• mako@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    150
    ·
    30 days ago

    This will get RISC-V probably a big boost. Maybe this was not the smartest move for ARMs long term future. But slapping Qualcomm is always a good idea, its just such a shitty company.

    • dust_accelerator@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      30 days ago

      True, I just wished RISCV laptops were slightly more developed and available. As of now, the specs aren’t there yet in those devices that are available. (8core@2Ghz, but only 16GB Ram, too little for me)

      Kind of a bummer, was coming up to a work laptop upgrade soon and was carefully watching the Linux support for Snapdragon X because I can’t bring myself to deal with Apple shenanigans, but like the idea of performance and efficiency. The caution with which I approached it stems from my “I don’t really believe a fucking thing Qualcomm Marketing says” mentality, and it seems holding off and watching was the right call. Oh well, x86 for another cycle, I guess.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      30 days ago

      I’ll wait and see. RISC-V is a nice idea, but there are way too many different “standards” to make it a viable ecosystem.

        • Treczoks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          27 days ago

          Several differing extensions of the RISC-V core machine instructions, for example. A pain in the rear for any compiler builder.

          • tekato@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            27 days ago

            That’s a good thing, meaning you can design RISC-V CPUs without functionality you don’t need (like microcontrollers that only need basic operations). However, for those who want a complete CPU, there are RVA profiles (latest being RVA23), which are a list of extensions required to be an application-ready CPU. So there’s really just 1 “standard” for general purpose computing, everything else is for specialized products.

            • Treczoks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              27 days ago

              And it does not concern you that this RVA profile is version 23? Which means there are a number of CPUs based on lower versions, too, as they don’t just update on a whim? And they are incompatible, with version 23 because they lack instructions?

              So a compiler would have to support at least a certain number of those profiles (usually, parts in the embedded world are supported for 10+ years!), and be capable of supporting the one or other non-RVA extension, too, to satisfy customer needs.

              That is exactly what I meant with “too many standards”.

              • tekato@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                27 days ago

                And it does not concern you that this RVA profile is version 23

                Not sure where you got that information. There are only 5 RISC-V profiles.

                And they are incompatible, with version 23 because they lack instructions?

                Like all the x86 CPUs from a few years ago that don’t have all the new extensions? Not supporting new extensions doesn’t mean the CPU is useless, only that it’s worse than new ones, as things should be when there’s progress. Or I guess you throw out your x86 CPU every time Intel/AMD create a new instruction?

                So a compiler would have to support at least a certain number of those profiles

                Do you think compilers only target one x86 version with one set of instructions? For example in x86, there’s SIMD versions SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, compilers support all of them, and that’s literally just for the SIMD instructions. What’s new?

                • Treczoks@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  27 days ago

                  Yes, there are differences in certain x86 command sets. But they actually have a market. RISC-V is just a niche, and splintering in a small niche is making the support situation worse.

                  • tekato@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    27 days ago

                    making the support situation worse

                    The support situation is so bad that both GCC and LLVM have extensive for RISC-V.

    • Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      29 days ago

      Yeah, in the current macro environment Qualcomm isn’t that tied down & can afford some changes (basically with a few of their biggest partners that can keep their profits up even in a few transitioning years). Not sure what prompted ARM to force such a deal instead of getting like a good compromise.

      But also fuck Qualcomm & their closed-softwareness.

      Im still hoping I can buy a RISC-V laptop (from Framework?) in 2 or 3 years & just run Linux normally.
      And if that can happen & RISC-V still doesn’t overall prosper it’s bcs of some shitty greedy deals between megacorps.