> so they decided to add RISC-V as a sort of feature test and market test; After some thought I understand the problem this setup tackles: Without dual archite

> so they decided to add RISC-V as a sort of feature test and market test; After some thought I understand the problem this setup tackles: Without dual architectures, there's a conundrum: how do you sell Risc-V if everyone is tooled for Arm? So I get that offering both means they dont have to risk tapeout of a pure Risc-V die there's no immediate market for. The dual arch chip presents little to no risk while allowing the same chip to bootstrap a Risc-V tooling ecosystem. Once the end users have a mature Risc-V ecosystem the chip makers can begin to cut the Arm licensing strings they are entangled in. > It's more common than you think. You are describing co-processors or accelerators which fulfill a different role in the same system. It makes sense to have those. However, I was initially confused as to why a chip needs two architectures that fulfill the same role. That did not make sense at first glance from a technical standpoint but does from a business one.