I don't think so, because this depends not only about how open the microarchitecture is, but in a lot of different hardware and software support.
Any modern x86_64, ARM, or POWER CPU is in reality a more complex System on Chip (SoC) that also have memory controllers, GPUs, DSPs, and other controllers that already have not only a lot of compatible hardware to connect with but also a lot of software made for those platforms. You can't beat that.
Outside that, you have really niche products, like what most embedded systems have, and those doesn't shine for just having some an architecture or another, but on having really low power consumption for its performance, having many different communication systems integrated on chip, having complex power profiles systems, application specific instructions (like DSPs does), or some other special subsystem inside the SoC.
I don't know the real market situation of RISC-V is right now, I lost it from the radar since some years ago, but I can see two actors that can make the ecosystem improves:
* Hobbyists and their community making more software, tools, and so for the platform (this is actually in process)
* Companies that doesn't need a core that powerful, but doesn't want to use a private core, like ARM or MicroBlaze, for example.
With what's happening with ARM and Snapdragon (and what it could happen), I think a lot of companies could be more interested in alternative like this, but not as an immediate solution.
With SiFive's announcement of the P870 core last October, they're ALREADY on the same level as Arm's Cortex X2 or X3.
Other RISC-V startups are targetting building chips comparable to Apple's M1 or AMD's Xen 4. In many cases they have the people who actually led those teams at Apple or AMD (or Intel) and so know how to do it.
ISA isn't the limiting factor, or even actually the CPU core. It's having access to the other IP needed in a high performance SoC -- for DDR, for PCIe.
I mean it dominates the mobile device market, Apple has switched over to it completely for the Mac, and you're starting to see more Arm64 PCs with the upcoming Windows Copilot PCs.
I believe it's also making some good inroads into the server market. Obviously x86_64 is still king, but Arm64 is doing pretty well.
> I mean it dominates the mobile device market, Apple has switched over to it completely for the Mac, and you're starting to see more Arm64 PCs with the upcoming Windows Copilot PCs.
> I believe it's also making some good inroads into the server market. Obviously x86_64 is still king, but Arm64 is doing pretty well.
Interesting. I don't really follow the numbers on this but I switched from Wintel PC to Macbook Air in Oct 2021. I changed all of my Cloud servers to AWS Graviton2 in 2022. My PC has been a Raspberry Pi 5 since Oct 2023. Never looked back.
The software I've been developing for 6 years is Aarch64 only and the next priority is RISC V. I've had zero demand for x86/64 because it's a server.
It dependence on the metric you are talking about.
Popularity? Yes probably.
Performance? Definitely.
Software ecosystem? Absolutely.
There are many more but these are in general what everyone cares about
There’s no reason to ask the question if you don’t understand the subject matter to where you don’t have to aak the question. They’re different IP, used for different things.
There’s a difference between gatekeeping and pointing out how nonsensical the question is.
Your question without more context is the equivalent of asking “will watercolour paints ever catch up to Oil paints?”
From the Point of view of SIMD, purely in terms of spec, RV is a shitshow, specifically the vector extensions.
Same time Arm isn’t in a great place with SVE either. (I blame neon being too good too early)
From a high level pov, RISCV is MIPS with extra steps, and you can sub in the question “RV vs Arm” for “MIPS vs Aarch64” for a decent comparison.
RV has plenty of clever people involved, but they also got caught in the same kitchen sink hell hole as OpenCL 2.0: they allowed extensions without proof of concept, tangible implementations.
They’re already out of op code space in RV32, mainly because of stupid decision years ago around the compressed ISA extension
And RISC-V badly underallocated config registers from the beginning based on solving a problem that’s not … a problem, opted for no centralized CPU identification mechanism last I saw, “prefetch” was just a discarding move last I saw. I’m not much of a fan.
I don't think so, because this depends not only about how open the microarchitecture is, but in a lot of different hardware and software support. Any modern x86_64, ARM, or POWER CPU is in reality a more complex System on Chip (SoC) that also have memory controllers, GPUs, DSPs, and other controllers that already have not only a lot of compatible hardware to connect with but also a lot of software made for those platforms. You can't beat that. Outside that, you have really niche products, like what most embedded systems have, and those doesn't shine for just having some an architecture or another, but on having really low power consumption for its performance, having many different communication systems integrated on chip, having complex power profiles systems, application specific instructions (like DSPs does), or some other special subsystem inside the SoC. I don't know the real market situation of RISC-V is right now, I lost it from the radar since some years ago, but I can see two actors that can make the ecosystem improves: * Hobbyists and their community making more software, tools, and so for the platform (this is actually in process) * Companies that doesn't need a core that powerful, but doesn't want to use a private core, like ARM or MicroBlaze, for example. With what's happening with ARM and Snapdragon (and what it could happen), I think a lot of companies could be more interested in alternative like this, but not as an immediate solution.
With SiFive's announcement of the P870 core last October, they're ALREADY on the same level as Arm's Cortex X2 or X3. Other RISC-V startups are targetting building chips comparable to Apple's M1 or AMD's Xen 4. In many cases they have the people who actually led those teams at Apple or AMD (or Intel) and so know how to do it. ISA isn't the limiting factor, or even actually the CPU core. It's having access to the other IP needed in a high performance SoC -- for DDR, for PCIe.
> As AArch64 is catching up x86_64 In what sense?
I mean it dominates the mobile device market, Apple has switched over to it completely for the Mac, and you're starting to see more Arm64 PCs with the upcoming Windows Copilot PCs. I believe it's also making some good inroads into the server market. Obviously x86_64 is still king, but Arm64 is doing pretty well.
> I mean it dominates the mobile device market, Apple has switched over to it completely for the Mac, and you're starting to see more Arm64 PCs with the upcoming Windows Copilot PCs. > I believe it's also making some good inroads into the server market. Obviously x86_64 is still king, but Arm64 is doing pretty well. Interesting. I don't really follow the numbers on this but I switched from Wintel PC to Macbook Air in Oct 2021. I changed all of my Cloud servers to AWS Graviton2 in 2022. My PC has been a Raspberry Pi 5 since Oct 2023. Never looked back. The software I've been developing for 6 years is Aarch64 only and the next priority is RISC V. I've had zero demand for x86/64 because it's a server.
It dependence on the metric you are talking about. Popularity? Yes probably. Performance? Definitely. Software ecosystem? Absolutely. There are many more but these are in general what everyone cares about
Sure... in 20 years or so... like fusion.
Yeah, I mean I expect it to take long
There’s no reason to ask the question if you don’t understand the subject matter to where you don’t have to aak the question. They’re different IP, used for different things.
[удалено]
There’s a difference between gatekeeping and pointing out how nonsensical the question is. Your question without more context is the equivalent of asking “will watercolour paints ever catch up to Oil paints?” From the Point of view of SIMD, purely in terms of spec, RV is a shitshow, specifically the vector extensions. Same time Arm isn’t in a great place with SVE either. (I blame neon being too good too early) From a high level pov, RISCV is MIPS with extra steps, and you can sub in the question “RV vs Arm” for “MIPS vs Aarch64” for a decent comparison. RV has plenty of clever people involved, but they also got caught in the same kitchen sink hell hole as OpenCL 2.0: they allowed extensions without proof of concept, tangible implementations. They’re already out of op code space in RV32, mainly because of stupid decision years ago around the compressed ISA extension
And RISC-V badly underallocated config registers from the beginning based on solving a problem that’s not … a problem, opted for no centralized CPU identification mechanism last I saw, “prefetch” was just a discarding move last I saw. I’m not much of a fan.