[HN Gopher] RISC-V is succeeding ___________________________________________________________________ RISC-V is succeeding Author : PaulHoule Score : 296 points Date : 2022-03-01 15:05 UTC (7 hours ago) (HTM) web link (semiengineering.com) (TXT) w3m dump (semiengineering.com) | coliveira wrote: | Apple has demonstrated that is possible to run x86 software in | another architecture without any major loss of computing power. | This has opened the possibilities not only for ARM-based designs, | but for RISC-V and others as well. I believe that architectures | like x86 and ARM will be a thing of the past in the next few | years as companies move to produce chips that suits their needs | instead of paying royalties to Intel or ARM. | beagle3 wrote: | Apple added non standard ARM extensions to make that possible. | It could be done in other arch's but it doesn't come for free. | vineyardmike wrote: | > Instead of paying royalties to Intel or ARM. | | I totally expect intel to offer a RISC V chip in the next | decade. Made by them, competing with ARM for low power. | r00fus wrote: | I totally don't, unless they can create a nice moat. Intel | doesn't play well if it can't prevent others from playing in | its space. | | Perhaps they'll try to do another WinTel combo with RISC-V? | Sounds like MS can just do it on their own. | UltraViolence wrote: | RISV-V will succeed because countries like China, India and | Russia need a CPU ISA that isn't directly or indirectly | controlled by the U.S. government. | | Somehow, they're also too stupid to roll their own. | fuoqi wrote: | It will succeed even further after China solves its fab issues. | Considering how the West overplays the technological sanctions | card, many countries will jump on this bandwagon as soon as | RISC-V solutions will be more or less competitive. We already can | see it in the embedded space (even Russia has a sizable stake in | RISC-V) and I expect we will see reasonable high-end solutions in | 5-10 years. | klelatti wrote: | Key quote from an excellent and well balanced article. | | > I don't believe the success of RISC-V is because it is cheap or | lower cost. If you just want to do the same as you can get with | an Arm core, you absolutely should just buy an Arm core because | it's so well verified. It's so well designed. It's exactly what | you want. The only reason for using RISC-V is because you want | the freedom to change it and add your own things to it. | | RISC-V is great and important as an enabler of innovation and | experimentation. As a like for like replacement for the cores in | your smartphone less so. | zozbot234 wrote: | > RISC-V is succeeding MIPS | | Fixed it for you. But hey, it's not like there's anything wrong | with that! | Narishma wrote: | Why was the title changed? | krzyk wrote: | Is there a platform similar to RPi but with a RISC-V cpu? (I | don't care about gpu, so headless one, but with rj45 and few USB3 | ports would be great). | miniwark wrote: | SiFive did had one in the past (HiFive Unleashed). They still | offer an Arduino like board for $59. | | See: https://www.sifive.com/boards/hifive1-rev-b | | The more RPi like one actually available, seems to be the | Nezha, available on AlieExpress for around $99~170 (and on | other places too) | | https://fr.aliexpress.com/item/1005002668194142.html | | A short review here: https://www.cnx- | software.com/2021/05/20/nezha-risc-v-linux-s... | | And a extensive wiki page: https://linux- | sunxi.org/Allwinner_Nezha | | Finally, there also seem to be a BeagleBoard (coming soon or | vaporware?) in association with the chinese chip-maker | starFive: | | https://beagleboard.org/static/beagleV/beagleV.html | St_Alfonzo wrote: | "Sipeed Nezha 64bit RISC-V" may fit. | https://de.aliexpress.com/item/1005002856721588.html | blacksmith_tb wrote: | Kind of expensive though, its cousin[1] is more appealing to | me, though I haven't ordered one yet. | | 1: https://www.aliexpress.com/item/1005003594875290.html | goodpoint wrote: | Sipeed Lichee RV. At around 28 euro with a dock it's pretty | unbeatable. (For a RISC-V) | rjsw wrote: | How about the Starfive VisionFive [1]? | | [1] https://starfivetech.com/en/site/exploit | sprash wrote: | The AMD64/x86_64 ISA patents expire 2023. This makes RISC-V kind | of pointless since x86 has a vastly superior ecosystem. I would | prefer a solid x86 system without IME, Pluton, secret microcode, | EFI cripple bootloader and all the other surveillance, anti- | freedom crap over RISC-V any day. | phendrenad2 wrote: | The 32-bit x86 patents expired awhile ago, and no one has done | anything with it (far as I can tell). It's just really hard to | implement an x86 CPU, and there probably isn't much motivation | when they're so ubiquitous and cheap already. | zozbot234 wrote: | AIUI, there's quite a few new x86 systems targeted at | industrial/embedded use and retrocomputing. I've also heard | of at least one modern core which implements i586. | MayeulC wrote: | x86_64 is much harder to implement though. | | The superiority of the ecosystem is debatable. I guess you | mostly have proprietary software in mind? (including Microsoft | Windows). That will improve with time. | freemint wrote: | There are reason why one would want to implement a RISC CPU | over x86-64. Atleast as a small team. Another problem is that | many application today assume the presence of atleast SSE if | not AVX2 which have been around for longer then or almost a | decade. A patent expired CPU will always have to play unless | the architecture they clone was stopped being developed much | (as SuperH was which J-Core based it's design on). | sprash wrote: | AMD64 contains everything up to SSE2. AVX2 only exists since | 2015. I doubt many applications require it. | hajile wrote: | Do you have a source for that? The initial announcement was in | 1999. Did they file for the patents later? | humanwhosits wrote: | I too remember when AMD and Intel simply gave up on filing any | new patents in the early 2000s | marcodiego wrote: | Are there plans by any vendor to develop/implement/sell any | reasonably powerful x86 processor without IME/PSP? | userbinator wrote: | It depends what you mean by "reasonably powerful" --- there | are a handful of small Chinese companies with x86-cored SoCs, | and of course this: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25589081 | Pet_Ant wrote: | What would it take for Apple to switch to making RISC-V CPUs? I | mean wouldn't it mostly be a change in the instruction decode | logic? Once you are inside the chip most conventional chips (eg | not The Mill or many-core) basically the same logically? | Macha wrote: | They've already got a lot of licenses for ARM already set up as | perpetual licenses, and a lot of expertise, and an already | deployed ARM toolchain. So there's no reason for Apple to | switch to Apple manufactured RISC-V over Apple manufactured | ARM, and given how Apple got burned by Intel's stagnation from | Sandy Bridge until Alder Lake, I'm not sure there's a run of | success long enough for another company to convince Apple to | drop their own control in the medium term future. | Pet_Ant wrote: | I meant specifically, besides rewriting the instruction | decode unit, and maybe tweaking the memory access to meet | some technicalities, what would be involved to taking the M1 | and making it support a different instruction set. | dehrmann wrote: | That has very little to do with Apple. What you're really | asking is how hard would it be to add support to a CPU for | a second instruction set. | snvzz wrote: | Not really worth pondering. Apple has enough funds to do it | just as an experiment, without much care about cost. | Lind5 wrote: | Intel's support for RISC-V marks a technological and cultural | shift https://semiengineering.com/which-processor-is-best/ | tombert wrote: | Are there any RISC-V laptops on the market? I would love to get | my hands on one if they're available. | darksaints wrote: | It can't succeed fast enough. I'm sick of space heaters posing as | x86 laptops, and I refuse to voluntarily buy into the Apple | ecosystem, even if they do some things well. How far away are we | from competitive laptop/desktop quality RISC-V chips? It seemed | like there were a few extension that everybody was waiting on, | but now most of them are complete, and still haven't seen | anything of substance. | kllrnohj wrote: | > I'm sick of space heaters posing as x86 laptops | | Then buy AMD? There's choices here, and AMD's laptop CPUs for | the last few generations have been _very_ power efficient. See | for example today 's Anandtech coverage of the latest Zephyrus | G14: https://www.anandtech.com/show/17276/amd-ryzen-9-6900hs- | remb... | | It's nonsensical to think that RISC-V will somehow fix this, | since it's a heck of a lot more about execution quality than | ISA (fine-grained clocking, power gating, sleep states, etc... | as well as just an overall efficient cache & instruction | execution design). | sprash wrote: | > space heaters posing as x86 laptops | | The instruction set has nothing to do with this. Apple has | better numbers because it uses the most advanced manufacturing | process. | cultofmetatron wrote: | > Apple has better numbers because it uses the most advanced | manufacturing process. | | on the contrary, arm is a simpler isa to implement which | means radically less circuitry for reading the instruction. | modern Intel cpus go so far as having entire systems that | translate external x86 instructions to an internal risc based | one. That's a huge source of wasted power ie: heat. | marcan_42 wrote: | But it does. x86 is hell to decode in parallel, because it's | variable length (and in a complex way), so Intel can't build | CPUs that keep