I honestly don't understand the advantage of a RISC-V system from a consumer point of view. Sure, for chip developers it is interesting to have a open system like that, but most seem to abuse this open-ness by adding proprietary extensions and thus the result is a chip that is just as bad as an ARM one from the consumer point of view.
Well... obviously some people simply prefer the open source philosophy - and we are seeing open source processors coming out of the open source instruction set : By backing RISC-V, they are sending a message to OEMs.
Nvidia's argument for using RV was that they had the freedom to do things that they weren't allowed to with ARM, and as result they designed better microcontrollers. Surely that turns into the consumer's advantage?
I'm just a couch potato, but as I understand it, RV can beat ARM on PPA because of its modularity : whether that turns into a significant advantage for the consumer, I guess depends on what the processor is being used for.
RnD could be sped up either because of "standing on the shoulders of giants" or because of not having to wrangle licenses : The consumer potentially gets the next generation tech quicker...
And production might be much cheaper, and those cost reductions could be passed on to the consumer.
True, but ARM has been pretty liberal with licensing. There is a risk of it falling under US control and thus sanctions against China though, which seems to be the main reason of the current interest in RISC-V.
Yes - Arm has had to ease up both on licensing fees to smaller companies, and also has granted more flexibility in design, both as a result of RISC-V's popularity. And they certainly didn't want to do the latter!
The really interesting question is : Will RISC-V have gained enough momentum by the time the Nvidia/Arm deal has been decided upon (and probably rejected)? (And was this all a ruse by Nvidia for RISC-V??)
The recently announced extension ratifications help - especially Vector.
And China is certainly pushing it, thanks to the tech trade dispute.
But here's the point : There's no real reason for designers not to use RISC-V. They've been teaching RISC-V at top universities for a decade. There's open source software available to design and ratify. There's no licencing costs, and there's even funding available to get designs fabbed.
I just think it's neat to have a new architecture, and the fact that it would compete with ARM is also exciting. However, you are right that there are potential pitfalls. I am waiting to see how this goes, but I'm ready to embrace an open arch over more closed alternatives, even if it's not perfect.
I'm curious to see if the Mill architecture will take off any time soon. Unfortunately, it's not an open platform, but it would represent some interesting innovations in processor design. They've apparently been making steady progress, but publicly facing information about progress is limited.
poVoq@lemmy.ml 2 years ago
I honestly don't understand the advantage of a RISC-V system from a consumer point of view. Sure, for chip developers it is interesting to have a open system like that, but most seem to abuse this open-ness by adding proprietary extensions and thus the result is a chip that is just as bad as an ARM one from the consumer point of view.
3arn0wl@lemmy.ml 2 years ago
Well... obviously some people simply prefer the open source philosophy - and we are seeing open source processors coming out of the open source instruction set : By backing RISC-V, they are sending a message to OEMs.
Nvidia's argument for using RV was that they had the freedom to do things that they weren't allowed to with ARM, and as result they designed better microcontrollers. Surely that turns into the consumer's advantage?
I'm just a couch potato, but as I understand it, RV can beat ARM on PPA because of its modularity : whether that turns into a significant advantage for the consumer, I guess depends on what the processor is being used for.
RnD could be sped up either because of "standing on the shoulders of giants" or because of not having to wrangle licenses : The consumer potentially gets the next generation tech quicker...
And production might be much cheaper, and those cost reductions could be passed on to the consumer.
poVoq@lemmy.ml 2 years ago
True, but ARM has been pretty liberal with licensing. There is a risk of it falling under US control and thus sanctions against China though, which seems to be the main reason of the current interest in RISC-V.
3arn0wl@lemmy.ml 2 years ago
Yes - Arm has had to ease up both on licensing fees to smaller companies, and also has granted more flexibility in design, both as a result of RISC-V's popularity. And they certainly didn't want to do the latter!
The really interesting question is : Will RISC-V have gained enough momentum by the time the Nvidia/Arm deal has been decided upon (and probably rejected)? (And was this all a ruse by Nvidia for RISC-V??)
The recently announced extension ratifications help - especially Vector. And China is certainly pushing it, thanks to the tech trade dispute.
But here's the point : There's no real reason for designers not to use RISC-V. They've been teaching RISC-V at top universities for a decade. There's open source software available to design and ratify. There's no licencing costs, and there's even funding available to get designs fabbed.
marmulak@lemmy.ml 2 years ago
I just think it's neat to have a new architecture, and the fact that it would compete with ARM is also exciting. However, you are right that there are potential pitfalls. I am waiting to see how this goes, but I'm ready to embrace an open arch over more closed alternatives, even if it's not perfect.
pingveno@lemmy.ml 2 years ago
I'm curious to see if the Mill architecture will take off any time soon. Unfortunately, it's not an open platform, but it would represent some interesting innovations in processor design. They've apparently been making steady progress, but publicly facing information about progress is limited.
marmulak@lemmy.ml 2 years ago
First time I've even heard of this