Begun the ARMs race has
this post was submitted on 24 Oct 2023
60 points (96.9% liked)
PC Gaming
8625 readers
1524 users here now
For PC gaming news and discussion. PCGamingWiki
Rules:
- Be Respectful.
- No Spam or Porn.
- No Advertising.
- No Memes.
- No Tech Support.
- No questions about buying/building computers.
- No game suggestions, friend requests, surveys, or begging.
- No Let's Plays, streams, highlight reels/montages, random videos or shorts.
- No off-topic posts/comments, within reason.
- Use the original source, no clickbait titles, no duplicates. (Submissions should be from the original source if possible, unless from paywalled or non-english sources. If the title is clickbait or lacks context you may lightly edit the title.)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
May the others be 086'd.
If there is such a big push for power efficiency from RISC cpus, why arm instead of risc-v?
Companies would save a ton on licensing costs
I’m gonna bet a lot of it is business. They could use a risc-v core, but that could require a lot more in-house expertise. Paying arm for a license also means you get a lot of support from arm on integration, performance, etc
People that control companies, CEOs, are mostly people hired by company's share holders (ie: Steve Jobs). Due their position (they don't really "own" the company) they do whatever it takes to keep their own job up: make the company make money as quick possible, mid or short terms.
RISC-V require a foresight to the future, where company spend more money now, but will get stuff for free in the future. The problem is in the CEO themselves: they are supposed to make "bleed" money to the company (risk to be fired) just to, hopefully, give the company free RISC-V and freedom.... all while they don't know if they are already fired in the meanwhile.
Why? Planned obsolescence, I imagine?
EDIT: Title was changed, used to say something about ARM chips taking over.
The future is Arm!
CISC vs RISC.
Apple vs. Oranges: yeah, it's an unfruitful discussion that can go on forever, but we can put terms that are equal for both. For example: which one provide more protein per kg., costs less work or environment impact?
So, CISC and RISC: assume the best is how and what they do.
I think the best example is comparing a F1 car vs. a Rally car... it's all about the kind of road: few big bumps on the road, and the F1 got no chance. On a flat straight road? Now, here's the challenge for a the rally car.
The road we chose, basically set the winner. CISC and RISC follow the same kind of logic: CISC is the heavy stuffed CPU (like a rally one) good for nearly any kind of environment. Basically they always win on scientific calculations and evolution... where no body can predict which " kind of power" there may need in future. To some this is bloat, but in truth CISCS cpu are meant for rapid evolution where you don't know what expect next. Minecraft is one example in the gaming industry: no one expected that future games had to generate worlds from scratch with computation.
RISC are the F1 cars, if you don't change rules all by sudden, you can deliver enormous, yet VERY SIMPLE, processing power: really cheap and quickly... so long you don't plan to build supercomputers to discover new things (supercomputers that make predictable jobs are fine tho)
I would argue that CISC vs RISC was mostly relevant 20~30 years ago. Today's CPUs are a different kind of beast, for example they implement decoders that break down instructions into micro-ops, a RISC-like behavior.