a wide pipeline fed with instructions | efficiently like Apple can, with the 8-wide decoder in the | M1. That's one of the things that makes the M1 special, and | how it gets away with lower clocks and power consumption than | competing x86 designs. | userbinator wrote: | Variable length doesn't matter that much, you just have | something that has a wide shifter on the front. And | instruction density is important because it saves cache. A | single x86 instruction can take the place of several RISC | ones, which is why they needed to have it decode so wide. | The M1 is almost entirely a process advantage. | jabl wrote: | Current x86 as well as many Arm cores have micro-op caches, | so they don't need as wide decoders as a design that | doesn't have such a thing, like M1. (That doesn't take away | from the fact that M1 is a very impressive design, of | course) | paulmd wrote: | You can certainly argue that's because of other design | choices (optimizing for high IPC at low clocks by trading off | space/etc) but it's certainly not _just_ because of their | manufacturing process. Both the A15 /M2 architecture and AMD | Zen4 will be on TSMC N5P this year, it's pretty doubtful that | AMD will be able to catch Apple in IPC or perf/watt imo. | | And AMD is currently the more "low clock/high IPC" of the two | major x86 vendors, so they're the easiest comparison, Intel | is really clock-focused still (see: today's Anandtech review | comparing AMD 6000/Zen3+ against Alder Lake Mobile and note | the power scaling numbers). | | https://www.anandtech.com/show/17276/amd-ryzen-9-6900hs- | remb... | | Anyway Jim Keller's "I'm sure x86 isn't dead yet" aside, it | seems undeniable that tweaking the instruction set to enable | deeper reorder and scale the frontend wider should have | performance benefits. Saying out-of-order depth doesn't | matter is like saying that code density doesn't matter, or | speculation depth doesn't matter. These are things that can | be simulated, or measured on real-world code, I don't have | numbers at-hand but it seems self-evident that there are | metrics that those tweaks should improve on. | | It doesn't mean x86 is at the end of the line, but if you | told me that a 50-year legacy ISA (even if it's been cleaned | up a lot over the last 30) had maybe a 10-20% performance, | perf/watt, or area/watt benefit due to "intentional design" | (aka tuning to the task) and the knowledge of hindsight - I | have no reason to doubt that as being facially untrue. | | 10-20% is still "competitive", so Keller isn't wrong, but it | also still puts x86 at a disadvantage in the long term. | That's a generation of memory (Zen3+ got 12% moving to DDR5) | or most of an architectural generation or maybe a half-node | step that x86 would have to stay ahead to maintain _parity_ | (not just competitiveness). | jabl wrote: | This article suggests that on a Haswell, decoders consumed | between 3 and 10% of the power, depending on the workload | tested: https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/cool | dc16/cool... | | On newer wider and deeper designs this number is most | likely smaller, and of course the decoder on Arm or RISC-V | consume more than 0% too. So most likely, all in all, the | "x86 tax" in terms of power consumption is in the low | single digit %. | paulmd wrote: | Haswell is a much narrower architecture than A14 though - | 4-wide decode vs 8-wide for Firestorm. So it's 3-10% _for | an implementation that does significantly less than Apple | 's_. And the problem is that x86 has geometric complexity | as you go wider, so it consumes significantly more if you | want to go as wide as Apple did. | | You're saying "nothing wrong with an n^2 algorithm, it | works fine for us with n=1000", when you're comparing | against someone who is showing results for n=1M. | Obviously it would be better for someone in the latter | situation to use an n-log-n algorithm. Not real numbers | or transistor order-complexities, but you get the idea, | x86 has asymptotically worse transistor complexity than | ARM as you increase the decode width, and that _is_ true. | | Also, that number is for a full-fat Performance Core. If | the rest of the core shrinks, the decoder gets relatively | bigger, unless you reduce its performance too. So the | amount of decoder area (as a % of the overall core) is | worse on efficiency cores than performance cores, because | there's less "everything else" there. | | (likely you will reduce the decoder somewhat, Goldmont | and Gracemont both use a 3-wide instead of 4-wide, but | geometric scaling means that it's much more expensive to | scale wider than you would save from scaling down. And | the reliance on 'tricks' like instruction cache likely | won't scale nearly as well - it's the same amount of "hot | code" for many tasks, regardless of how many threads are | running in it, because most of the work happens in | certain hotspots. The increased overhead of decoding | could, among other factors, be one of the reasons why | Gracemont e-cores are not particularly appealing in | perf/area. They are very solid on performance but the | area scaling isn't _all_ that great compared to | hyperthreaded Golden Cove Performance Cores.) | | Also that's really just looking at one part of the | processor in isolation. OK, so the decoder only consumes | 3-10%, but that doesn't say anything about how it limits | the ways the rest of the processor to scale. Everyone | loves car analogies, it doesn't matter how big an engine | you put in the car if it has a rinky-dink air intake that | can't provide enough air to fully utilize its | displacement. Looking at "the size of the air intake | relative to the size of the engine bay" doesn't give you | a realistic picture of how it affects the ability of the | rest of the design to scale. A turbo might allow you to | scale the rest of the engine up much larger than a | naturally aspirated one. | | (or maybe the fuel system might be a better analogy...) | | As far as the instruction cache - those are tricks can be | used on ARM architectures too (and I believe Apple | does?), they aren't _themselves_ a substitute for a | scalable ISA, they 're treating the symptom. They may do | more on an architecture that is more bottlenecked in that | area, but they do give you at least some speedup on | everything. Treating the symptoms is really orthogonal to | the topic of how much an ISA limits decoding width or | reorder depth in itself. | | Anyway, x86 isn't Itanium and it isn't going anywhere, | but it strongly looks to me like ARMv8 is on a solid | foundation that solves some weaknesses of the x86 design. | It's a clean-sheet "how would we do out-of- | order/speculation if we could design our instructions | over again" and it largely achieves that goal IMO. I | don't see it as an inherent law of the universe that | "there must exist enough tricks for x86 to match the | performance of any competitor". There's always lots of | metrics to look at, and in many cases Apple is designing | for fundamentally different metrics than AMD/Intel, but I | don't quite get the reluctance people have to admit that | ARM is going to be better than x86 in some of those | metrics, even on iso-node (like A15 vs Zen4). And this is | like, _the core metric_ that aarch64 was designed around. | jabl wrote: | > You're saying "nothing wrong with an n^2 algorithm | | Quadratic scaling is certainly not ideal, but in the | grand scheme of things OoO processors have other | components that consume more power as well as having | quadratic or even worse scaling. For instance, the issue | queue, the ROB, multiported register files, bypass | networks. | | Hence, when you go to a wider and deeper OoO design I | claim that the relative importance of the decoder will | decrease. | | > If the rest of the core shrinks, the decoder gets | relatively bigger, | | In the previous paragraph you're arguing that as the core | gets beefier the decoder will get relatively bigger. Now | you're arguing the exact opposite! So which is it? | | > As far as the instruction cache - those are tricks can | be used on ARM architectures too (and I believe Apple | does?), they aren't themselves a substitute for a | scalable ISA, they're treating the symptom. They may do | more on an architecture that is more bottlenecked in that | area, but they do give you at least some speedup on | everything. Treating the symptoms is really orthogonal to | the topic of how much an ISA limits decoding width or | reorder depth in itself. | | I'm quite sure pretty much any processor outside of some | really tiny microcontroller will have an instruction | cache. But maybe you're talking about micro-op caches. So | yes, they are in a way treating the symptom that it can | be more efficient to cache decoded instructions instead | of decoding them over and over in a loop. But so what, if | it works use it! Might as well claim that caching in | general is cheating instead of just having faster memory. | | > looks to me like ARMv8 is on a solid foundation that | solves some weaknesses of the x86 design. It's a clean- | sheet "how would we do out-of-order/speculation if we | could design our instructions over again" and it largely | achieves that goal IMO. | | I fully agree, ARMv8 is certainly pretty much a 'best | practice' general purpose ISA. I just don't think it's | such a dominating factor. If ARM or RISC-V eventually | take over the world I think it'll be more due to | different licensing/business models/etc rather than the | superiority of the ISA itself. | | > I don't see it as an inherent law of the universe that | "there must exist enough tricks for x86 to match the | performance of any competitor". | | Indeed there is no such inherent law, but so