4 ms·

you think they can just flip a RISC-V switch and keep all the performance instantly? I can't really understand the logic from some people here.

by SG- 2y ago

Joel_Mckay 2y ago
"keep all the performance instantly" Depends what you mean by performance (most vendors ARM accelerated features are never used for compatibility reasons), as upping the core count with simpler architecture is a fair trade on wafer space. i.e. if ARM is using anti-trust tactics to extort more revenue, that budget is 100% fungible with extra resources. Note, silicon is usually much cheaper than IP licenses. One can ask polity to explain things without being rude to people. Have a wonderful day =3
mrweasel 2y ago
People also seem to forget that everything needs to be ported. If you're an Android manufacturer, you're not going to stop shipping phones, waiting for the Android RISC-V to catch-up to ARM, or for RISC-V to get the speed and features of current ARM CPUs. You're going to buy ARM processors from another vendor. The Windows ARM port is going to take even longer, I doubt that Microsoft has that working at anything beyond research stage, if that. Getting the RISC-V ecosystem up to par with ARM is going to take years. If you want to spin this in RISC-Vs favor, then yes, forcing a company like Qualcomm to switch would speed things up, but it might also give them a bit of a stranglehold on the platform, in the sense that they'd be the dominant platform, with all of their own customisations.
- Joel_Mckay 2y ago
  In theory, the Raspberry Pi foundation could easily move 3 million 1.8GHz RVA23 in 1 quarter... with 64 cores + DSP ops it wouldn't necessarily need a GPU initially. =3
  - mrweasel 2y ago
    The Raspberry Pi community would probably jump on a RISC-V board, but that doesn't help Qualcomm or it's customers.
    - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
      Manufacturers adapt quickly to most architectural changes. If you are running in a posix environment, than porting a build is measured in days with a working bootstrap compiler. RISC-V already has the full gcc and OS available for deployment. We also purchase several vendors ARM products for deployment. Note, there was a time in history, when purchasing even a few million in chips would open custom silicon options. Given how glitched/proprietary/nondeterministic ARM ops are outside the core compatibility set, it is amazing it was as popular as the current market demonstrates. Engineers solve problems, and ARM corporation has made themselves a problem. =3

you think they can just flip a RISC-V switch and keep all the performance instantly? I can't really understand the logic from some people here.

by SG- 2y ago

you think they can just flip a RISC-V switch and keep all the performance instantly? I can't really understand the logic from some people here.

Joel_Mckay 2y ago

"keep all the performance instantly" Depends what you mean by performance (most vendors ARM accelerated features are never used for compatibility reasons), as upping the core count with simpler architecture is a fair trade on wafer space. i.e. if ARM is using anti-trust tactics to extort more revenue, that budget is 100% fungible with extra resources. Note, silicon is usually much cheaper than IP licenses. One can ask polity to explain things without being rude to people. Have a wonderful day =3

mrweasel 2y ago

People also seem to forget that everything needs to be ported. If you're an Android manufacturer, you're not going to stop shipping phones, waiting for the Android RISC-V to catch-up to ARM, or for RISC-V to get the speed and features of current ARM CPUs. You're going to buy ARM processors from another vendor. The Windows ARM port is going to take even longer, I doubt that Microsoft has that working at anything beyond research stage, if that. Getting the RISC-V ecosystem up to par with ARM is going to take years. If you want to spin this in RISC-Vs favor, then yes, forcing a company like Qualcomm to switch would speed things up, but it might also give them a bit of a stranglehold on the platform, in the sense that they'd be the dominant platform, with all of their own customisations.

Joel_Mckay 2y ago
In theory, the Raspberry Pi foundation could easily move 3 million 1.8GHz RVA23 in 1 quarter... with 64 cores + DSP ops it wouldn't necessarily need a GPU initially. =3
- mrweasel 2y ago
  The Raspberry Pi community would probably jump on a RISC-V board, but that doesn't help Qualcomm or it's customers.
  - Joel_Mckay 2y ago
    Manufacturers adapt quickly to most architectural changes. If you are running in a posix environment, than porting a build is measured in days with a working bootstrap compiler. RISC-V already has the full gcc and OS available for deployment. We also purchase several vendors ARM products for deployment. Note, there was a time in history, when purchasing even a few million in chips would open custom silicon options. Given how glitched/proprietary/nondeterministic ARM ops are outside the core compatibility set, it is amazing it was as popular as the current market demonstrates. Engineers solve problems, and ARM corporation has made themselves a problem. =3