3 ms·

Well there's a difference between the instruction set and the specific implementation in silicon. The Instruction set really doesn't cover how an operating syst

by dtx1 3y ago

Well there's a difference between the instruction set and the specific implementation in silicon. The Instruction set really doesn't cover how an operating system is booted, how energy efficient a specific chip is, how to interact with devices and drivers, how caching and out of order execution are achieved etc. Qualcomm has undeniable experience in all of this, regardless weather you like their implementation or not and there isn't a single riscv chip out there that can compete with ARM on the performance level yet.

cmrdporcupine 3y ago
I think the argument will be that even if it can't compete on performance it can compete at the business level by being more flexible, unencumbered by licensing and IP restrictions, etc. Whether it's a universal good for the consumer or not is unclear. We could end up with significant fragmentation. But the compelling aspect of RISC-V is that companies can spin up their own cores to do all sorts of things without a lot of hassle with licensing. Either by writing one's own core or using an existing off the shelf one, and then tacking on whatever extensions or customizations that make sense for them And thinking here far beyond what most people think of when they think of in regards to processors (phones, computers) but the fact that ARM cores are in practically everything these days from the MCU to the MPU level. Everything from light bulbs and ceiling fans to COVID tests to garage door openers to christmas lights or toys to drive and memory controllers to laptops and phones. Think of all that diversity, and now consider what advantages a manufacturer can get by being able to roll up whatever they want, but still be able to use a common standard compiler suite, verification tools, skill set, etc. RISC-V is the future, or at least a future. No doubt ARM and x86 will exist alongside basically forever, but RISC-V I think has crossed the point where it was a "maybe will be something" to a "it's happening" moment.

by dtx1 3y ago

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

I think the argument will be that even if it can't compete on performance it can compete at the business level by being more flexible, unencumbered by licensing and IP restrictions, etc. Whether it's a universal good for the consumer or not is unclear. We could end up with significant fragmentation. But the compelling aspect of RISC-V is that companies can spin up their own cores to do all sorts of things without a lot of hassle with licensing. Either by writing one's own core or using an existing off the shelf one, and then tacking on whatever extensions or customizations that make sense for them And thinking here far beyond what most people think of when they think of in regards to processors (phones, computers) but the fact that ARM cores are in practically everything these days from the MCU to the MPU level. Everything from light bulbs and ceiling fans to COVID tests to garage door openers to christmas lights or toys to drive and memory controllers to laptops and phones. Think of all that diversity, and now consider what advantages a manufacturer can get by being able to roll up whatever they want, but still be able to use a common standard compiler suite, verification tools, skill set, etc. RISC-V is the future, or at least a future. No doubt ARM and x86 will exist alongside basically forever, but RISC-V I think has crossed the point where it was a "maybe will be something" to a "it's happening" moment.