThank you. Yes, I agree that it's a good idea to look for companies that create divided systems based on RISC-V. It's primarily these I've had trouble to identify :)
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoI can see AWS developing a risc-v based cpu, like with gravitons as a competing offer. disclaimer: this is pure speculation, I am not privy to any information, I am just a rando engineer.
- dboreham 3y agoThere's a vast amount of ocean boiling to do first, unless such a thing just emulates x86 or aarm64. It took until...tomorrow for me to be able to run my workloads on arm. That only happened (hasn't 100% happened yet) because we had RPi and then the M1 forcing all the dependency folks to ship arm builds. I've never seen a RISC-V docker container...
- upsidedownside 3y ago[dead]
- sobkas 3y agoI believe RISC-V will recreate balkanization and UNIX wars of the past. There will be just to much incentive for corporations to introduce closed/proprietary extension to distinguish themselves from their competitors. So either users would be forced to use only core specification(that would be not as competitive as new extensions) or be forced to choose extended ISA from one of big players.
- whatshisface 3y agoIf that happens we will just end up with math libraries with tons of feature detection branches and the return of Gentoo.
- paulmd 3y agoYes. People upthread are talking about how corporations want to recreate the open software revolution with open hardware and this will (and already does) play out exactly like it has with open software: big vendors extract all the value from the product, contribute nothing back, and keep any cool features they come up with internal and proprietary. This is the problem with arm, it’s this foundational technology that underpins everything from Grace to Dojo and TPU and yet arm doesn’t make any fucking money. They lost money during the first year of the pandemic (and the two years prior iirc!) despite the boom in electronics sales! Nvidia buying arm for the synergy of forcing CUDA as the default arm graphics IP (and BYO for higher price) was the good ending. Nobody else is going to pay $40b for a company that makes 0.5b +/- 1b without some other synergy, and the other possibilities are companies like Samsung, tsmc, or Oracle with their own synergies. CUDA as an ai platform was absolutely a play that would be cashing out big right now if they had succeeded. Well, if it’s not nvidia (and it seems any other buyout would be equally unlikely to get approval) then SoftBank is just gonna have to make the existing licensees pay up, and cash out the business that way (revenue and then IPO). So there’s a lot of licensees who are going to find an extra zero on their TCO of ARM usage. That’s the reason you saw Qualcomm pitch a fit and start lying about the terms of their licensing deal last year. And google and meta and Amazon are equally upset. And they’re gonna start funding a competitor. Those companies (and the bulk android market) mostly don’t care about performance, this is the “cheapest thing that works” market. The accelerator (TPU etc) is the thing that really matters now. There may be a minimal amount of collaboration (ala Minix or CDDL) to build that common platform but that’s all they really care about, is some basic P-core and E-core designs. There is no incentive for Amazon to build processors that are way faster than googles, actually everyone is still selling vCPUs based on sandy bridge processing power. They’d rather make cheaper smaller CPUs (this is why zen4c and zen5c exist, in large part) than compete on performance or features. That’s just not where the secret sauce is, and it’s not where the revenue is. So we are going to see the same thing as the software space, where vendors take the fruit of risc-v, build their own stuff around it, and pay nothing and contribute nothing back. Everything important will live in proprietary, non-portable IP that doesn’t need to be shared under open terms. The same problems as always when you BSD/MIT license. The future is a google TPU that you are not allowed to purchase yourself, stamping on a human face endlessly. But the boot will be based on a core of open-source/open-license designs, how wonderful! (with the interesting parts living inside proprietary parts of the core ofc) Nvidia/CUDA dominance is way better than google platform-as-service that you can’t even run on-prem if you wanted to. And for all you can say about them, nvidia has never stopped pushing to the next thing, even when they had an insurmountable lead, and even when nobody else believed in the goal or saw where they were trying to go. Google and Amazon don’t benefit from pushing the limit like this, they just want cheap arm.micro instances and a host for their proprietary accelerators. The difference between BSD/MIT and GPL is fundamentally about who gets the freedom - BSD/MIT let developers do what they want with it, and that sometimes comes at the expense of user freedoms. And when google/Amazon/meta say they want free and open cores, they certainly don’t mean they’ll be giving away their IP. That’s arm’s predicament in a nutshell. Their business model lets other companies extract all the value and revenue. They’re this foundational technology that google/Amazon/meta make billions off of, and arm gets to lick the beaters. And any change to this model is is going to piss off enormous amounts of people, not least google/Amazon/meta. And arm’s play is “ok but if we don’t contribute anything worth paying for, then you won’t mind switching”. There is no BATNA for arm licensees right now. Long term this could mean arm being knocked off its pillar. But that could happen anyway too, eg with the nvidia merger perhaps.
- brucethemoose2 3y agoInvest in companies making esoteric accelerators, like Fujitsu, Marvell, Broadcomm, probably many more I don't know about. RISC-V is going to show up more and more in heavily customized stuff like HPC chips or networking accelerators before it starts replacing Xeons, as (right now) thats what its best suited for. Look up what Jim Keller said about RISC-V usage for Tenstorrent and how ARM just doesn't allow for the kind of customization these specialized designs need from a standardized ISA.
- spiralpolitik 3y agoLook into the fabs that make RISC-V processors. At some point Intel Foundry Service will be spun off as a separate company, so invest in that when it happens. Disclaimer: Not investment advice.