4 ms·
It should be RISC-V... who is in charge at Intel?? Is this related to the rumors of softbank (ARM) money injection in Intel?
by sylware 1y ago
It should be RISC-V... who is in charge at Intel??
Is this related to the rumors of softbank (ARM) money injection in Intel?
- FirmwareBurner 1y ago>It should be RISC-V... who is in charge at Intel?? Why should it be that? What are your arguments?
- sylware 1y agooh, you are new to HN, because you would not need to ask such question if you were reading HN in the last few years... You can start on risc-v wikipedia page and/or on the official risc-v web site.
- nullpoint420 1y agoI would say they’re smart to invest in ARM over RISC-V for the time being. It was hard enough to get the industry to support x86 and ARM64. I mean the Windows transition is still not fully complete, and they’ve been trying since Windows 8.
- sylware 1y agoI would say otherwise. The future, if sane, is certainly not with a PI locked ISA like ARM all over again (look at x86). Actually, it looks like a super bad move from intel.
- magicalhippo 1y agoFrom the article: Why is Intel manufacturing an Arm SoC as a reference platform? Probably because it's trying to attract external customers, and there's a whole lot more companies building Arm SoCs than there are firms pitching x86-64 processors. They're not trying to build the next best thing. They're trying to attract customers.
- rbanffy 1y agoI don't think Intel plans to make a product, but to prove they can build a working chip that's not one of their own design. Being ARM has fewer developmental risks than a RISC-V design and make validation easier.
- mepian 1y agoIntel demonstrated a RISC-V chip called Horse Creek two years ago.
- sylware 1y agoIf they manage to plug their microarch design on RISC-V ISA (yes, they will throw away a ton of things), they will be ready, performance-wise. This real hard part is transitioning the software stack, including games...