> It still is imho the better RVA20/RV64GC SBC available Agreed. Certainly the safest bet. The Pine64 Star64 or Milk-V Mars might be as good or better (and Mar

> It still is imho the better RVA20/RV64GC SBC available Agreed. Certainly the safest bet. The Pine64 Star64 or Milk-V Mars might be as good or better (and Mars is a little cheaper, but also missing features), but the VisionFive 2 has the most development and support. > other chips might be faster somewhat but they use more power and need active cooling TH1520 is a bit disappointing. It benchmarks faster on Dhrystone, Coremark, my primes benchmark etc, but on real world work it is often slower. I've found it about 10% slower building the GNU toolchain. Richard Jones has noted the same thing building Fedora packages. On the Dotnet "LINQ" tests the vf2 takes 4.5 minutes while the LPi4A takes 5.5 minutes. The vf2 has NVMe (which I'm not using). It has faster I/O to the same external Samsung 2 TB USB3 SSD which I use on both boards. The 2 MB of L2 cache on the vf2's JH7110 vs the 1 MB on the TH1520 probably also contributes to real-world performance. > I am very hopeful for Milk-V Oasis Yup. I don't believe the promised timeline, but SOPHGO have proven they can make a decent SoC, the Oasis will be much cheaper than the Pioneer, and 16x Arm A78 equiv is much more useful for most people most of the time than 64x A72 equiv. That's 13 SPECInt2006/GHz vs 6, per core, so significantly better on anything using up to 16 threads, and no worse for anything that uses no more than 32 threads. The SiFive cores will also be a lot more standards-compliant.