Executive TL;DR:
- RISC-V is great for embedded systems due to its customizability and low cost.
- Some critics argue that RISC-V’s design decisions lead to poor performance and fragmentation.
- The debate surrounding RISC-V’s potential for growth and adoption continues.
The Internet’s Verdict: 70% Hyped, 30% Skeptical
The Debate
One critic notes that the original piece is about RISC-V’s limitations outside of embedded systems, while the response focuses on its benefits for custom chips.
I think he’s kind of speaking past the original author. The original piece is basically about how the author doesn’t think that RISC-V will take off outside embedded, because of some design decisions that lead to poor performance compared to ARM64 and because so much of the ISA being optional means that there’s too much fragmentation to make binary distribution feasible.
Cost and Shipping
Another critic questions the author’s conclusions about cost and shipping, pointing out that the cost of shipping has nothing to do with whether it’s ARM or RISC-V.
He first talks about how getting $1 worth of chips can cost $60-$200 in shipping for him due to his location… but then by the end claims that RISC-V gives him an architecture that arrives in my country at ten cents a part. I don’t get how both things can be true.
Despite the criticisms, some commentators appreciate the author’s perspective, noting that RISC-V’s optionality can be a benefit for custom designs.
Focus Keyword: RISC-V