far looking | at the history of microelectronics it seems that with a | modest transistor budget penalty and some elbow grease | you can make almost any ISA fly. | userbinator wrote: | Comparing decoder width for x86 vs ARM is really apples- | to-oranges. One x86 instruction may do the work of | several ARM ones. All the OoO stuff happens at the uop | level anyway. | hajile wrote: | This argues even more against x86 as it translates to an | internal ISA. | | In effect, the argument becomes that decode-to-risc-cost | + risc-execution-cost is always going to be bigger than | risc-execution-cost. | | And this is before you consider the effects of things | like looser memory ordering or more registers reducing | unnecessary MOVs. | paulmd wrote: | That's true if you take the strict textbook definition of | "RISC" and "CISC" but everyone has been saying for 10+ | years that really isn't how things work anymore. ARM has | pulled a lot of the "useful goodies" out of CISC ISAs and | CISC ISAs have gone to RISC micro-ops internally on a lot | of things. And x86-64 is really not all that dense anyway | either. | | Also, a huge amount of instructions end up being used | very little, there are a few "hotspot" instructions that | make up a huge percent of actual instructions executed. | | https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.02318.pdf | | Measured code density on SPEC2006, ARMv8 has geomean 6% | more instructions, and geomean 12% higher code size. But | Apple designs use 4x the decoders-per-thread in their | Performance Cores compared to Intel (8 decoders for 1 | thread for Apple, vs 4 decoders for 2 threads for Intel). | | Apple's designs are targeting much, much higher decode | performance even considering the lower density of ARM | (4/1.06 = 3.77x as much "normalized decode performance | per thread"). Which shouldn't be surprising as their IPC | is around 3x of modern x86 processors as well according | to Anandtech's work on M1. They aren't magic, the code | runs about the same on their processors too, they're just | designed for much wider layouts than x86 and using super | deep re-ordering to get that performance into a single | thread. | mixedCase wrote: | Taking into consideration how long it's taken the ARM industry | to get a single decent laptop/desktop processor with the M1 | since ARM64 was published. And it's yet to be matched by any | other company. | | Odds are good we're going to be waiting for a while. | Qem wrote: | ARM started at a time when Moore Law still hold strong. It | was much harder to catch up. The incumbents can't double | their products performance every 18-month anymore. So RISC-V | can have a easier time catching up than ARM did, one hopes. | ninjaoxygen wrote: | What scares the hell out of me, it would be so easy to backdoor | an implementation of the open core in a well-hidden way. | | Whereas the "big" CPU providers are staking their reputation and | therefore future business on providing a non-backdoored CPU, it | would be fairly trivial for an individual device manufacturer to | provide a backdoored CPU design for their chip design. | | It could become the whole cheap-device OEM firmware situation all | over again (as we saw with many backdoored routers), but this | time the blob is located on-die, so is significantly harder to | reverse engineer or audit. | goodpoint wrote: | > it would be so easy to backdoor an implementation of the open | core in a well-hidden way | | If anything it's way more difficult that doing so on a closed | core. | | > It could become the whole cheap-device OEM firmware situation | | If you think high-end proprietary routers were not backdoored | think again. | phendrenad2 wrote: | If you care about security, you probably don't care about | performance. High-performance cores are very complicated and | hard to follow. But, if you give up performance, you can design | a core that uses very simple concepts, making it hard to hide a | backdoor in the design. Things like Chisel, which let you write | your design in a higher-level language, help with that too. | beagle3 wrote: | The main provides already provide a backdoored CPUs - Intel ME | and AMD PSP. | | There is a a general belief that only some good guys have the | keys. I don't know what it is based on. | marcodiego wrote: | This is a problem with common thinking these days: " general | belief that only some good guys have the keys". I paid for | the device, I should get the keys! | Macha wrote: | This is one of the cases where HN attempts to remove clickbait | from article titles hurts its meaning. An article titled "Why | RISC-V is succeeding", like this one, would lead me to expect an | overview of the positive contributors to RISV-V growth, as this | article does. | | An article titled "RISC-V is succeeding" would lead me to expect | an article focused on market share over time, which this one is | not | [deleted] | snvzz wrote: | The real reason RISC-V is succeeding, relative to ARM: | | _If you make your own CPU_ | | - With ARM, You have to pay ARM for ISA license (after a several | months long negotiation), and you cannot license your CPU design | to anyone, as ARM has the exclusive right to do that with their | designs. | | - With RISC-V, you get a free ISA license, and you can license | your CPU design to others. | | _If you do not make your own CPU_ | | - With ARM, you can (after a several months long negotiation) | license one of the few designs ARM has available. There's no | other vendors that can offer you ARM CPU designs. | | - With RISC-V, _right now_ , you can license any among hundreds | of options available, from tens of vendors. The licensing process | is usually very short and straightforward. Alternatively, there | are some open hardware designs. You can get commercial support | for some of them. | | Frankly, unless ARM does radically change their business model, I | do not expect them to survive. | gumby wrote: | > Frankly, unless ARM does radically change their business | model, I do not expect them to survive. | | I kind of agree, but it's not straightforward. ARM's growth | wasn't so much a hockey stick as a more continuous curve with a | small exponent. Yes, they only started in 1990, but that was | itself a reboot/restart after acorn's 12 years of effort. And | they were scrambling hard for every deal for at least another | 15 years. | | The environment in which RISC-V emerged is different, of | course, but many of the dynamics are still the same. Car | companies were still using 16 and even 8 bit devices into the | 21st century. | | Secondly, ARM has a large arsenal of patents that go along with | the license, and they continue to add to the load. | | I bear ARM no ill will but I also want RISC-V to supplant them. | I just don't think it's automatic. | klelatti wrote: | This all rests on the several suppositions including: | | - Arm has no IP that can't be quickly replicated by other firms | (for very little money). | | - That the quality of designs from other firms will be better | than those from Arm (or for the architecture licensees their | own). | | - The really big Arm licensees would see a commercial advantage | to switching. | | Intel threw billions at the smartphone market and still lost | against Arm. Today there are zero RISC-V smartphone designs. | That may change but probably largely because of the Arm China | and Nvidia missteps. | | I expect (and look forward to) RISC-V establishing a presence | in the market but this sort of commentary does the ISA no | favours. | | Edit: I see elsewhere you think they should abandon the Arm ISA | in favour of RISC-V! really not sure about that .. | renox wrote: | 1) Intel is/was handicapped by using an old CISC ISA which | has some cost in power/performance. This complex x86 decoder | ain't free. | | 2) Network effect favoured ARM. | klelatti wrote: | Intel also had the advantage at the time of a clear process | advantage which almost certainly would have more than | offset the decoder cost. | thetallstick wrote: | Nothing in life is ever simple... | | > With ARM, You have to pay ARM for ISA license | | This is only true for some definitions of ARM. See for example: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amber_(processor) "The Amber core | is fully compatible with the ARMv2a instruction set and is thus | supported by the GNU toolchain. This older version of the ARM | instruction set is supported because it is not covered by | patents, and so can be implemented with no license from ARM | Holdings" | | > Frankly, unless ARM does radically change their business | model, I do not expect them to survive. | | Looks like someone is having similar thoughts inside ARM. | https://hackaday.com/2018/10/02/free-arm-cores-for-xilinx-fp... | | There are other efforts too. | MayeulC wrote: | Also, waiting for IP is a huge bar for entry. | | Suppose you just want a soft core for a one-off FPGA project. | RISC-V is a no-brainer if you need to run complex stuff like a | Linux kernel. There's myriad of projects to pick from on | GitHub. Try them all, pick the one you prefer. | | The barrier to entry is so much reduced that you can use RISC-V | "by accident" without having considered it in advance, as part | of a normal engineering process in companies of any size, vs | months-long waits for IP, after deciding it was worth | obtaining. | yywwbbn wrote: | And if ARM started allowing everyone to use their IP for free | you would expect them to survive? ARM the architecture might | survive but probably no ARM the company. IMHO a more likely | outcome with Risc (assuming it gets widely adopted) would be | one or two companies like Samsung, Qualcomm, AMD or even Intel | gaining a massive advantage and profiting from it instead of | cheaply licensing their designs to other companies. I don't | really see how is that preferable to the ARM model where | company can theoretically license the most advanced ARM cores | there are (of course aside of what Apple is doing) or mostly | equal terms. | | Of course RISC might push them to make their licensing | mechanism to be more flexible if they start considering RISC an | a real threat to them (I don't think this is very likely to | happen in the near future, though) | admax88qqq wrote: | They will have no choice. Either ARM becomes irrelevant as | people switch to an easier to license ISA, or they have to | swallow a different profit model and compete by having the | _best_ ARM cores in an open market of ARM IP. | | The trend with RISC-V suggests that ISAs are going to be | commoditized and the real value will be in the | implementations themselves. | klelatti wrote: | Assumes that Arm have no implementation IP - which comes | with the ISA and is not available to others - and that the | only factor in choosing an ISA is how 'easy' it is to | license. Very strongly disagree with these assumptions. | YorkshireSeason wrote: | _> real value will be in the implementations themselves._ | | It is not that difficult to re-target a micro-architecture | (what you call implementation) to a new ISA, especially if | the ISAs relatively close, as most modern ISAs are. RISC-V | and Arm ISAs are an example where that should be especially | easy. | admax88qqq wrote: | Totally, all the more reason that the specific ISA is | less important than the implementation/micro-arch. | | Why pay for ARM if you can retarget to RISC-V and still | retain most of the benefits of your designs. | baq wrote: | you'll pay ARM for a good ARM RISC-V CPU. | YorkshireSeason wrote: | As "baq" also says: you pay Arm (or Apple, or Qualcomm or | ...) for the micro-architecture. I expect Arm to drop | licensing costs for their ISA to zero to compete with | RISC-V at the low end. | | Right now, the Arm ISA has much better micro- | architectures than RISC-V, why bother with RISC-V? I | think this will change over the next 5 years. One of the | ways to change this could be Arm selling RISC-V | implementations. | | Of course there are also dangers in RISC-V: one is that | we will get too many RISC-V versions, so no stable | software ecosystem emerges for any single one of them. | Adapting Linux, GCC and so on to your specific version of | RISC-V (or any processor really) is rather expensive. | melony wrote: | ARM won't become irrelevant as long as Apple exists. | bonzini wrote: | Arm is the fourth ISA for the Macintosh and its | descendents. Apple has shown three times that they're | anything but wed to architectures. | snvzz wrote: | >if they start considering RISC an a real threat to them | | I'm afraid they have seen RISC-V as a threat for a while now. | It has already been years since their first FUD campaign. | | >if ARM started allowing everyone to use their IP for free | you would expect them to survive? | | That's not how I see ARM surviving. | | One way ARM could survive is by doing what the MIPS owners | did: Abandon the ISA, move to RISC-V, use your extensive | expertise to make competitive cores, and your clout in the | market to sell them to your pre-existing clients. | | They could totally pull it off, but it would honestly | surprise me if they did so, considering how poorly they've | dealt with RISC-V so far. | Someone wrote: | > The way ARM could survive is by doing what the MIPS | owners did: Abandon the ISA, move to RISC-V, use your | extensive expertise to make competitive cores, and your | clout in the market to sell them to your pre-existing | clients. | | Even if that's their best bet, long term, I don't see why | they would have to start doing that right now. Why would | they leave their castle with its golden egg-laying goose, | only because they know it won't live for X more years? | | Timing such transitions is always difficult (you can't wait | until your goose is dead), but I think they're better of | waiting at least a few more years. | | The MIPS owners were in a different situation, weren't | they? Their goose already was dying or even dead. | the_duke wrote: | ARM has extensive IP and know how. They could build up | and sell high performance RISC-V IP/cores now and prevent | RISC-V focused companies like SiFive from gaining a | foothold by denying them revenue and investment. | | Alas, that would probably have worked better 2+ years | ago, there is a lot of movement now. | | It seems like Intel has realized this. They tried to buy | Sifive, but have now themselves joined as a major RiscV | International sponsor and are investing heavily in the | ecosystem. | | Of course there is a downside there too, because it | accelerates a software and hardware ecosystem transition | to a different architecture that can enable other | players. We'll see how it plays out | YorkshireSeason wrote: | > _Intel has realized this_ | | One of the reasons Intel is spending money on RISC-V | could be that they want to undercut Arm, as the latter | are now beginning to be competitive in Intel's X86 world. | RISC-V is going to succeed at all as an ISA, it is going | to hurt Arm before Intel. | snvzz wrote: | >I don't see why they would have to start doing that | right now. | | Me neither, but spreading FUD about RISC-V as they've | been doing doesn't help their credibility should they | take the MIPS path. | cestith wrote: | Take a look at the Halloween Documents and then look at | Windows Subsystem for Linux. This industry can absolutely | forgive FUD in the long term if a company changes its | path. | hyperman1 wrote: | That's just a job for the marketing department. I can | hear them already: | | ARM's vast experience brings the quality you've come to | expect to the RISC-V world. Want to lower TCO and level | up your designs, while leveraging existing experience, | but worried about low quality IP polluting your tech? | Fear not. etc... | | You can probably let an AI spew this stuff by now. | Training data is easy to find. | trs-80 wrote: | > Training data is easy to find. | | Got a good chuckle from that, I did! :D | [deleted] | admax88qqq wrote: | Abandoning the ISA is probably too extreme. | | MIPS was pretty dead when they abandoned it, ARM is still | alive and well. | | ARM could survive by making the ISA free and competing by | having the best ARM core designers and designs, and/or by | having proprietary addons for media handling/decoding. | Brian_K_White wrote: | "And if ARM started allowing everyone to use their IP for | free you would expect them to survive?" | | Irrelevant question that no one anywhere has any obligation | to care about. | asoneth wrote: | I don't think the parent comment was suggesting _we_ have | an obligation to care about ARM 's survival. | | But ARM probably cares about ARM's survival so it is | relevant to the discussion about what future decisions ARM | might make. | darksaints wrote: | I think the real value isn't so much to do with the Free-As-In- | Beer aspects, and more to do with the Free-As-In-Freedom | aspects. Having so much open documentation and off the shelf | capabilities is like a superpower, and you're starting to see | it with stories like these: | | https://riscv.org/blog/2020/11/13-year-old-nicholas-sharkey-... | | We've got kids designing their own cores. That was a bar that | previously was out of reach to anybody without a nine-figure | engineering payroll. That's amazing. | posterboy wrote: | Stands to reason then that they are not designing in the same | sense, but configuring and customizing. People have been | doing that for a while now on FPGA, or in hardware with 8080, | and it's hardly anybody's kids. What's so "amazing" about it? | | Dumb cores are a commodity now, which progressed in | horsepower from their ca. 60 years old ancestors. I.e. the | core is hardly innovative, so what is so amazing about it, | technically? | mhh__ wrote: | Not really, students have been designing RISC cores as long | as RISC has been around. It's a standard exercise. | | RISCV does make it a bit easier and gives you a clean ISA but | it hasn't really had that much of an influence due to its own | design i.e. it's caused people to herd around it so there's | lots of tutorials and work to borrow floating around. | thetallstick wrote: | This is because the underlying CAD tooling has gotten much | smarter and easier to use. It's not because of anything RISCV | did in particular. | | This toolchain enables going from knowing nothing to a core | in one class. One doesn't even need to enroll in the class to | follow along. | | See: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and- | compu... | robocat wrote: | Surely it is because of the open source ecosystem, | especially open-source tooling, reaching a critical mass? | | From article: "The open-source community developed key | tools that are crucial to make RISC-V-based processors | ubiquitous, such as chip technology process design kits, | design verification suites, implementation tools, and more" | | Closed source tooling was available and "smart", but | licensing, cost, and inflexibility were significant | roadblocks. Disclaimer: I don't work in the industry. | thetallstick wrote: | I think to really have the conversation we would have to | define the terms. Much of the original CAD tooling was | open source because it was written at Universities. | | Things like: is it enough for one to make any core or | does one have to make the "best" core? If it just has to | exist that was pretty much always possible. Definitely | not the lowest friction way to go. But possible. | | For example here is basic MIPS core originally written in | 2003, from