3 ms·

While the sentiment is a bit harsh, the performance gap noted is real. RISC-V has a ways to go to catch up to ARM64 and then finally AMD64 but if the Apple M1 t

While the sentiment is a bit harsh, the performance gap noted is real. RISC-V has a ways to go to catch up to ARM64 and then finally AMD64 but if the Apple M1 taught us anything, it's possible.

Joel_Mckay 1y ago
RISC-V shouldn't try to catch 40 years of spiral-development, but rather focus on something people can gather momentum around. amd64 wasn't a great design, but provided a painless migration path for x86 developers to 64bit. Even Intel adopted this competitors architecture. I like the company making a multi-core pseudo GPU card around RISC-V + DSP cores, but again copying NVIDIA bodged on mailbox style hardware is a mistake. It is like the world standardized around square-wheels as a latency joke or something... lol Making low-volume bespoke silicon is a fools errand, and competing with a half-baked product for an established market is a failed company sooner or later. I think people are confusing what I see with what I would like to see. An open ISA would be great, but at this point I can't even convince myself I'd buy a spool of such chips. =3
blurbleblurble 11mo ago
Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd imagine the performance gap has almost nothing to do with RISC-V and everything to do with implementation.
- Joel_Mckay 11mo ago
  Like everything in tech... the answer is "it depends": the barrel-shifter in ARM is considered energy-efficient. Also, most RISC design concepts are using more numerous simpler instructions at higher clock-rates, and doesn't rely on mystery microcode to pull off the same workloads as amd64 etc. ARM8/9 is quite good, but partly because a lot of the unused legacy chip features were stripped out. RISC-V had potential, but is still too fragmented... It is the value proposition to companies that is a problem, and in the current consumer market it will likely meet the same fate as PowerPC. =3 "Why the Original Apple Silicon Failed" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tld91M_bcEI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tld91M_bcEI
  - snvzz 11mo ago
    >but is still too fragmented... Care to elaborate? What application processors are out there not following the application profiles? As far as I am aware, there is not even one.
    - Joel_Mckay 11mo ago
      The point was: 1. Cores <= 32bit are effectively dead in the OS space, and wasting silicon chasing legacy markets was unwise 2. The ISA "standard" is actually a set of modular features, and Imagination Technologies has already paired its GPU IP into a RISC-V SoC. The SiFive X280 is a nice chip, but also focused on bespoke customers needs rather than general product design. 3. Fragmenting the documentation, software, and integration resources across numerous variants of each RV32I, RV64I, and RV128I base cores was very unwise. Calling them all RISC-V was classic silliness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC-V#ISA_base_and_extensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC-V#ISA_base_and_extensions 4. Design by committee is difficult, and rarely ends well. They should have chosen a _single_ base core with the greatest traction (64bit), and a set of standard popular features to span as many consumer use-cases as possible. Then quietly shoved every other distraction into a box, and tossed it off a bridge. An ISO standard will unlikely fix this very old issue. =3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect
      - snvzz 11mo ago
        >1. Cores <= 32bit are effectively dead in the OS space, and wasting silicon chasing legacy markets was unwise RISC-V originally didn't plan on 32bit at all. It exists because there is market interest. >2. The ISA "standard" is actually a set of modular features, and Imagination Technologies has already paired its GPU IP into a RISC-V SoC. The SiFive X280 is a nice chip, but also focused on bespoke customers needs rather than general product design. This modularity is a key feature, for those that need it, use it and would have never chosen RISC-V if it didn't have it. This same modularity existing doesn't in any way hinder the ecosystem efforts centered around RVA23. >3. Fragmenting the documentation, software, and integration resources across numerous variants of each RV32I, RV64I, and RV128I base cores was very unwise. Calling them all RISC-V was classic silliness. RV32I, RV64I and RV128I are entirely separate ISAs. It is thanks to this that the focus can be on RV64I, unaffected by the others. >4. Design by committee is difficult, and rarely ends well. They should have chosen a _single_ base core with the greatest traction (64bit), and a set of standard popular features to span as many consumer use-cases as possible. Then quietly shoved every other distraction into a box, and tossed it off a bridge. An ISO standard will unlikely fix this very old issue. =3 Application processors and the common software ecosystem (Ubuntu, Android and so on) have consolidated around RVA23. The "distractions" are a feature; the likes of RV32E and bespoke chips with custom extensions can exist and not affect the application profiles such as RVA23 and the ecosystem of software and hardware built around them.

