271
China’s push for chip independence continues with its first RISC-V server CPU
(www.tomshardware.com)
this post was submitted on 03 Apr 2025
271 points (97.5% liked)
Technology
68349 readers
3995 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not really true. Yes avoiding complex instructions makes the front end easier to pipeline but there are lots of smarts in the backend to do prediction and scheduling to keep the execution units fed. The ISA might be free to use but no one is sharing their highly optimised server silicon architecture designs.
RISC-V's challenge is can they standardise the software ecosystem enough that things just work across a multitude of chip providers or does everything devolve into specialist distributions taking advantage of each manufacturers "special sauce" custom instructions.
Gaining design wins over Arm's microcontrollers for bespoke hardware was the easy bit. Replacing stuff in the server space is much harder and something that took Arm decades to make inroads into.
great reply. I am not saying RISC is the panecea, what I am saying is that there are more options for workload optimization further up the stack and rebalancing of the intelligence from the silicon to the software is an advantage.
some time ago most CISC core design become more RISC-y and, to indulge in some ISA snobbery, I just want to slash and burn the CISC presentation to the software layer. memory is cheap, bus bandwidth is insane - simplification on the ISA just seems like a hardware complexity win all around and I am willing to pay for that in compiler complexity that incorporates changes more easily than hardware or CISC microcode.
agreed. this is why I say my wait may be coming to an end.
personally, I think RISC is the more flexible design in almost every usecase. cycle for cycle, RISC hits the right buttons for me across the widest number of situations once we get above the "magic hardware" layer. willing to flog the CISC vs RiSC horse convo if you have recent information, and thanks for the response.