chapter 1 of a common VLSI textbook: | http://pages.hmc.edu/harris/cmosvlsi/4e/code.html | | It's just over 400 lines of verilog and super easy to | follow. The tooling changes that happened in the 90s made | that possible. | | I experimented making cores that were taped-out in my | University, as an undergraduate, in the late 90s. It | didn't cost my University even close to 9 figures. It was | definitely a lot harder than now but the designs were | also a lot more modest. Things, essentially untrained, | students can do now would've been unthinkable then. | einpoklum wrote: | Their business model was to be sold to NVIDIA, but that didn't | work out. | | Anyway, that's all well good, but - does anyone end up making | decent RISC-V processors that could replace a desktop CPU, or a | RPi CPU, or something weaker but not in a small niche? Or is | this still a vision for the future? | snvzz wrote: | >does anyone end up making decent RISC-V processors that | could replace a desktop CPU | | As of November, a large number of extensions got ratified, | including the vector extension, cryptography acceleration, | hypervisor support and other important features. | | RISC-V is finally not missing any important feature ARM or | amd64 have, and it does it with an order of magnitude lower | number of instructions (equivalent but simpler, i.e. better) | and with significantly higher code density. | | However, test chips with the first designs implementing all | of that will take time, even assuming they were tapped out | right then, after confirming no last minute changes. | | High performance cores depend on these extensions, so we'll | begin to see them soon. We know multiple such efforts exist. | | Tenstorrent has one such project, led by Jim Keller. | | >Their (ARM) business model was to be sold to NVIDIA, but | that didn't work out. | | They intend to go public now. I recommend against buying | those shares, as I do not expect ARM to turn around. | posterboy wrote: | What remedie do you recommend against buying those shares, | though? | saagarjha wrote: | > RISC-V is finally not missing any important feature ARM | or amd64 have, and it does it with an order of magnitude | lower number of instructions (equivalent but simpler, i.e. | better) and with significantly higher code density. | | This has historically been a problem with RISC-V and it's | not really something you've backed up as being improved. | vbezhenar wrote: | There are rumours of Apple being interested with RISC-V. May | be MacBook 2030 will feature it. | mhh__ wrote: | Apple had a big part in aarch64 being what it is today so I | am quite skeptical they'd just jump ship. | | I might be making this up (I can't remember the company) | but I'm pretty sure at least one chip designer has moved | from risc-v to arm. It's not clearcut. | snvzz wrote: | Apple posted job advertisements looking for RISC-V | technical roles. | | What they plan to do with them is unknown, but Apple has | the cash flow to try a lot of things. | | I would expect them to quickly adopt it for embedded | applications, and experiment with making their own high | performance design, including porting MacOS and Rosetta | Stone. They can afford to do this much, regardless of | whether they end up moving their main CPUs to RISC-V or | not. | jhickok wrote: | For what it's worth, Apple always has people on hand | monitoring innovations in technology and testing their | stack on new hardware, most of which never sees the light | of day. | Macha wrote: | See OS X on Intel being a thing inside Apple for years | and years before they decided it should see the light of | day. | throwawayboise wrote: | NEXTSTEP was multi-architecture even before Apple owned | it. | m463 wrote: | I would imagine apple actually ships hundreds of devices | with processors - each dongle and peripheral has at least | one. | unfocussed_mike wrote: | Yep. There's surely a bunch of uses of RISC-V that have | little or nothing to do with the main CPU, even in a | conventional machine. | | Trust modules, device controllers, smart adapter cables | etc. | PaulHoule wrote: | My take is that RISC-V is not that great of an architecture | and might never compete at the high end. (e.g displace ARM, | Intel, POWER, etc.) | | On the other hand there is a vast market for low-end CPUs | that have specializations to be disk controllers and things | like that. If the ISA and all the IP required to make | specialized devices is free and particularly if there is a | culture in which it is easy to learn how to do that then | RISC-V will have a special place. | | My next spatial computing project is going to be RP 2040 | based mostly because I have the parts in stock (other | projects are blocked because of supply chain issues) but I am | really an AVR8 fanatic and the only path forward I see to | higher performance AVR8 systems is a soft core running on an | FPGA where very hard tasks (vision? comms?) get offloaded to | the FPGA and that can be a very appealing architecture where | somebody might prefer RISC-V particularly if the tooling and | accelerator integration are there.) | snvzz wrote: | >My take is that RISC-V is not that great of an | architecture | | That's not the impression I got, when I studied the | specification. | | Do you care to elaborate? | PaulHoule wrote: | See https://gist.github.com/erincandescent/8a10eeeea1918e | e4f9d99... | snvzz wrote: | From your statement, I thought you had looked into it | yourself. | | I remember reading that ex-ARM employee's take back then, | when it was discussed here[0]. It was based in a pre- | standard version of the ISA which was already old at that | point in time, and also ignored the rationale behind many | of the decisions it criticized. | | By objective metrics (simplicity of instruction set, | features available, code density, absence of uarch | assumptions), I find RISC-V to be the best general | purpose ISA available at the present time. | | [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24958423 | mhh__ wrote: | These objective metrics are not even close to being | tested at the moment, whereas aarch64 has made noticeably | different decisions guided by real life. They might be | wrong but I can't see confidently say riscv is actually | better other than simplicity. | | If the macro fusions don't work for example that's a | pretty dramatic blow against RISC-V compared to aarch64. | Similarly code density is a tradeoff because riscv's | simplicity means more instructions in the first place | i.e. requires actual battle testing first. | hajile wrote: | Jim Keller is overseeing a very large RISC-V core that | should be around the same performance level as X1 or Zen | 3. I guess we'll see what the ISA can do pretty soon. | | He said they were talking about open-sourcing the CPU | block. If they did (the CPU isn't their core business), | we could see lots of RISC-V competition popping up. The | age of CPUs being commodity items seems to be | approaching. | | https://youtu.be/KOHQQyAKY14?t=494 | jabl wrote: | The bitmanip extension that is scheduled to be part of | the RVA22 profile will contain add with shift | instructions (d= a + b<<c), which should obviate the need | for one of the more common issues that otherwise would | need fusion. | zozbot234 wrote: | > might never compete at the high end. (e.g displace ARM, | Intel, POWER, etc.) | | It might also be successful, even in that segment. The | RISC-V ISA was specifically designed to scale up (e.g. to | OOO and vector processors) while still being very simple, | especially at the low-end - a basic RV32E is really | comparable in complexity with many real-world 8- and 16-bit | chips. | hajile wrote: | Jim Keller's team is creating a 6-wide issue RISC-V CPU. It | should have similar IPC as ARM X1 or AMD Zen 3. | | https://youtu.be/KOHQQyAKY14?t=494 | Taniwha wrote: | here's an 8-issue design: | | https://moonbaseotago.github.io/ | rjsw wrote: | Making a RPi equivalent would require a GPU with Linux | support, I don't see any sign that RISC-V chip vendors are | able to do this. | | Building a desktop system with a PCIe graphics card would be | easier. | Narishma wrote: | Isn't Imgtec doing that? | rjsw wrote: | Where can I get the source code for PowerVR kernel drm | code from? | Narishma wrote: | Nowhere because it's not available yet. They only made a | few announcements. | kllrnohj wrote: | > Frankly, unless ARM does radically change their business | model, I do not expect them to survive. | | Survive _what_? I don 't see RISC-V disrupting much of ARM's | bigger-named business (eg, phones, with some inroads into other | things like Apple Silicon & laptops). _Maybe_ Amazon pivots | into RISC-V for the next Graviton? But that also seems unlikely | unless someone with very deep pockets invests in making an | actually competitive RISC-V CPU core at the mid /high end. | | ARM's low-end market seems likely to be taken over by RISC-V. | So like the Cortex M series days seem numbered without a change | in the business model. But that seems like about it. | throw0101a wrote: | > _Survive what? I don 't see RISC-V disrupting much of ARM's | bigger-named business (eg, phones, with some inroads into | other things like Apple Silicon & laptops)._ | | Go back a decade or so: how many people thought that ARM | could compete against Intel/AMD? | uxp100 wrote: | A decade ago Microsoft was releasing ARM based laptops (or | laptop like tablets if you insist). They were slow as hell | Tegra 3 disappointments, but it was happening 10 years ago. | CalChris wrote: | RISC-V is more than a decade old. | kllrnohj wrote: | ARM still isn't really competing against Intel/AMD. It took | an entirely new form factory that radically changed the | consumer landscape for