While the sentiment is a bit harsh, the performance gap noted is real. RISC-V has a ways to go to catch up to ARM64 and then finally AMD64 but if the Apple M1 taught us anything, it's possible.

Joel_Mckay 1y ago

RISC-V shouldn't try to catch 40 years of spiral-development, but rather focus on something people can gather momentum around. amd64 wasn't a great design, but provided a painless migration path for x86 developers to 64bit. Even Intel adopted this competitors architecture. I like the company making a multi-core pseudo GPU card around RISC-V + DSP cores, but again copying NVIDIA bodged on mailbox style hardware is a mistake. It is like the world standardized around square-wheels as a latency joke or something... lol Making low-volume bespoke silicon is a fools errand, and competing with a half-baked product for an established market is a failed company sooner or later. I think people are confusing what I see with what I would like to see. An open ISA would be great, but at this point I can't even convince myself I'd buy a spool of such chips. =3

blurbleblurble 11mo ago

Correct me if I'm wrong but I'd imagine the performance gap has almost nothing to do with RISC-V and everything to do with implementation.

Joel_Mckay 11mo ago
Like everything in tech... the answer is "it depends": the barrel-shifter in ARM is considered energy-efficient. Also, most RISC design concepts are using more numerous simpler instructions at higher clock-rates, and doesn't rely on mystery microcode to pull off the same workloads as amd64 etc. ARM8/9 is quite good, but partly because a lot of the unused legacy chip features were stripped out. RISC-V had potential, but is still too fragmented... It is the value proposition to companies that is a problem, and in the current consumer market it will likely meet the same fate as PowerPC. =3 "Why the Original Apple Silicon Failed" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tld91M_bcEI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tld91M_bcEI
- snvzz 11mo ago
  >but is still too fragmented... Care to elaborate? What application processors are out there not following the application profiles? As far as I am aware, there is not even one.
  - Joel_Mckay 11mo ago
    The point was: 1. Cores <= 32bit are effectively dead in the OS space, and wasting silicon chasing legacy markets was unwise 2. The ISA "standard" is actually a set of modular features, and Imagination Technologies has already paired its GPU IP into a RISC-V SoC. The SiFive X280 is a nice chip, but also focused on bespoke customers needs rather than general product design. 3. Fragmenting the documentation, software, and integration resources across numerous variants of each RV32I, RV64I, and RV128I base cores was very unwise. Calling them all RISC-V was classic silliness. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC-V#ISA_base_and_extensions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC-V#ISA_base_and_extensions 4. Design by committee is difficult, and rarely ends well. They should have chosen a _single_ base core with the greatest traction (64bit), and a set of standard popular features to span as many consumer use-cases as possible. Then quietly shoved every other distraction into a box, and tossed it off a bridge. An ISO standard will unlikely fix this very old issue. =3 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-system_effect
    - snvzz 11mo ago
      >1. Cores <= 32bit are effectively dead in the OS space, and wasting silicon chasing legacy markets was unwise RISC-V originally didn't plan on 32bit at all. It exists because there is market interest. >2. The ISA "standard" is actually a set of modular features, and Imagination Technologies has already paired its GPU IP into a RISC-V SoC. The SiFive X280 is a nice chip, but also focused on bespoke customers needs rather than general product design. This modularity is a key feature, for those that need it, use it and would have never chosen RISC-V if it didn't have it. This same modularity existing doesn't in any way hinder the ecosystem efforts centered around RVA23. >3. Fragmenting the documentation, software, and integration resources across numerous variants of each RV32I, RV64I, and RV128I base cores was very unwise. Calling them all RISC-V was classic silliness. RV32I, RV64I and RV128I are entirely separate ISAs. It is thanks to this that the focus can be on RV64I, unaffected by the others. >4. Design by committee is difficult, and rarely ends well. They should have chosen a _single_ base core with the greatest traction (64bit), and a set of standard popular features to span as many consumer use-cases as possible. Then quietly shoved every other distraction into a box, and tossed it off a bridge. An ISO standard will unlikely fix this very old issue. =3 Application processors and the common software ecosystem (Ubuntu, Android and so on) have consolidated around RVA23. The "distractions" are a feature; the likes of RV32E and bespoke chips with custom extensions can exist and not affect the application profiles such as RVA23 and the ecosystem of software and hardware built around them.