Major Changes at RISC-V Designer SiFive

Re:Major Changes at RISC-V Designer SiFive by ribit on Tuesday October 24, 2023 @10:16AM (#37999460)

I am not quite convinced about companies making high-performance RISC-V design. Fastest SiFive cores are at best comparable with mid-performance cores from ARM (or E-cores from Apple). With SiFive likely stopping development of these cores altogether the only high-performance RISC-V design I am aware of is the upcoming Ascalon from Tenstorrent. Which (at least on paper) looks to be comparable to Apple's A12. Not quite cutting edge performance, at any rate.

Qualcomm's proposal to add complex addressing modes to RISC-V is a design that has been tested by time and is known to work. Apple (and now ARM, with X4) are using this ISA design to deliver enthusiast-level performance in a thermal envelope of a compact handheld device. It is not at all obvious to me that RISC-V, which requires the CPU to perform additional work to bundle operations for efficient execution, is capable of the same feat.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Major Changes at RISC-V Designer SiFive by hajile on Tuesday October 24, 2023 @10:33AM (#37999701)

x86 is known to work and it has 15 possible lengths instead of just 2 (moreover, those lengths aren't known until decode is already started). Despite this, x86 still holds the crown for fastest overall CPU design.

RISC-V compressed instructions are provably WAY less complex to decode than x86 and only a bit more complex than ARM64. Once you get past slicing apart the instructions, RISC-V decoders are much more simple than ARM64 because the stuff they are decoding is way less complex.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Major Changes at RISC-V Designer SiFive by ribit on Tuesday October 24, 2023 @11:58AM (#38001027)

Yes, x86 works, but appears to pay a huge cost in power consumption to squeeze out those last few % of performance. Whether it’s just the property of how the mainstream x86 implementations have grown historically or the ISA itself remains to be seen.

I also agree that RISC-V decoders are simpler but only because the base ISA itself is very limited. Once you add functionality like FP, atomics, Zb extension, vectors etc… there is not that much difference. And the need to do fusion for address computation adds another layer of complexity on top.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Major Changes at RISC-V Designer SiFive by hajile on Tuesday October 24, 2023 @12:25PM (#38001457)

RISC-V already has those things and the answer seems pretty clear. P670 gets around the same performance as A78 while being 50% smaller (according to SiFive) while having vectors, atomics, floats, etc.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Major Changes at RISC-V Designer SiFive by hardware2win on Wednesday October 25, 2023 @09:07AM (#38012377)

>Yes, x86 works, but appears to pay a huge cost in power consumption to squeeze out those last few % of performance. Whether it’s just the property of how the mainstream x86 implementations have grown historically or the ISA itself remains to be seen.

https://chipsandcheese.com/2021/07/13/arm-or-x86-isa-doesnt-...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Major Changes at RISC-V Designer SiFive by nickik on Tuesday October 24, 2023 @01:06PM (#38002051)

The chief architects of the two companies who are making RISC-V cores seem to have a lot of experience if you are gone look up their resumes. Arguably more then people Qualcomm. Qualcomm bought Nuvia and are now trying to make money from that design, they never actually designed super high performance cores.

Addressing modes have never been mentioned as a limiting factor. Its not clear at all that addressing modes are a game changer for performance.

You can also argue that any other unique feature of ARM or x86 is the 'magical pile' that allows for much higher performance. The more reasonable assumption to me is that its simply about how much is invested to make it happen. I think based on its design, less investment into RISC-V will lead to a higher performance core compared to ARM because of that complexity.

Qualcomm motivation here seems pretty clear, and I don't believe its actually because they have pure technical merit at the heart of their desires.

So should I really believe the company that has clear financial motivation to push their line?

[ Parent | on HN ]