ARM to get a foothold at all. What | is RISC-V's smartphone explosion? | | ARM has so far, outside of Apple and _very_ limited cloud | experiements (and some very badly received laptop | experiments), not really put a dent in Intel /AMD's | markets. But all of this was fueled by the once-in-a- | generation explosion that gave ARM untold increases in | adoption "for free". RISC-V has seemingly nothing similar, | and RISC-V itself certainly isn't manufacturing any such | radical shift. | burnoutgal wrote: | Graviton2 is generally available and depending on your | codebase and dependencies can be a drop-in replacement. I | was amazed at the breadth of ARM docker images that exist | for common use cases. | mcpherrinm wrote: | One decade ago was 2012. | | Chromebooks on ARM have already been out for a year. | Windows RT for ARM was coming out later in the year. Smart | phones are clearly all going ARM. The 64 bit ARM spec was | out and people were excited about it. | | I think it was a lot clearer that ARM was going to succeed | x86, as compared to looking forwards now as to where RISCV | will beat ARM. | | I do suspect the microcontroller ecosystem will have lots | of RISC-V. But it seems a lot less clear that it will | succeed ARM in the mobile/laptop/desktop/server markets. I | personally do not think that'll likely happen any time | soon. | wongarsu wrote: | Their phone business is probably safe for now, but as you | said they are set to lose a lot of their embedded business. | The stuff that powers your HDD, your fridge, your IoT | devices. Lots of high volume use cases | webmaven wrote: | _> ARM 's low-end market seems likely to be taken over by | RISC-V. So like the Cortex M series days seem numbered | without a change in the business model. But that seems like | about it._ | | Doesn't that inevitably set up a classic Innovator's Dilemma? | kllrnohj wrote: | I don't think so. ARM may just not care about losing that | market. The CPUs they design at that ultra-low-end really | don't carry over into the mid & high ends, which is where | the high profile design wins & "high" (relatively) margins | are anyway. Like what makes for a good hard drive | controller doesn't really have anything at all to do with | what makes a good smartphone CPU. So RISC-V winning at hard | drive controllers or other (tiny) embedded usages is not | really setting up an "S" curve for explosion here to | challenge ARM's markets. They are really fundamentally | different markets & products. | | Kinda like how Intel just never cared about going after | embedded, and they're not exactly struggling as a result of | that. With the big asterisk of smartphones where scaling up | proved a quicker path to shipping than scaling down, at | which point inertia took over, but for that to repeat would | require a currently unknown new product category. | SV_BubbleTime wrote: | IDK about Cortex M being soon overtaken by RISCV. | | There is a huge discussion about peripherals and IP. You can | buy peripherals for ARM all day long, they'll work from one | chip to another for the most part. Once everyone can "make | their own CPU", expect fragmentation in the peripheral | interfaces. | | I think low end cortex A and R are where V will shine first. | Something like a CISCO IP phone, not an iPhone. | mhh__ wrote: | If it becomes an issue ARM probably will change dramatically, | however keep in mind RISC-V let's you licence hundreds of | probably pretty crummy cores (and a handful of good ones) | whereas ARMs are battle tested, verified, and come with | documentation. RISC-V docs are still a bit 1980s i.e. as far as | I'm aware there's no official online source of HTML docs, and | not as much blessed software as arm (i.e. compilers tested in- | sync with the ISA). Oh and people to sue... | | I also trust the ARM ISA designers more than the RISC-V ones, | but I don't know enough that you should trust me. | Lramseyer wrote: | The year is 2012. Blender is an open source 3D modeling and | CG software. There are hundreds of crummy plugins and hacks | (and a handful of good ones,) whereas Maya is battle tested, | developed by professional Autodesk engineers. It comes with | good documentation and support. Blender documentation and | tutorials were essentially youtube videos with cheesy | electronic music in the background. (I'm probably getting | some details wrong, but you get the point.) | | You're not wrong in your assessment. However you're looking | at it as it is right now, as opposed to where it's headed for | in the future and what it could ultimately become. While CG | and computer hardware are very different fields, the effects | of communal knowledge sharing are very similar and very | powerful. When bored high schoolers and broke college kids | (and curious adults) can tinker with the tech, they enter the | industry with that much more experience and/or have another | avenue for career transition. And that is far more valuable | than the mild (and sometimes nonexistent) conveniences of ARM | over RISC-V. | klelatti wrote: | Writing code for Blender != Developing a high performance | core that is going to be fabricated on TSMC's leading edge | process. | | In the first case anyone with the right skills can do it. | In the second you need access to lots of specialist tools / | proprietary industry knowledge. | | If RISC-V 'wins' in application processors it will be | because an Intel or a Qualcomm invests (probably) hundreds | of millions in building a team that works on a multi year | project. It definitely won't be bored high schoolers. | thetallstick wrote: | Shockingly this is not strictly the case anymore and it's | become less true everyday. | | https://info.efabless.com/press-release-efabless- | launches-ch... | klelatti wrote: | 130nm - that was leading edge 20 years ago. | klelatti wrote: | I'm sorry to say there does seem to be a certain lack of | respect for the Arm ISA designers floating around. Arm v8 is | in billions of smartphones and powers the core with the | fastest single threaded performance out there, but somehow | it's obviously inferior and will be supplanted. | mhh__ wrote: | > I'm sorry to say there does seem to be a certain lack of | respect for the Arm ISA designers floating around. | | I was going to use that exact wording in a different | comment but decided against it, spooky | klelatti wrote: | That is spooky! | | I mean there was clearly a lot of analysis put into | aarch64 - which probably involved Apple etc - but I've | seen comments previously saying they obviously got it | wrong because [insert some headline design decision]. | | They might have got it wrong but they're definitely not | amateurs at this and you can't prove anything with a one | line comment. | ignoramous wrote: | I guess the point is, given the eye balls RISC-V is going | to attract, you'd have your Tencents and Apples of the | world pouring resources into it, just like they did with | AARCH64. And when that happens, where does ARM, as a | company, go? They did to Intel what RISC-V is poised to | do to them, may be in a decade or two. | | I feel ARM could go the Docker way, who faced a similar | foe in the stakeholders seeking to commoditize their core | business... ruthlessly stomped on them, creating k8s, | runc, registries, microvms, serverless, and what-not. | Despite Docker having stellar engs working for them (and | in some cases, better tech: Swarm, for instance), there's | nothing they could do. | giantrobot wrote: | > you'd have your Tencents and Apples of the world | pouring resources into it | | The Tencent and Apple of the world are...Tencent and | Apple. | | If Amazon say decided to throw billions at developing a | Graviton 4 using RISC-V...they really couldn't leverage | much of their previous Graviton development work. They | also wouldn't have a deep bench of low level RISC-V | wunderkind to bring on board to leverage the new | platform. It's a chicken and egg problem. | | Why would Amazon then want to pay to bootstrap a whole | RISC-V market? That's a lot of CapEx without a clear | potential for returns. You'll note they _did_ develop | Graviton using the ARM ISA so they didn 't have to create | from whole cloth a "Graviton" market. | | Amazon made the same decision as PC makers in the 80s. | They consolidated around the IBM clone architecture to | take advantage of the rest of the market, especially | Microsoft and IBM, supporting the IBM clone market. | Commodore, Atari, and Apple all had to fight uphill | against IBM clone market. | | I haven't seen any _technical_ advantage of RISC-V over | ARM that would suggest it 's worth pouring billions of | development dollars into. It might make sense for Western | Digital for drive controllers but not phone, tablet, PC, | or server makers. | klelatti wrote: | Why would Apple pour resources into it? To save a few | cents licensing costs on a $1,000 smartphone and give up | a decade of hardware and software investment. Sorry, not | buying it. | pjmlp wrote: | I see too much cheerleadering for RISC-V. | | Apple is not going to adopt it, ARM is still fighting against X86 | Imperium in the desktop/server market, and the mobile ecosystem | of tooling, compilers, libraries and build process just isn't | there. | | If RISC-V manages to win education market previously targeted by | MIPS and microcontroller, that is already quite good. | wongarsu wrote: | The CPU is dozens of processors in any given desktop/server. | Thanks to SSD and HDD controllers alone a significant portion | of processors in servers are ARM (and RISC-V candidates). | pjmlp wrote: | Which are meaningless for most people, probably the last time | I cared what CPU was driving the harddisk MS-DOS still ruled | the PC world. | vineyardmike