39 ms·
I think the point is not so much that RISC-V is better than x86 or that RISC-V with the same budget would be better than x86, etc. The point is that since RISC-
by solarexplorer 12y ago
I think the point is not so much that RISC-V is better than x86 or that RISC-V with the same budget would be better than x86, etc. The point is that since RISC-V so simple, that you can produce _your_own_ customized cpus with a very small budget. Like adding special instructions, a special memory hierarchy, a special on-chip-network, whatever. It certainly made sense for digital signal processing, graphics and networking. It may make sense for other domains too.
These custom chips have the potential to be much more power efficient (for their special class of applications) than off-the-shelf general purpose chips.
With RISC-V it will be easier to start your own CPU design...
- FullyFunctional 12y agoThat's largely it, but it's not just that it's simple; like Alpha, the RISC-V ISA has been carefully crafted to avoid choices that burdens implementations (be those simple or advanced). A few examples of this (none of which are unique to RISC-V except in aggregation): no delayed-branch semantics, source and destination registers are always in fixed location (see then store vs. load encoding) and are always explicit, sign bits are immediate fields is always in the same location, etc.