this post was submitted on 11 Jun 2026

39 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

48460 readers

811 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)

Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.

Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.

Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.

Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.

Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.

Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.

Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.

Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

technopagan@lemmy.world

Aside from being an open standard, what other benefits are there to RISC-V over x86/ARM? (sopuli.xyz)

submitted 2 days ago by sbeak@sopuli.xyz to c/nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm very excited for RISC-V adoption in the desktop to become mainstream, as it could help to break the duopoly of x86 CPUs by Intel and AMD and encourage more competition, resulting in better value CPUs for us consumers! Being an open standard, any company can improve upon RISC-V, add additional features, make it more efficient, etc. But aside from this point, I haven't really heard much information about other advantages of RISC-V.

Could RISC-V theoretically be more efficient than ARM, more performant, etc.? Of course, currently, it isn't, since most software isn't optimised for RISC-V CPUs and companies have only just started developing them, but if it's adopted at a scale like x86 in desktop computers or ARM in mobile devices and servers, would it perform better than the x86 or ARM equivalent? Being a newer architecture (2014) than both x86 (1978 for 16-bit) and ARM (1985), does it have additional QoL improvements over the older architectures?

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago

The main problem with RISC-V is that it is far from mature. Which leads to both slow hardware and lack of software.

And while anyone can contribute to the open design, more advanced improvisations will remain proprietary.

Another problem is that the RISC-V landscape is far from uniform. Vendor A has this command set, vendor B a different one. Yes, the core set is the same, but the interesting, more advanced features have split. And not just like Intel and AMD had once split about the X86 command set, but with many smaller vendors. Intel and AMD managed to get things back together. Will RISC-V accomplish the same?

[–] kunaltyagi@programming.dev 10 points 2 days ago

For enterprises, it's like SaaS vs lifetime license. ARM has restrictions on target market, volume, integration, etc. If you go the RISCV route, you pay once for the design but then the HW is yours to do as you please.

For academia RISCV allows open discussions all the way down for a complete system. Before RISCV can around a lot of academia was splintered around different old chips instead of cutting edge tech.

Current open source RISCV cores aren't that far behind. They are roughly 2-3x slower for peak performance and maybe a little behind the Pareto frontier as compared to ARM/x86. Commercial cores are even closer within 20-50% depending on which benchmark you believe. A move from open source to commercial or vice versa is possible without impacting the rest of your stack. This is not what happens if you use ARM

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (3 children)

I can't say I've looked too much at RISC-V (yet), but someone once painted the following picture for me: if AMD and Intel are duking it out for supercomputers, while ARM works its way up to servers and down to microcontrollers, who serves the absolute smallest use-cases? As in, what if my whizz-bang product genuinely only needs a 300 Hz -- not MHz, not kHz -- processor to do some truly banal calculations? How can I possibly convince a silicon fab to build such a niche and tiny chip at scale?

In this context, scale would be however many could fit a single 300 mm wafer, and takes into account the fixed cost of the wafer itself, and then the price premium for smaller manufacturing process that would fit more chips onto the same wafer. At such low clock frequencies, the chip could be made using ancient lithography machines for dirt cheap.

But ARM would almost certainly not entertain the request to do consulting work for such an incredibly low-end chip, where the ARMv8 and v9 architectures would be vastly overpowered.

For these sorts of economically infeasible ideas, RISC-V brings to the table the possibility that some small-batch ASIC consulting firm would work with their customers to churn out some mindboggling processor designs. Because when the architecture is free (as in beer and as in speech), it releases the designers from constraints that today's designs must have.

[–] Tja@programming.dev 7 points 2 days ago

For that use case you use a microcontroller, and go to sleep. You can get a full rpi2040 32 bit uC for under a dollar, an attiny for about 30 cents. Sometimes you can solve the problem with a 555 for about 5 cents.

At those prices it's absolutely not worth it to develop a custom new chip, no matter the architecture.

[–] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 5 points 2 days ago

You don’t need an advanced cpu with tight design tolerances for that.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

While true, RISC-V probably isn’t the architecture for that. Better to use an old architecture whose patents have expired, and implement it on a new, smaller process.

RISC-V is good as an alternative to ARMv8 where the use case doesn’t quite fit what ARM is doing — or to implement in a country where there may be restrictions on how ARM is sold/deployed.

What I’m waiting for is for someone to implement something in RISC-V similar to Apple’s ARM implementation, with all the cores and memory on a single die. No need to do FPGA when you can just fab an unencumbered design in small batches for relatively cheap.

[–] litchralee@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Better to use an old architecture whose patents have expired, and implement it on a new, smaller process.

I'm not aware of any examples of an old architecture that was largely reused while ported to a new process, without requiring extensive redesigning of the analog components. Old processor architectures are a product of their day, making assumptions and decisions about the silicon paths that would be wholly invalidated if brought as-is to more-modern processes. It is nowhere near as simple as a copy/paste job of SystemVerilog or RTL.

To invest even one hour of design time to update, say, the 1970s Intel 4004 design (10 micrometer process) into the 2000s (130 nm) would be more expensive than just using RISC-V for free, which has already been fabricated using 22 nm, among other processes.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago

The MC68000, for example, is over 40 years old and out of patent. It’s been repackaged on a smaller process as the 68SEC000, and there are Verilog implementations available too.

And that’s just the example that’s top of mind. There’s a whole line of low frequency Atmel processors too, but those are still very much in patent and so mostly tangential to this conversation.

RISC-V doesn’t really make sense for simpler implementations though; you’d still have to do a bunch of work to simplify it, AND end up with an architecture very few are currently familiar with.

Once Chinese implementations of RISC-V become endemic and there are enough people familiar with the architecture, it might make sense to start creating custom subsets on simplified processes. But we’re still years away from that.

[–] baguettefish@discuss.tchncs.de 5 points 2 days ago

RISC-V is already being used in a decent number of electronics as an additional single purpose processor

[–] anton@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 2 days ago

The most important part is probably that it is a green field design, meaning they aren't limited by backwards compatibility.

As for the specifics of risc-v? The option to chose a subset of the instructions (organized as extensions) allows for a more gradual tradeoff between price and performance in embedded devices.
On the desktop and server end, the vector instructions seem like the next logical step after simd, but my expertise there is limited.