wrote: | Its meaningless to you to consider, but it'll have impact. | As ARM took over the controllers world, it gained the | volume and engineering efforts to move to phones and | mobile... now macs and servers. | thetallstick wrote: | That's part of the reason ARM will be very hard to | displace. Just like there is a ton of x86 code out there | in the server world that's not going anywhere. There is a | ton of ARM code (especially peripheral driver code) out | there in the uC world. And much, probably most, of it is | not open source and not actively maintained. | | The good news is compute and memory are getting so cheap | it's probably not long until RISCV cores just emulate ARM | and solve the problem, all inside a greeting card at a | profit... | hajile wrote: | We've moved past this for the most part. Anything running | on an ARM will be almost entirely written in C. At that | point, porting to RISC-V becomes much cheaper. As long as | the savings from RISC-V exceed the cost of porting the | firmware, this is what companies would do. | thetallstick wrote: | The code may have been written in C but many drivers are | distributed in binary only form with headers. | Unfortunately the binaries are often ARM only. | pjmlp wrote: | Indeed, after being founded 37 years ago, servers are | hardly impacted by ARM, and Macs are meaningless for 80% | of the desktop world, which by the way are still Intel in | what concerns the Mac Pro workstation. | | So cheerleading for RISC-V to overtake in a couple of | years what took ARM 37 years to achieve, is really flying | high. | vineyardmike wrote: | AWS is moving big into ARM, and macs are just the first | consumer computers to move - not the last. The story | isn't over yet. | | > so cheerleading for RISC-V to overtake in a couple of | years what took ARM 37 years to achieve, is really flying | high. | | Oh yea i agree it won't be a few years. It'll be many | years - but it'll move faster than ARM did just because | its so much easier to do today than 37 years ago. | pjmlp wrote: | Macs were also the first consumer computers to move into | PowerPC. | | I can hardly execute Mac software as old as some stuff I | have on Windows floppies, backwards compatibility is what | keeps x86 ruling on the desktop. | initplus wrote: | It's meaningless to us as software developers but I'm sure | ARM likes having customers to buy their low spec designs. | Every product doesn't have to be a top tier high | performance CPU design. | pjmlp wrote: | Indeed, and not every RISC-V CPU needs to be 100% open | source. | cultofmetatron wrote: | I'm itching for a riscv version of the pinebook pro. I'd drop | some descent coin to whomever makes that avaialble. | synergy20 wrote: | I work with RISC-V these days.many AI chips are using RISC-V. | | A non-technical perspective about RISC-V: China is leading to | some extent in RISC-V land(Sifive works with Hifive in China, | Alibaba released its RISC-V,etc). China could not license x86, | could not acquire MIPS, tried to get part of ARM now(the China | ARM company is fighting with ARM), but the big land needs to | "own" a CPU core at will desperately, RISC-V fits perfectly well. | Qem wrote: | Did they give up on Loongson? I thought they already had a | domestic core architecture. | hajile wrote: | That was just MIPS without paying licensing fees. MIPS has | lost most support and I doubt China wants to foot the bill | for maintaining everything. RISC-V allows them to offload | most of the hard software parts to other countries. | userbinator wrote: | ...and RISC-V is almost a clone of MIPS anyway, so no | surprise there. | hajile wrote: | In what way is RISC-V a clone of MIPS? | | There are VERY different ideas most notably using | variable-length instructions rather than one instruction | width (begging the question of whether RISC-V is actually | RISC). | Koshkin wrote: | Just curious, is the RISC-V arch better/worse than ARM? | Narishma wrote: | Yes. | GeorgeTirebiter wrote: | I have a question about RISC-V: Why is the OpCode on the 'wrong' | end of the instruction? Has there ever been ANY machine that puts | the op code in the low-order bits? | | It doesn't really matter -- buy why? Most RISC-V decisions were | made for some good reason. (also, I'm not convinced RV32E makes | sense anymore.) | zozbot234 wrote: | It's a little endian architecture so the low-order bits are | found "first", directly at the insn address. This matters | because of the variable-length insn support. | blippage wrote: | I follow some of the writings of Nassim Taleb. I came to the | conclusion that RISC-V will "succeed" because there's no way for | it to fail. It's like Linux. | | I don't think licensing fees to ARM are a problem per se, it's | the "frictional costs" that it introduces. My understanding is | that the Raspberry Pi developed their RP2040 because ARM had a | reasonable package available for its low-end Cortex-M processors, | which doesn't apply to their higher-end Cortex ones. | | RISC-V doesn't even have these restrictions. Even extremely small | outfits can play around with RISC-V designs. Most of them won't | go very far, but with enough lottery tickets, one of them is | bound to draw the winning numbers. | | Sure there are considerable obstacles. I toy with | microcontrollers. For hobbyists like me, ARM processors are still | the most sensible choice. I'm not expecting any shift from that | for at least five years. But who knows after that? Anything can | happen. | klelatti wrote: | > It's like Linux. | | It's unlike Linux in so many ways, licensing being just one | really key example. | | RISC-V may well succeed but not because it's like Linux. | als0 wrote: | > will "succeed" because there's no way for it to fail. It's | like Linux. | | Didn't OpenRISC fail? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenRISC | | Also there are different definitions of "succeed" from | different viewpoints. In academia RISC-V is already a big | success. | goodpoint wrote: | Good point. How is RISC-V better than OpenRISC's ISA? | thesz wrote: | RISC-V does not have unused/unusable exceptions and tries | not to expose internal details of implementation as much as | possible. | | To show difference, OpenRISC has division-by-zero exception | which is unnecessary - it can be ruled out by compiler or, | if compiler did not rule it out, can be checked and | triggered by comparison, conditional jump and special trap | command. MIPS did exactly that almost fourty years ago. | | OpenRISC also has (optional) branch delay slot, which | complicates out-of-order implementations and even in-order | implementations with memory mapping unit - what state | should you keep to properly handle MMU exception in the | branch delay slot command? | | Alpha AXP, being the ISA that was designed to be useful for | 20-25 years, ditched both of these in early 1990-th. | RISC-V, which extends experience of RISC-IV (SPUR [1]) and | other RISC designs, including POWER and SPARC, also does | not sport these atrocities. | | [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19266152 | | All in all, RISC-V represents an ISA that can be | implemented differently with less effort than OpenRISC and, | to be frank, most other RISC ISAs. | tyingq wrote: | Mainline Linux kernel support is a fairly big plus. | chmod600 wrote: | Can you expand on Taleb's message, and what you mean when you | say "can't fail"? | | Free stuff does fail for all kinds of reasons. | blippage wrote: | I can't remember the exact criteria that Taleb mentioned that | led me to believe that great things might come of RISC-V. | | So I'll fall back on the "optionality" argument. Vendors, | particularly small vendors, can experiment with RISC-V either | free, or very cheaply more so than they can with ARM. Right | there, RISC-V opens up a segment that didn't exist before. | They'll be more experimentation. When your downsides are | limited, but your upside is potentially huge, that's what I | mean by "optionality". This is a powerful driver of success. | | Naturally, any individual endeavour can fail, but | collectively, there's going to be some huge winners. | | My prediction is that RISC-V will open up some new category | of computing. I can't tell you what it is, who will do it, or | when they'll do it, because I don't know. My point is not so | much that I can predict what it will be, but merely that | there are forces in favour of RISC-V. | | I am not, however, predicting the imminent demise of ARM. | | I think also that a lot of commentators are viewing things | through the lens of what we understand and the received | wisdom today. Even - or maybe especially - experts tend to be | hemmed in by what is "obvious". | | RISC-V is like a genie that's been let out of the bottle. You | can't put it back in. | tyingq wrote: | The "minion cores"[1] idea from lowrisc.org might be a good | early example. You can find something similar for one ARM | chip I know of (TI Sitara with PRUs), but only one that I | know of...perhaps because it's expensive to experiment like | that, as you mention. | | [1] https://lowrisc.org/docs/memo-2014-001-tagged-memory- | and-min... | josemanuel wrote: | Vendors can experiment with Arm for free with "Arm Flexible | Access"! | cushychicken wrote: | Companies fail. Information doesn't. | | By virtue of being open source, RISC-V won't vanish, no | matter how many companies choose to adopt it as their ISA and | fail. | | Seems like, given enough time, one of those companies will | just not die, and end up getting big. | chmod600 wrote: | If I write a free operating system, nobody will use it | except me. When I lose interest literally zero people will | care that it exists. Hard for me to see how that would be a | success