2 ms·
>It should be RISC-V... who is in charge at Intel?? Why should it be that? What are your arguments?
by 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.