3 ms·

The RISC-V instruction set is not encumbered by intellectual property. This means they are cheaper to make, licensing costs being 0. Cheaper to make can transla

The RISC-V instruction set is not encumbered by intellectual property. This means they are cheaper to make, licensing costs being 0. Cheaper to make can translate to the customer into cheaper to buy.

flashback2199 3y ago
That is definitely going to be nice, but not enough for me to really care too much about it now vs things that actually affect me like software tools, languages, etc.
- persnickety 3y ago
  Are you saying that you don't pay for your hardware so it doesn't affect you? If not, sorry for the misunderstanding.
  - flashback2199 3y ago
    Yep Intel just gives me free hardware LOL, yeah, no... So anyway, the reason is whenever risc-v makes sense to switch to for cost and performance, I think I'll do it at that time. There is no reason I can see for me to think about it until then. Literally it's going to be exactly the same for me except maybe doing something like `apt install somepkg-risc-v` for some packages and I'm pretty sure that will be the only thing different for me. Makes sense now or still confused?
kllrnohj 3y ago
AMD & Intel also pay $0 for licensing costs. For the phone markets & up through servers, licensing costs are a rounding error on what you pay. You're paying for the R&D of actually designing the chip itself, not the ISA, as well as for the actual manufacturing itself.
- persnickety 3y ago
  Forgive me, but I don't understand how you can acknowledge that you do pay for ISA licensing and then contradict that in the next sentence. > You're paying for [...], not the ISA
  - kllrnohj 3y ago
    If you're comparing between two products and one is $1500 and the other is $1501, is that $1 really entering your list of pros/cons? No, of course not. It's irrelevant at that point, literally any other difference (even what color the dumb thing is) is immediately more significant. That's my point, there's a point at which the increased end-price as a result of the licensing is such a small % of the total price as to simply no longer be significant for the consumer buying the product. And phones are already expensive enough that the SoC being 1-2% more expensive simply doesn't matter in any meaningful degree to the end purchase price. Nobody is looking at the $1200 iPhone 15 Pro Max and going "damn, if only this was $0.50 cheaper, then it'd be all over it..."
    - persnickety 3y ago
      Consumer devices with ARM cores can be had for as low as 2 USD (sensors, breakout boards). Phones can be had for Rs 1300 (around 15$): https://pricebaba.com/mobile/pricelist/low-cost-phones-in-india https://pricebaba.com/mobile/pricelist/low-cost-phones-in-in... Sadly, it's impossible to estimate the relative cost without knowing the ISA licensing terms, and I haven't been able to find anything.
      - kllrnohj 3y ago
        > Consumer devices with ARM cores can be had for as low as 2 USD (sensors, breakout boards). Yes, and that is the market where RISC-V is actually appealing. Once you go higher end, the appeal of a no license cost ISA rapidly drops off and stops being a significant factor.
klelatti 3y ago
This seems to assume that development of ISAs is done for free, which is not the case. When a firm pays Arm a licensing fee for the Arm ISA that fee helps support the development of the Arm ISA. When someone who works for SiFive or Tenstorrent etc works on the development of the RISC-V ISA, they are being paid and those costs will be recovered through the price paid for the products they sell. Others may use the ISA at zero cost but someone is paying. Now you could argue that costs will be lower in aggregate because of greater competition, but the cost isn't zero in total.
- persnickety 3y ago
  This does include a presumption, but not the one that you're proposing: that the ISA development is done for cheaper than when a single profit-driven entity is responsible for it.
  - klelatti 3y ago
    It might be cheaper but licensing costs = 0 does not imply that, which is what your original statement said.

The RISC-V instruction set is not encumbered by intellectual property. This means they are cheaper to make, licensing costs being 0. Cheaper to make can translate to the customer into cheaper to buy.

flashback2199 3y ago

That is definitely going to be nice, but not enough for me to really care too much about it now vs things that actually affect me like software tools, languages, etc.

persnickety 3y ago
Are you saying that you don't pay for your hardware so it doesn't affect you? If not, sorry for the misunderstanding.
- flashback2199 3y ago
  Yep Intel just gives me free hardware LOL, yeah, no... So anyway, the reason is whenever risc-v makes sense to switch to for cost and performance, I think I'll do it at that time. There is no reason I can see for me to think about it until then. Literally it's going to be exactly the same for me except maybe doing something like `apt install somepkg-risc-v` for some packages and I'm pretty sure that will be the only thing different for me. Makes sense now or still confused?

kllrnohj 3y ago

AMD & Intel also pay $0 for licensing costs. For the phone markets & up through servers, licensing costs are a rounding error on what you pay. You're paying for the R&D of actually designing the chip itself, not the ISA, as well as for the actual manufacturing itself.

persnickety 3y ago
Forgive me, but I don't understand how you can acknowledge that you do pay for ISA licensing and then contradict that in the next sentence. > You're paying for [...], not the ISA
- kllrnohj 3y ago
  If you're comparing between two products and one is $1500 and the other is $1501, is that $1 really entering your list of pros/cons? No, of course not. It's irrelevant at that point, literally any other difference (even what color the dumb thing is) is immediately more significant. That's my point, there's a point at which the increased end-price as a result of the licensing is such a small % of the total price as to simply no longer be significant for the consumer buying the product. And phones are already expensive enough that the SoC being 1-2% more expensive simply doesn't matter in any meaningful degree to the end purchase price. Nobody is looking at the $1200 iPhone 15 Pro Max and going "damn, if only this was $0.50 cheaper, then it'd be all over it..."
  - persnickety 3y ago
    Consumer devices with ARM cores can be had for as low as 2 USD (sensors, breakout boards). Phones can be had for Rs 1300 (around 15$): https://pricebaba.com/mobile/pricelist/low-cost-phones-in-india https://pricebaba.com/mobile/pricelist/low-cost-phones-in-in... Sadly, it's impossible to estimate the relative cost without knowing the ISA licensing terms, and I haven't been able to find anything.
    - kllrnohj 3y ago
      > Consumer devices with ARM cores can be had for as low as 2 USD (sensors, breakout boards). Yes, and that is the market where RISC-V is actually appealing. Once you go higher end, the appeal of a no license cost ISA rapidly drops off and stops being a significant factor.

klelatti 3y ago

This seems to assume that development of ISAs is done for free, which is not the case. When a firm pays Arm a licensing fee for the Arm ISA that fee helps support the development of the Arm ISA. When someone who works for SiFive or Tenstorrent etc works on the development of the RISC-V ISA, they are being paid and those costs will be recovered through the price paid for the products they sell. Others may use the ISA at zero cost but someone is paying. Now you could argue that costs will be lower in aggregate because of greater competition, but the cost isn't zero in total.

persnickety 3y ago
This does include a presumption, but not the one that you're proposing: that the ISA development is done for cheaper than when a single profit-driven entity is responsible for it.
- klelatti 3y ago
  It might be cheaper but licensing costs = 0 does not imply that, which is what your original statement said.