no matter how many copies of the useless bits | reside around the world. | pm90 wrote: | There's a _lot_ of open source projects, _most_ of them | fail. I don 't think the availability of an OSS ISA is good | enough to overcome the friction of adopting a brand new | technology, _unless_ it enables something that competitors | don 't. And it doesn't seem to do that w.r.t ARM (so far). | initplus wrote: | ARM's less open platform also comes with some advantages | though. It's easier for ARM to prevent ecosystem fragmentation | and non-standard instruction set extensions. Or to push for | migrating to newer platforms like the move to 64bit ARM. | | Software is less affected by these issues because it's | inherently more flexible. If I install some wonky experimental | Linux feature, it doesn't really matter and I can just revert. | Different story when this is baked into hardware. The startup | costs for independents to contribute to a software only | ecosystem is also much lower. How many organisations have the | talent to contribute to RISC-V, but wouldn't be able to afford | purchasing a license? | | Didn't mean to sound so negative but I worry in the hardware | space that the advantages of such an open design are not as | great. | 0xedd wrote: | That's the equivalent of saying forking is bad. | | The big plus of RISC-V is allowing those who accept the risks | and cost to experiment and develop new specialized | components. Arm won't let you. | ChiefOBrien wrote: | > ARM's less open platform also comes with some advantages | though. It's easier for ARM to prevent ecosystem | fragmentation and non-standard instruction set extensions. | | It's kind of funny way of looking at the core part of the ARM | ecosystem while forgetting how much outside of the CPU is | non-standard, undefined. None of the ARM devices share | bootloader, device enumeration, and a plethora of things | needed for an open, non-fragmented OS/Software ecosystem like | how PC does. | | Maybe you can run parts of the same ARM machine code on most | devices, but it's not terribly portable to be honest, it has | to be very generic. For example, Android devices end up in a | pile of trash because you can't just upgrade the kernel to | the latest version on a 1, 5, 10 year old smartphone without | losing functionality or being stuck at step 1 for the lack of | tools from broken forum links and shady fileshares. So much | for software flexibility... | klelatti wrote: | So you're criticising Arm fragmentation but the possibility | of more fragmentation in RISC-V is ok? | ChiefOBrien wrote: | My idea is that a CPU is just a component and it's | useless by itself without considering the rest of the | computer system. ARM needs to dip more into standardising | the rest of the picture, and the RISC-V guys could also | start looking into creating an open computer architecture | initiative/group to prevent further fragmentation. | klelatti wrote: | Agree 100% - Arm could certainly do better. | | I do worry though that the RISC-V ecosystem could be | really torn in two by a big player (Intel?) who adds | proprietary extensions and associated software. | humanwhosits wrote: | RISC-V is trying to create a standard platform | specification to address some of these concerns | | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2w4cWFpqAA | stefan_ wrote: | If you are making a custom chip, you will still license a ton | of different IP blocks that you will pay licensing costs for. | What is special about the CPU? | | I guess it's nice to have a free CPU core but at the end of the | day you want USB, external RAM, a bus to connect all these | things and so on. | | Maybe we will have free implementations of those at some point | but it probably won't be from the current crop of chip | designers - there have probably never been more ungrateful, | non-reciprocal users of free software. | SV_BubbleTime wrote: | Right. When you are talking cores, this is all fine. A | completely valid topic for academic discussion. | | When you are talking chips with peripherals and packages and | memory configs, it gets a little more muddy. | | When the conversation moves from academic to trying to buy a | chip and ship a product. | | I am aware of a popular chip vendor next year making a three | core chip. Core0 the fastest and primary is a RISCV, it will | be flanked by two smaller and weaker ARM cortex m0 or m4s. | | They're doing that because they have peripherals established | for the ARM and almost none for the RISCV. | charcircuit wrote: | RISC V cores are not necessarily free. | bri3d wrote: | I think the last point in the article is super interesting and | under-discussed here - now that academics and engineers have a | wealth of free core IP, will we see more open development in the | EDA space? Yosys and the ecosystem around it certainly points | this direction, but there's a LOT to the EDA space. | | Are universities pursuing academic EDA development, too? | sylware wrote: | Hope we can get a performant 64 bits RISC-V desktop CPU not too | far in the future. This may be an significant inflection point in | computer systems. | adapteva wrote: | Too much focus on ARM OR RISC-V. The processor space is | incredibly diverse. There are tons of embedded applications that | don't require massive software ecosystem. The tenslica, arc, ceva | ISAs have all shipped in the billions sitting next to arm inside | SoCs. | sabhiram wrote: | We run a cluster of RISC-V CPUs based on open source designs to | schedule and post process workloads for our edge accelerator | ASIC. | | 10/10 would do it again, except this time we may pay SiFive or | someone like that for something requiring less "customization". | marktangotango wrote: | Interesting, can you say anything about what sort of chip to | chip communication is used? AXI, Wishbone, plain old serial? | sabhiram wrote: | AXI primarily. | | But, I should also mention, we only use the RISC-V cores as a | pre/post-processor, scheduling engine, service processor. We | have custom hardware that does the bulk of the inference math | (we are a convolutional accelerator with a number of | constraints traded off for speed and power). The fabric | itself is driven by engines that are programmed by the | scheduling engine (RISC-V). | | Happy to answer more specific DMs. | 323454 wrote: | Do you have a website / product page? | gautamcgoel wrote: | Can you DM on this site? | minimilian wrote: | Does this mean that we can have completely free computers soon? | mistrial9 wrote: | think for a minute - the energy inputs, the materials inputs, | the transportation inputs, the intellectual work inputs, the | software architecture advances inputs.. | | asking for "free" in the face of these factual inputs, appears | to echo the most lazy and gluttonous of human instincts.. | really unproductive, spoken from a person who has tried to | confront the excesses of American markets e.g. software | patents, rent-seeking models, etc.. | | also spoken from a person who defends regularly "free as in | Freedom, not free as in BEER" .. this is a call for free beer | in the worst form.. really unproductive | Pet_Ant wrote: | I think the GP meant as completely free as in speech free. A | computer made of 100% open source components, all chips with | Verilog, all masks etc for the PCB... and I think I that is a | long way off. | snvzz wrote: | You can have them yesterday (RISC-V or else), if performance | isn't a concern and if you're OK with deploying said computer | inside a FPGA. | ThrowawayR2 wrote: | The fine article points out that RISC-V is succeeding because | it allows businesses to create processors customized with their | own (no doubt proprietary) extensions for their own needs. So | unless somebody wants to pay the immense engineering costs to | create a completely _libre_ processor, no. | extheat wrote: | Yes | elihu wrote: | Depends whether you mean "free" as in "zero financial cost" or | "free" as in "all the RTL, firmware, and software source code | is available to anyone with a permissive license that permits | derivative works". | gnufx wrote: | https://libre-soc.org/ is going for free hardware with free | tools, but the value of "soon" might be quite high. There was a | previous item on 180nm silicon: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27772066 | mhh__ wrote: | RISCV is an open ISA, it has absolutely no legal influence over | the openness of a chip that implements it. | pjc50 wrote: | No | | (People forget about foundry IP, miscellaneous analog bits of | CPUs, the actual physical cost of manufacture, and the question | of what "free/libre" actually means for hardware.) | oconnor663 wrote: | I think it's interesting even just to try to define an "IP- | free computer" in a clear way. Like presumably we don't care | if minor components like resistors or screws are proprietary, | because it's trivial to replace them with a different | supplier. Or taking it to the extreme, obviously we don't | care where the _steel in the screws_ comes from. Steel is | steel, even if being a steel company requires tons | (kilotons?) of proprietary machinery. It 's hard to even | figure out where the screws in a computer come from, much | less the steel. | riscvmaybe wrote: | I don't like this article because it is very scarce on data. | | You are succeeding? I've heard this last four years in a row. | | Show me the numbers, shipping units, example of arm designs | getting displaced by risc v. | | This article is very light on the proof. It is just riscv talking | points. | | Don't get me wrong, concept is fine. But at this stage, after | hearing about this for years, where is the traction? Prove it. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-03-01 23:00 UTC)