If your goal is maximum performance, and general purpose platforms, then it's not very interesting at all. You dont want RISC-V in your PC, but you do want it in your toaster.
RISC-V deserves hype, but that hype should be confined to what RISC-V is good at, not convince you that RISC-V will kill every other ISA.
Where RISC-V can show its value is in the IoT / Embedded markets. There are not high requirements for speed or efficiency, cheapness and ease of integration is going to win out there. If RISC-V can win in those markets the designs made using it can improve over time to take on markets with higher requirements.
If RISC-V can out-ARM ARM, it will probably have a similar long term trajectory.
Why not? Isn't the Apple M1 showing exactly the opposite?
why Apple M1 and AWS Graviton is based on ARM? if ARM license cost is a concern. even smaller players use ARM as well...
Apple probably spent billions to make M1. If someone made the same investment with RISC-V they could get the same results -- the main company currently pushing higher performance RISC-V (SiFive) has total funding of under $200m so they clearly don't have billions to spend. They've got an announced CPU (tested in FPGA) with ARM A72 level performance. That's only about five years of very incremental performance improvements behind (non-Apple) ARM.
pretty much the same thing one does with any other exotic hardware- install a niche unix variant, then proceed to stare at 'top' and 'show registers' output in the debugger while fantasizing about how cool it is and fixing programs that don't build on it yet :)
A PIC or ARV etc can really never be a high end machine. And something like a modern 0x86 would really never be low end either. A small aside legacy processor cores on modern CMOS can do fast bit twiddling while consuming trivial amounts of power and die area.