RISC-V ecosystem looks like it will be ready the moment the hardware is.
Exciting.
Exciting.
You have cheap low level micros like the ESP32-C4 and you have affordable CPUs like Alibaba T-Head, Allwinner D1, StarFive JH7110
Boards are available:
https://www.cnx-software.com/2023/05/06/lichee-pi-4a-risc-v-...
https://www.cnx-software.com/2023/04/02/pine64-star64-sbc-st...
https://www.cnx-software.com/2023/03/14/asus-tinker-v-risc-v...
Linux distros and essential libraries has been more or less ported. There are some rough edges here and there, but on the whole all the pieces are there (software and hardware).. and yet the uptake has been slow. Turns out, while cool to hear about, most people at the end of the day don't really care about what architecture they're running.
It took amazon a ~decade to get graviton to something worth using.
I'm more optimistic for RISC-V. For all the devs who worked on it here (at https://vates.tech), they told me it's very easy to work with since it's close to many Arm design principles.
That's why I believe it's important to prepare the platform today for those future machines. I think it's a great opportunity to not only get an alternative both x86 and Arm, but also really opening the choice of the design, letting new players mastering both hardware and software (I have to admit that's something I'm considering for my business at some point).
Most of the big moves in the RISC-V space seem to be coming from the low-end and from China. They might have trouble making the jump to a true x64 M1-like competitor given the geopolitics with cutting edge chip manufacturing (TSMC etc.)
I think other players are going to have funding issues to take on the big players as the open nature of RISC-V seems to mean it's harder to build an IP moat. I've noticed a lot of the Chinese chips come with stuff like NPUs to set themselves apart and presumably get some lock in on their "platforms". But that's just my naiive impression reading some blogs and looking at releases. (ie. I have no idea what I'm talking about)
I don't know why. It's not inherently better than any of the current architectures in meaningful way, just doesn't require license.
IIRC royalty per ARM chip was somewhere in single digit percentages which is basically meaningless for everyone but the chip company, or few big companies making super low margin stuff.
I guess if using one of the open cores is enough in your use case that would make it easier.
Ventana Veyron's just that, and meant to ship before 2023 ends.
I’ve checked rpilocator a few times this week to find 4Bs available every single time. Not tons and not everywhere, but they’re starting to have availability again.
rPi have hundreds of competitors and they still sell by far the most amount of SBCs, because "it just works" with many things supporting it out of the box
I wonder whether they'll embrace open firmware and mainline Linux (including all drivers) for the entire board.
That's what I really want from RISC V offerings. (Though I understand the current motivation of many with RISC V is simply to avoid ARM licensing fees, and that having trustworthy and long-term sustainable hardware usually isn't a requirement in IoT.)
It will never be able to run standard distributions, only bespoke for the device.
Categorically avoid, and hope the next generation Renesas chip is less dumb.
Price is a factor. €140 for the Lichee which "nearly catches up with standard ARM board performance like Raspberry Pi 4" (their own words from the AliBaba page) is hard to justify for most, especially since this also comes with less mature ecosystem support. The $90 Pine64 is cheaper but also slower than a RPI4 and Pine64 is a "by enthusiasts, for enthusiasts" type of deal, which means stuff like 30-day warranty (which is a fine, just not a good fit for many uses). There is no price for the Asus one yet, but it's a lot slower than a RPI and judging from their other boards I bet it's going to be a lot more expensive.
The whole industry's buzz about RISC-V is pretty much "yay, we don't need to pay ARM for license".
It has a range of smaller variants, potentially able to cover a range of products including servers, laptops and smartphones.
If a shift happens it would start gradually until a tipping point, then everyone will move so fast it will make your head spin.
Looking at how open source has eaten the proprietary software vendors, I imagine RISC V to follow the same path.
It has but mainly only in areas where adopting it allows cutting costs and is not the end product itself. Not sure why/how could that work for chips. Why would you give out your core designs for free to anyone?
Lots of riscv implementations are closed source though
Also see XuanTie C910, open-source yet competitive with Cortex-A73, been available for years.
Meanwhile, Eben Upton has been falsely claiming that no such cores are available for licensing.
A Raspberry Pi 5 could already be out with RISC-V and higher specs than pi4/pi400 if he hadn't ignored C910 or otherwise licensed any of the many competitive cores in the market that have been license-able for years now.
Exactly. Which potentially can make it worse than ARM, making it impossible for new players to enter the market at some point. Catching up would require massive investment and you can't just buy a competitive design of the shelf (looking at ARMs business model licensing your designs to other is just not a good deal and they are effectively still a monopoly in certain segments)
That's a lot of areas for RISC-V.
It doesn't matter to the end user if the end product (Phones, Tablets, TVs, routers, Home automation gadgets, etc) has ARM or RISC-V.
On the desktop, the end-user may care about whether their software still works, and as such the ISA matters.
In appliances, which is where ARM is dominating, the end user's don't care about whether they can run their existing spreadsheets, or powerpoint, or games, or other software that won't be ported. They only care about whether the device is still as usable as their previous device.
If end users cared at all about the ISA, ARM would never have taken off for phones, tablets, etc.
In this space (that ARM is dominant in), the ISA isn't the end-product; the device is.
Yes but it's not about the end users and it matters for the producers. I mean if your core designs are 'open' and anyone can make just as good chips as you what are you competing on? It means you have no margins since you're selling a commodity, which means there is no incentive into investing anything into R&D (unless it allows you to cut production costs).
> In this space (that ARM is dominant in), the ISA isn't the end-product; the device is.
So all new chips will have to be designed in-house by the companies which make these devices (effectively eliminating 'middle-men' like Qualcomm, Intel, AMD etc.) so nobody is really competing on CPUs, since core design can no longer be part of your core business (the same way everyone is using Linux, Android, Blink/Chromium)? Wouldn't that lead to stagnation?
I don't really see this happening with hardware, though. Especially not high-end chips as long as you can gain a significant advantage by keeping your designs proprietary and all 'open' cores are not protected by something equivalent to GPL (which realistically would be very hard to enforce)
We'll probably see the first boards with SoCs supporting RVA22 in the first half of 2024.
The weakest link seems to be the GPU driver (Imagination Technologies), as it is proprietary and not very good.
We know they are working on a mesa3d driver, but I am not sure it will cover the GPU variant used in the VF2 SoC.
I wonder what would have happened if the other ecosystems had invested in QEMU development and other boot systems during the chip supply shortage.
Or is there just something wrong with them?
Sorry, sick question. I don't need to pursue this avenue.