9 ms·
High-performance RISC-V processors: UltraRISC UR-DP1000, Zhihe A210, SpacemIT K3
- snvzz 1y agoReminder: Haswell and Zen1 were around 8.1 specint2006/GHz. These CPUs are above that.
- brucehoult 1y agoSo is P550 ... 8.65 is the claim I think. It doesn't have the MHz though. My i7-4790K (which is still in the back room somewhere) had a base of 4.0 GHz and could turbo to 4.2 or 4.4. My Megrez is doing just 1.8 GHz.
- snvzz 1y agoMain issue with P550 is no V. Huge handicap, can't easily make up for that. RVA23 requires V. These incoming CPUs are the real deal, a perfectly usable performance level in the present day. (unless they cache-starve them or some other such fuck up) My 4790k was still my main PC until I recently (weeks) built a new PC with 9800x3d, 96GB ECC, rx7900gre. 4790k had 4 cores. If these new chips clock reasonably, say, 3+ GHz, and have 8 or 16 cores, they'll easily generally outdo this old -but very usable still- Intel chip.
- sitkack 1y agoEveryone needs to be focusing on memory controllers. No one has enough main memory bandwidth.
- nubinetwork 1y agoI'm okay with ddr4 as long as you can still buy it.
- camel-cdr 1y agoReminder: The Cortex-A76 cores in the Pi5 are 9.9 SPECint2006/GHz, only the UR-CP1000 is above that, but that doesn't support RVV. The SpacemiT X100 is slightly below that, but has 256-bit RVV and RVA23 support.
- 6SixTy 1y agoNo V instruction set is going to be a big handicap though, as that's pretty much RISC-V's equivalent of AVX and missing those instructions is going to suck big time.
- snvzz 1y agoRVA23 compliant implies V. Two of the three processors seem to be RVA23.
- 6SixTy 1y agoPretty much my issue is that the one that is the closest to shipping is also the one missing V instructions. I am far more skeptical over potential processors especially after Horse Creek just vanished into thin air.
- karunamurti 1y agoTwo just say RVA23, one is "Compliant with RVA23 excluding V extension".
- snvzz 1y agoIt's a long way to say "Not complaint with RVA23."
- geerlingguy 1y agoHigh performance for RISC-V; still a ton of catchup especially in efficiency (perf/W) to Intel/AMD and Arm. At least we're getting close to Raspberry Pi level performance now.
- unixhero 1y agoIt has already caught up with regards to intellectual property openness. That is of course the great win here.
- brucehoult 1y agoTenstorrent won't be many months behind them, with true 2020s Apple / Intel / AMD performance levels. An original November 2020 M1 Mini (4P+4E 3.4 GHz) is still my main computer to sit in front of, and I have zero plans to change that right now. You'll be able to buy RISC-V at that level sometime next year.
- musicale 1y agoM1-class performance/power efficiency/cost would be impressive. I guess we'll see when/if it actually happens.
- topspin 1y ago> You'll be able to buy RISC-V at that level sometime next year. Will you? What exactly are Tenstorrent's plans for Ascalon? They are chasing the AI market, and I haven't seen any clear indication that they intend to sell their RISC-V CPUs as unbundled SKUs, or on "main computer" PCBs (ATX/mATX/ITX/etc.) I'm not sure they even care about that market. I hope they'll do this, but that's all I have right now. If you know something in particular, please share. If I could buy a M1 or better class Ascalon desktop system I'd be happy to pay an Apple-esq premium, and I believe many others would as well.
- snvzz 1y agoAIUI we know of one Ascalon licensee, LG. The known intent of LG is as main processor on its smart TVs.
- deivid 1y agoCan't wait for a faster risc-v SBC, waiting for rust builds on my VisionFive 2 drives me crazy.
- ekianjo 1y agohttps://boilingsteam.com/orange-pi-rv2-new-risc-v-board-review/ https://boilingsteam.com/orange-pi-rv2-new-risc-v-board-revi... no need to wait
- snvzz 1y agoBest to wait for the RVA23 chips.
- brucehoult 1y agoOther than having RVV, that board is slower than a VisionFive 2, at least for what I primarily do (building software). Yes, even with 8 cores vs 4. Also the K1 chip offers support for 16 GB RAM, but the RV2 only offers 8 GB. I have 16 GB on the same chip on my LicheePi 3A.
- ekianjo 1y agoAre you sure about the "slower" part? Because I have both a VisionFive 2 and the OrangePi RV2, and the OrangePi RV2 is way faster in my different tests. Even in single core scenarios.
- brucehoult 1y agoYup. For example, Build Linux kernel commit 7503345ac5f5 with defconfig. VisionFive 2 ... with -j4, 3.37x faster than -j1 real 67m35.189s user 249m55.469s sys 13m35.877s ... with -j1 real 227m52.130s user 215m19.648s sys 12m7.831s LicheePi 3A ... with -j8 5x faster than -j1 real 70m57.001s user 514m33.367s sys 39m43.167s ... with -j4 3.28x faster than -j1 real 108m0.979s user 399m0.734s sys 30m47.136s ... with -j1 real 354m44.285s user 330m24.508s sys 24m12.196s When using all the cores the SpacemiT is not much slower, but single core it takes over 1.5x longer. On other tasks that don't stress the caches so much the SpacemiT can do well.
- fidotron 1y agoThe performance here is less interesting than the apparently quasi imminent availability of real RVA23 devices. If/when that occurs it will set a baseline and things should not warrant from scratch rebuilds constantly for at least a while. Anyone that believes semiconductor performance claims before device availability is in for a rough time.
- gchamonlive 1y agoYou are right, but I think this is different than say performance claims for the next generation by mainstream GPU or CPU manufacturers. This is a chicken and the egg problem. You need interest in the architecture and belief in performance for device availability to start to pop, after all who would invest a lot of money in something they don't think will have a market, but you also need device availability to support performance claims. So I think for newer products, performance claims will have to do.
- brucehoult 1y agoManufacturers don't lie about how many clock cycles Dhrystone or Coremark or SPEC takes on their design. The first two can be checked at the verilator (or commercial equivalent) stage, and SPEC in FPGA, both long before physical chips. The only things in doubt are: - whether they hit the hoped-for MHz - whether the code you want to run has the same characteristics as their benchmark For example SG2044 GeekBench results have been appearing on the site from time to time for more than half a year now. GB as a whole is pretty much worthless for what I care about, but the Clang test within it aligns closely with what I do, including the rqtio between multi-thread and single-thread.
- bjoli 1y agoMilk brags about their "proprietary extension". I understand that the vendors can do whatever they want, but that turns me off.
- pjmlp 1y agoProving the point that RISC-V isn't necessarly as open as it gets advocated for, versus the competition.
- bigyabai 1y agoVersus the competition? Modern x86 and ARM chipsets are not only proprietary from the ISA-up, they have the same proprietary extensions. "RISC chipset adds in proprietary CISC features" has been in my headlines so often that I assumed nobody cared. Helluva time to go up-in-arms, in Q3 2025.
- pjmlp 1y agoIn the end a small distinction that hardly matters when buying OEM boards.
- bigyabai 1y agoObviously. But that has nothing to do with what your comment said.
- pjmlp 1y agoUsually those boards come with RISC-V CPUs using proprietary extensions, for dismay of RISC-V FOSS advocates, it has everything to do with it.
- bigyabai 1y agoWell then you probably should have said "RISC-V isn't entirely open" rather than "as open" because now your responses make nearly no sense.